Enough is enough

By

Ernst Beckermet.  The failure to produce ratified accounts meant no licence …

Comment on Enough is enough by Auldheid.

Ernst Beckermet. 
The failure to produce ratified accounts meant no licence for RFC for ONE year.
The replacement club- Tge Rangers FC was ineligible to apply for a licence for 3 years until they had been members of the SFA for 3 years. The relevant UEFA Articles are 47 for Accounts and Art12 for requiring 3 years membership.
UEFA  confirmed this last year and no amount of arguing otherwise will make it so.
In your defense the main stream media went out their way last year  along with the SFA to hide this truth from you as you will learn if you keep checking in.

Auldheid Also Commented

Enough is enough
Ernst Becker 
I try hard not to make assumptions and a long time ago I checked the purpose of Res12 with a chap who earns a living interpreting football rules. Interestingly I did not mention Rangers in my question but he came back quoting them as an example of what Art12 is meant to stop. 
The difference between administration and liquidation is creditors agree to a proposal that let’s them recover some of what they are owed from a business they believe can continue on a sustainable basis via a CVA. If that is rejected creditors are saying they don’t believe the basis of the CVA which is a sustainable business exists and have a better chance of compensation from the carcass  of the business where the assets are sold off to pay them.
In an accepted CVA the business continues, in a rejected CVA it’s good night Vienna.In an accepted CVA the creditors are in effect agreeing to a degree of debt dumping. In a rejected CVA they are not accepting the degree and want recompensed more.
Thanks for finding that Scotsman article by Andrew Smith, what a story I could tell there but it does confirm what I had been told independently about the purpose of Res12. If Smith ever ran with it in 2012 when Regan and SFA tried to push the new club into the Premier division, I’ve missed it.
On Art12 note that it says only a football club can be an applicant, then defines the two constructs a club can take. 12a is a standalone club 12b is first of all a club that is a member of a national association that has a written contract with a company to run it, in effect fusing the two into one. The key word is “new” and club/company covers 12a and 12b
It has to be so otherwise clubs could, like Southampton claim their holding company was insolvent, jettison the holding company and carry on free of the debt accrued via the football business that a club is. The FA rejected that claim for the same reason Art12 exists, it introduces a moral hazard AND is a deterrent to loans being offered to football because if allowed it gives clubs carte blanche to walk away without repayment. 
Spiritually Rangers will always be Rangers to a Rangers  supporter. It’s like a religious belief and should be left in that context. However just as no religion should try to convince another that the other is  wrong and they are right,  so too should Rangers supporters stop trying to prove to others they are right. The idea of 54 and counting is just a manifestation of that belief, which is fine if confined to the spiritual realm, but when the football authorities try to force that idea into the heads of other supporters when it conflicts with sound and reasonable football rules the football authorities are supposed to apply, then you have the problem that keeps the debate going.
Same club? The man from UEFA say no. ?


Enough is enough
Smugas

Here is a link to the Southampton attempt to separate their club from their holding company even when one actually appeared to exist.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/8014811.stm
The reasons why that separation was dismissed by the FA (UEFA not involved) in football regulation terms  and  why the SFA could not support the idea that until 2012 there were two separate entities at play at Ibrox,  is the forensic examination of the Southampton  accounts where the only business in the accounts of the supposed separate company was the football business of Southampton!
The accounts put forward by Rangers to obtain licences related only to Rangers and are the concrete proof that there was no holding company or at least would be if the FA were the judges.
The SFA have never declared their position on the matter, even after Traverso told them UEFA’s stance.


Enough is enough
Smugas
I think Art12 1b could only apply to TRFC/ TRIFC if a written contract meeting the conditions in Art 45 exists.
As I tried to suggest I’m not sure that it does and I very much doubt if one existed between RFC and who? MIH?
Whilst it might cover the Brechin situation I doubt it exists just for them. What it is saying is if your are a member of the national association but have handed the running of your club to a Company to operate it (not hold it) then a written contract to do so has to exist to enable UEFA to consider an application from that company that has the authority of the club being operated.
Southampton tried the operating company trick on FA and UEFA when they were in trouble and told to take a hike.


Recent Comments by Auldheid

Here we go again
Cluster One
Hirsute Pursuit

Thanks for the clarification.

I can see how the Brechin reason and Romanov reason got conflated back then so we can drop Romanov from the underlying issue to look at which is:

What was the argument in support of the change in SPL rules introducing owner and operator and if it was solely to deal with a potential problem in respect of Brechin having no “owner” of a share, how did that rule change in 2005 transform Rangers from being an incorporated single Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) earning its revenue from football to a Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) that overnight owned a club earning the same income from the same source?

In terms of conforming with UEFA FFP before 2012 was it Rangers FC PLC that applied for a UEFA Licence or Rangers FC as a stand alone club or was it Rangers PLC whom Rangers Football Club had a written contract with to be their operators? The application template suggests it was Rangers Football Club only.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9VnptRTJBR01RTEE/edit

Post 2012 if its not the current club (Rangers FC Ltd) applying for a UEFA licence but the football Company (Rangers International Football Club PLC) they have a written contract with and the football company’s (RIFC) main source of revenue is from the club activities, then how can a Company go bust unless the club ceases to be able to provide that revenue?

Now had UEFA seen the 5 Way Agreement there would be the satisfaction of knowing they were OK with it.

As it stands UEFA did what their rules told them to do, Waited 3 years to allow the club that had undergone a terminal change in its legal structure to satisfy UEFA requirements in respect of historical membership of the SFA before being eligible to apply to play in UEFA competitions in circumstances that were not to the detriment of the integrity of those competitions.

After 3 years, whichever club ie legal entity that applied for a UEFA Licence, it was not the Rangers Football Club (PLC) that last applied in 2012 (which was rejected because they had no audited accounts and the wee tax bill of 2011 was admitted , unlike March 2011 when described as a potential liability, as a payable that as the world and its wean knew in 2012 was outstanding.)


Here we go again
HirsutePursuit 13th March 2021 At 21:31
3 0 Rate This

Auldheid…

On the subject of a franchise…

At the very least the possibility that the 5 Way Agreement has turned Scottish Football into a franchise should be explored by UEFA just in case.

On McDonalds I remember reading McDonalds Behind The Arches many years ago and one of the fascinating things to come out is that their wealth was not based on burgers but on the land and buildings owned . Kind of fits your point to your family member.


Here we go again
UptheHoops

On exclusions zones because supporters might turn up for invented reasons I think recognition of “knuckleheadessness ” as an all pervading human condition is necessary.

Knuckleheads.

I think it is an American term.

I quite like it, kind of onomatopoeic quality to it. Not so much sounds like but looks like.

Anyhoo it is a denial of reality that the support of Celtic and “Rangers” do not have their share of knuckleheads and they recognise each other.

The knuckle in the head stops the consequences of the emotions reaching the brain.

It’s a condition that most grow out of but it’s also one that we grow into before we grow out of it. A human condition.

So best not deny it and deal with it free from judgment of which support has the most knuckleheads or which kind of knucklehead is worse than the other.

Just say that anyone turning up at CP will be taken as evidence of knuckleheadedness to become huckleheads into a police van.

Set a perimeter around the ground and any one approaching without valid reason to do so will be huckled.

HuckleberryTim or HuckleberryHun.


Here we go again
Upthehoops 13th March 2021 At 18:45
0 0 Rate This

Auldheid 13th March 2021 At 16:15

It is the huge incentive that CL money provides that in my opinion is the creator of an incentive to cheat to get at it, PARTICULARLY if the ability repay the debt depends on getting the CL money.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Absolutely agree with that. Financial Fair Play in Scotland post 2012 would have been a good move, although the new Rangers would have suffered more than anyone because of it in my view.

And there you have it. Canny have rules that hinder Rangers business model .

If the 5 Way created a franchise like McDonalds but selling hateburgers then sectarianism is only the sauce that goes on the otherwise tasteless moneyburger to make it tasty.


Here we go again
Hirsute Pursuit

Thanks for your response useful as ever.

If the intent was to create a franchise is that not questionable of itself?

If it wasnt then SPFL misused it.

Either way the SPL appear het, it’s just from when?


About the author