The recent revelations of a potential winding up order being served on Rangers Newco certainly does have a sense of “deja vu all over again” for the average reader of this blog.
It reminds me of an episode of the excellent Western series Alias Smith & Jones. The episode was called The Posse That Wouldn’t Quit. In the story, the eponymous anti-heroes were being tracked by a particularly dogged group of law-men whom they just couldn’t shake off – and they spent the entire episode trying to do just that. In a famous quote, Thaddeus Jones, worn out from running, says to Joshua Smith, “We’ve got to get out of this business!”
The SFM has been trying since its inception to widen the scope and remit of the discussion and debate on the blog. Unsuccessfully. Like the posse that wouldn’t quit, Rangers are refusing to go away as a story. With the latest revelations, I confided in my fellow mods that perhaps we too should get out of this business. I suspect that, even if we did, this story would doggedly trail our paths until it wears us all down.
The fact that the latest episode of the Rangers saga has sparked off debate on this blog may even confirm the notion subscribed to by Rangers fans that TSFM is obsessed with their club. However even they must agree that the situation with regard to Rangers would be of interest to anyone with a stake in Scottish Football; and that they themselves must be concerned by the pattern of events which started over a decade ago and saw the old club fall into decline on a trajectory which ended in liquidation.
But let me enter into a wee discussion which doesn’t merely trot out the notion of damage done to others or sins against the greater good, but which enters the realm of the damage done to one of the great institutions of world sport, Rangers themselves.
David Murray was regarded by Rangers fans as a hero. His bluster, hubris and (as some see it) arrogant contempt for his competitors afforded him a status as a champion of the cause as long as it was underpinned by on-field success.
The huge pot of goodwill he possessed was filled and topped-up by a dripping tap of GIRUY-ness for many years beyond the loss of total ascendency that his spending (in pursuit of European success) had achieved, and only began to bottom out around the time the club was sold to Craig Whyte. In retrospect, it can be seen that the damage that was done to the club’s reputation by the Murray ethos (not so much a Rangers ethos as a Thatcherite one) and reckless financial practice is now well known.
Notwithstanding the massive blemish on its character due to its employment policies, the (pre-Murray) Rangers ethos portrayed a particularly Scottish, perhaps even Presbyterian stoicism. It was that of a conservative, establishment orientated, God-fearing and law-abiding institution that played by the rules. It was of a club that would pay its dues, applied thrift and honesty in its business dealings, and was first to congratulate rivals on successes (witness the quiet dignity of John Lawrence at the foot of the aircraft steps with an outstretched hand to Bob Kelly when Celtic returned from Lisbon).
If Murray had dug a hole for that Rangers, Craig Whyte set himself up to fill it in. No neo-bourgeois shirking of responsibilities and duty to the public for him; his signature was more pre-war ghetto, hiding behind the couch until the rent man moved along to the next door. Whyte just didn’t pay any bills and with-held money that was due to be passed along to the treasury to fund the ever more diminished public purse. Where Murray’s Rangers had been regarded by the establishment and others as merely distasteful, Whyte’s was now regarded as a circus act, and almost every day of his tenure brought more bizarre and ridiculous news which had Rangers fans cringing, the rest laughing up their sleeve, and Bill Struth birling in his grave.
The pattern was now developing in plain sight. Murray promised Rangers fans he would only sell to someone who could take the club on, but he sold it – for a pound – to a guy whose reputation did not survive the most cursory of inspection. Whyte protested that season tickets had not been sold in advance, that he used his own money to buy the club. Both complete fabrications. Yet until the very end of Whyte’s time with the club, he, like Murray still, was regarded as hero by a fan-base which badly wanted to believe that the approaching car-crash could be avoided.
Enter Charles Green. Having been bitten twice already, the fans’ first instincts were to be suspicious of his motives. Yet in one of history’s greatest ironic turnarounds, he saw off the challenge of real Rangers-minded folk (like John Brown and Paul Murray) and their warnings, and by appealing to what many regard as the baser instincts of the fan-base became the third hero to emerge in the boardroom in as many years. The irony of course is that Green himself shouldn’t really pass any kind of Rangers sniff-test; personal, sporting, business or cultural; and yet there he is the spokesman for 140 years of the aspirations of a quarter of the country’s fans.
To be fair though, what else could Rangers fans do? Green had managed (and shame on the administration process and football authorities for this) to pick up the assets of the club for less (nett) than Craig Whyte and still maintained a presence in the major leagues.
If they hadn’t backed him only the certainty of doom lay before them. It was Green’s way or the highway in other words – and speaking of words, his sounded mighty fine. But do the real Rangers minded people really buy into it all?
First consider McCoist. I do not challenge his credentials as a Rangers minded man, and his compelling need to be an effective if often ineloquent spokesman for the fans. However, according to James Traynor (who was then acting as an unofficial PR advisor to the Rangers manager), McCoist was ready to walk in July (no pun intended) because he did not trust Green. The story was deliberately leaked, to undermine Green, by both Traynor and McCoist. McCoist also refused for a long period of time to endorse the uptake of season books by Rangers fans, even went as far as to say he couldn’t recommend it.
So what changed? Was it a Damascene conversion to the ways of Green, or was it the 250,000 shares in the new venture that he acquired. Nothing improper or unethical – but is it idealism? Is it fighting for the cause?
Now think Traynor. I realise that can be unpleasant, but bear with me.
Firstly, when he wrote that story on McCoist’s resignation, (and later backed it up on radio claiming he had spoken to Ally before printing the story), he was helping McCoist to twist Green’s arm a little. Now, and I’m guessing that Charles didn’t take this view when he saw the story in question, Green thinks that Traynor is a “media visionary”?
Traynor also very publicly, in a Daily Record leader, took the “New Club line” and was simultaneously contemptuous of Green.
What happened to change both their minds about each other? Could it have been (for Green) the PR success of having JT on board and close enough to control, and (for Traynor) an escape route for a man who had lost the battle with own internal social media demons?
Or, given both McCoist’s and Traynor’s past allegiance to David Murray, is it something else altogether?
Whatever it is, both Traynor and McCoist have started to sing from a totally different hymn sheet to Charles Green since the winding up order story became public. McCoist’s expert étude in equivocation at last Friday’s press conference would have had the Porter in Macbeth slamming down the portcullis (now there’s an irony). He carefully distanced himself from his chairman and ensured that his hands are clean. Traynor has been telling one story, “we have an agreement on the bill”, and Green another, “we are not paying it”.
And what of Walter Smith? At first, very anti-Charles Green, he even talked about Green’s “new club”. Then a period of silence followed by his being co-opted to the board and a “same club” statement. Now in the face of the damaging WUP story, more silence. Hardly a stamp of approval on Green’s credentials is it?
Rangers fans would be right to be suspicious of any non-Rangers people extrapolating from this story to their own version of Armageddon, but shouldn’t they also reserve some of that scepticism for Green and Traynor (neither are Rangers men, and both with only a financial interest in the club) when they say “all is well” whilst the real Rangers man (McCoist) is only willing to say “as far as I have been told everything is well”
As a Celtic fan, it may be a fair charge to say that I don’t have Rangers best interests at heart, but I do not wish for their extinction, nor do I believe that one should ignore a quarter of the potential audience for our national game. Never thought I’d hear myself say this, but apart from one (admittedly mightily significant) character defect, I can look at the Rangers of Struth and Simon, Gillick and Morton, Henderson and Baxter, and Waddell and Lawrence (and God help me even Jock Wallace) with fondness and a degree of nostalgia.
I suspect most Rangers fans are deeply unhappy about how profoundly their club has changed. To be fair, my own club no longer enchants me in the manner of old. As sport has undergone globalisation, everything has changed. Our relationship to our clubs has altered, the business models have shifted, and the aspirations of clubs is different from that of a generation ago. It has turned most football clubs into different propositions from the institutions people of my generation grew up supporting, but Rangers are virtually unrecognisable.
The challenge right now for Rangers fans is this. How much more damage will be done to the club’s legacy before this saga comes to an end?
And by then will it be too late to do anything about it?
Most people on this blog know my views about the name of Green’s club. I really don’t give a damn because for me it is not important. I do know, like Craig Whyte said, that in the fullness of time there will be a team called Rangers, playing football in a blue strip at Ibrox, and in the top division in the country.
I understand that this may be controversial to many of our contributors, but I hope that this incarnation of Rangers is closer to that of Lawrence and Simon than to Murray and Souness.
shield2012 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 10:42
0 0 Rate This
My responses over the past couple of days have been in response to such things like:
“Rangers fans are in denial”
“why are they still referring to Rangers, who are now dead”
Nobody is denying that they are in liquidation and that there is a New Rangers Football Club. Nobody is denying that creditors have been shafted which I find despicable. Yes, Charles Green talks nonsense etc. Yes, they called the new documentary “The Rising”.
So what?!
I’m simply stating that it’s pointless trying to be petty and
criticising Rangers fans because there not doing this or not saying this. It’s ludicrous because the primary shortcomings of RFC/TRFC?
SFA/SPL has got nothing to do with them. The bright ones on here will be able to see that TRFC fans are actually the ones who are being shafted. If you put rivalry aside, you might even feel sorry for them.
We’re all football fans on here. Some knuckles might be closer to the ground than others but come on, we all just want to support our team and enjoy good rivalries.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You’re quite right. But it’s funny how a rivalry that’s in its infancy can be so much more enjoyable than one that has run its course. 😀
If C. Green is being truthful regarding the sweetener for vote claim, the potential recipient can be one of only three or four chairmen. Would it do any good for supporters of those clubs to ask those chairmen the question? Apologies if question already asked.
“He likened his obsession with the Rangers story to his previous journalistic crusades over the Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre and his notorious reporting on Bloody Sunday – something unlikely to endear him to many Rangers fans.”
———————————————————————————————————————-
Any idea why “many Rangers fans” would be upset by AT investigations into these non-football related stories? I could make an educated guess.
Will things ever change? It’s despairing.
I am beginning to think that the whole issue as to whether the Club has died / not died and if it retains its history etc. should be subject to a form of judical review.
Why? The creditors of RFC deserve a fair result.
If the law has been applied to allow an entity to walk away from sizable debts (FTT aside) and enables that entity to reform with no meaningful change – then the law should be revisited to provide society with a level of protection that the law was designed to secure for the benefit of society and commerce.
The IPO (argubly) has raised monies in no small measure on the history of the RFC – if the history was not important to fund raising then why did that subject feature heavily in the prospectus?
TRFC now have cash assets (how much is open to question). Whether BDO can lay any claim on those assets for the benefit of the creditors may or may not be possible under the current law.
It is clear that this situation is unsatisfactory. I have no desire to see the Club at Ibrox wiped off of the face of the earth – never to play again. I do have a desire to see moral justice and fair play. I have no desire to see punishment – I do seek a fair outcome and reasonable consequences as a result of actions.
This is not just about football – this is about a fair and reasonable system of commerce.
I believe that BDO should seek judical review on issues surrounding the assets of the entity that has survived liquidation and the ability of that entity to raise capital.
jclarsson7 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 04:36
30 1 Rate This
Can there be two Rangers existing at the same time, the Newco and the Oldco (yet to be liquidated)?
…
============================
Yes.
Rangers (founded in 1872/72 and incorporated in 1899) ceased to be an officially recognised football club on 3rd August 2012.
Rangers (founded and incorporated in 2012) was an officially recognised football club several weeks earlier by the SFL (on 13th July 2012) and several days earlier by the SFA (on 27th July 2012).
According to the SPL, Rangers Football Club plc was a registered shareholder (member) of their league until 3rd August 2012 – when the Rangers share was transferred to Dundee FC.
Sevco Scotland, using the Rangers brand name, were admitted as an Associate Member of the SFL on 13th July 2012. According to Charles Green, Sevco Scotland (now TRFC Ltd) have never been a registered shareholder (member) of the SPL.
According to the SFA, Rangers Football Club plc was a full member of the SFA until 3rd August 2012 – when that membership was transferred to Sevco Scotland Ltd.
Sevco Scotland played their very first game – using a “conditional” SFA membership & the Rangers brand name – against Brechin City in the Ramsdens Cup, on 30th July 2012.
So, for around 3 weeks, the two league bodies both had member clubs called Rangers. For about a week, the SFA had two distinct member clubs called Rangers.
Unless the SFA tell us that the club who played Brechin on 30th July 2012 is different from the club currently plying its trade in SFL3, it simply cannot (surely!) be this year’s SFL3 club that was last year’s SPL club.
This summer’s officially recognised short period of co-existence should have been more than enough to dispel the “same club” myth.
Long Time Lurker says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 11:21
I believe that BDO should seek judical review on issues surrounding the assets of the entity that has survived liquidation and the ability of that entity to raise capital.
=============================
I don’t believe any entity survived liquidation, in fact would that not be an oxymoron. Liquidation by it’s nature is not survivable.
They may well seek to recover the assets “bought” by a new entity, if they feel that new entity paid an insufficient consideration for them. They may also take action against those who “sold” those assets for insufficient consideration.
dentarthurdent42 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 11:31
I don’t believe any entity survived liquidation, in fact would that not be an oxymoron. Liquidation by it’s nature is not survivable.
=======================
dentarthurdent42 I take your point – however, in this instance if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck – it would appear by fair means or fowl that an entity has survived liquidation.
That’s the question that I would like a Court of law to review.
Long Time Lurker says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 11:41
dentarthurdent42 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 11:31
I don’t believe any entity survived liquidation, in fact would that not be an oxymoron. Liquidation by it’s nature is not survivable.
=======================
dentarthurdent42 I take your point – however, in this instance if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck – it would appear by fair means or fowl that an entity has survived liquidation.
That’s the question that I would like a Court of law to review.
===========================
I don’t intend getting involved in a prolonged discussion with regard semantics, I’m sure you feel exactly the same.
So can I just say that it would be a total and utter waste of the Court’s time to ask them to review whether or not something which is, by definition impossible, actually happened.
A company in administration has to find a way out of it, administration cannot go on indefinitely, that would clearly be nonsensical. There are a few ways out of it, these include paying your debts, coming to an arrangement with your creditors, or accepting that the company is dead and liquidating the assets and simply winding the company up.
If the first one is impossible, and agreement cannot be reached with the creditors, then it’s simply a matter of liquidating the assets and winding the company up. That is not survivable. There’s no need to review anything, having your assets liquidated and the business wound up is simply the end.
Clearly the liquidation process is when those assets are sold, liquidated. There is then another entity which owns those assets, it could quite easily be a well established business which bought those assets. In which case there is no confusion, the liquidator has the proceeds and the buyer now owns the assets. However in an instance like this it is an entirely new entity which has bought the assets. One set up specifically for that purpose. That may serve to confuse matters, allowing people to claim it is the same entity. It really isn’t.
Now if it happens again, and the PLC (holding company) were to sell it’s shares in the Ltd Company, then the limited company would have survived, as it is a clearly separate entity which would just have new owners. Whoever buys those shares. Which is what people are trying to make us believe happened the last time. It simply didn’t, there was no holding company, the “club” was the company. It is currently having it’s assets liquidated and will be wound up.
shield2012 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 10:42
“We’re all football fans on here. Some knuckles might be closer to the ground than others but come on, we all just want to support our team and enjoy good rivalries.”
=============
It’s not easy to enjoy good rivalries when one competitor is guilty of “off the radar” cheating and refuses to accept that. What’s the point of a rigged competition? How can anybody be sure that the same behaviour will not be repeated as required? If the cheating was acknowledged, atoned for, all possible recompense made and no repeats, then there’s every chance we could all enjoy good rivalries.
Over a year ago I posted on a Daily Rec site (I’ve learned sense since) that I hoped Rangers in some shape or form would emerge from this mess, for the sake of the decent neighbours I grew up with. (Although I still don’t understand how they could support, even passively, xRFC’s discriminatory employment policy.) Having seen the C. Green stunts and the gallery he’s playing to, I’m beginning to wonder.
tarthurdent42 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 11:58
Not wishing to get into an semantic debate – I get that liquidation is corporate death and the wording in my earlier posts confused that point.
Returining to your post “However in an instance like this it is an entirely new entity which has bought the assets.”
To me the issue at the moment is that it does not appear that an entirely new entity has bought the assets. It appears that CG et al have established a new entity. However, the behaviour of those who have set up and operate the conpany and club does not suggest that it is an entirely new entity.
The key for me at the moment (rightly or wrongly) is the use of the history of the previous company and club as a means to try and secure funds for a new company.
I think what most people believe is…if there are those who want to proclaim it’s the same club….then surely it is only reasonable for those amongst us to state that LEGALLY they are not…thats not an opinion!
As Stuart Cosgrove described it….there is an emotional aspect and a legal aspect…
Emotionally the fans of the old Rangers Football Club want it to exist….and will go to any lengths to suggest it does
Legally it doesn’t!
prohibby on Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 13:48
22 0 Rate This
fara1968 says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 12:36
It is possible that CG left school at 15. I myself am 44 and left school in May at 15 after my exams. My 16th birthday wasn’t until July. I was extremely lucky that during Thatchers Britain I got an apprenticeship and started work before I turned 16. I had recieved my NI number in the post some months earlier. CG may have came away with a few crackers but this one is possible. Though I must admit I doubt if he was ever near a pit face.
____________
I left school at 15 in 1960. My father was a miner and I remember well his joy at me gaining an engineering pre-apprenticeship away from the mining industry. By and large, I have nothing but respect and fondness for mining folk, be they green, black or white and I share a kinship with folk from mining communities who looked underground and decided it wasn’t the life for them. My dad made sure all his sons had the experience of entering a mine shaft and rejoiced at alternative career choices they made. Having said that, it’s not Mr Green’s mining pedigree that interests me – or what age he was when he left school but his apparent avoidance of the question “What school did you go to?” I guess the question was asked for a reason, I just can’t imagine why he didn’t answer it! Quite honestly, it’s of no interest to me what school he went to, I’m more interested in why he dummied the pass!
………………………………………………………………
Indeed it is shameful. The question is obviously a loaded one. We are constantly being told that cavemen such as the question asker are the minority of the TRFC fanbase but this minority must keep themselves pretty busy as they are all we seem to hear of.
Good spot by @StMiley
What I want you folks to do is go to Companies House, and search The Rangers Football Club Ltd, or rather, company number SC425159.
You will see this is the company formerly known as Sevco Scotland.
Notice at the bottom the outstanding mortgage charge.
Whatever could this be? I thought they were debt free?
timalloy67 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 10:52
16 0 Rate This
With the talk of pressure being put on Alexander to accept 50% pay cut immediately, and speculation when 2013/2014 season tickets going on sale. Is money needed elsewhere?
There are very strong rumours going about that the repairs needed at ibrox are more urgent than predicted and must start soon. This could mean Green renting Hampden for next season.
These appear to be two expenses not budgeted for. Interesting to see what pans out…
========
It would be interesting to see what the Blazers at Hampden charge for the Rental of Hampden if this materialises, bearing in mind Fergus McCann was charged £600,000 (£ 960,000 in todays monies). They also refused Celtic to do the catering back then and all profits went to the SFA.
@bartinmain @ 13:21
It’s the Scottish Sports Council security – secured over Auchenhowie
Palacio67 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 13:23
It would be interesting to see what the Blazers at Hampden charge for the Rental of Hampden if this materialises, bearing in mind Fergus McCann was charged £600,000 (£ 960,000 in todays monies). They also refused Celtic to do the catering back then and all profits went to the SFA.
=====
If TRFC have to rent Hampden, I can guarantee you this- the terms will be VERY favourable.
All signs point to a company struggling to keep afloat, by the way. Green should have halved the wages bill 6 months ago, if he had been serious about rebuilding Rangers. It would have been easier then, and I was surprised that he did nothing.
I’m a bit confused, though, as to why he’s trying to make cuts right now, after all his recent posturing about £22m in the bank, debt free club, etc. That will prove a hard sell to the peepil- even for Green.
Desperate men, desperate measures?
hangerhead says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 00:00
25 5 Rate This
chipsandblog says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 23:22
“What i have always been surprised about is that not 1 single Rangers fan ever has apologised about their policy of not playing some Scottish players because ‘they were not good enough’
———————————————————————————————————————
Not good enough, is this in relation to the person’s attributes, personality, surname, background or even on what school they attended?
As I certainly know of some who were trialing at Ibrox and who were not signed but went on to become household names as there skills were picked up at other clubs.
A blessing in disguise. Sorry delete blessing in disguise and insert piece of luck.
Dentarthurdent42 – “I don’t intend getting involved in a prolonged discussion with regard semantics,…”
Careful. You may fall foul of the mods if you continue your anti-semantic stance! 🙂
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2157407/Rangers-backed-seal-CVA-deal.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21458998
Compare and contrast? What’s Neil Patey’s agenda? And why is opinion still being canvassed by any media outlet, much less the BBC?
Long Time Lurker says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 12:29
To me the issue at the moment is that it does not appear that an entirely new entity has bought the assets.
===========================
That’s exactly what happened though.
Now another issue is whether or not they had the right to lay claim to certain things, whether their stock market announcements and the claims they made in the prospectus were legitimate. That is something that the relevant authorities may wish to review.
The issue, to me, is not whether or not they are a new entity. They simply are. The issue is whether or not they misled people in order to raise finance through their IPO.
Bearing in mind it was Rangers International FC which had that IPO and not The Rangers FC.
That’s another area where people are possibly being misled. If Rangers FC Ltd are the club then why do people constantly claim it raised over £22m in an IPO. That simply isn’t true. The company which owns it did that.
Which raise another question, if Rangers FC Ltd is the club, then why do fans believe they bought shares in it, they didn’t. Were they misled into thinking they would be. The institutions certainly new what they were getting and what protection that afforded their investment. I suspect most fans simply thought they were buying a share in their club.
This could throw a spanner in the works of renting Hampden , http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19834277
Hampden will be closed to football for Glasgow 2014 preparations
By John Barnes
BBC Scotland
Hampden Park will become a football-free zone for a year as it is transformed into an athletics arena for the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games.
The stadium, used for Queen’s Park home games, Scotland home matches and the latter stages of Scotland’s major cups, will close from November 2013.
The Spiders must relocate for part of the 2013/14 and 2014/15 seasons.
Scotland’s national stadium, with a new 400m track, will host all of Glasgow 2014’s track and field competitions.
The decision was made to close the stadium from November 2013 until after the Commonwealth Games following meetings between Hampden Park Limited, Glasgow 2014, the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Football League and Queen’s Park Football Club, who play in the Scottish Third Division.
Continue reading the main story
“
The Commonwealth Games will add world-class athletes to the list of greats who have enjoyed the Hampden experience
”
Peter Dallas
Hampden Park managing director
The temporary track will raise the surface of the arena by 1.9m and create a 44,000-seater stadium, returning to a 52,063-seater following the Games.
Hampden Park managing director Peter Dallas said: “For decades, Hampden Park has witnessed world-class footballers playing at the peak of their profession.
“Some of the planet’s biggest music stars have also played at the stadium enjoying the unique atmosphere and energy created at Hampden.
“The Commonwealth Games will add world-class athletes to the list of greats who have enjoyed the Hampden experience.
“The Games will be something the entire nation can look forward to and be proud of.”
Organisers say the stadium “will commence normal activities by late 2014”.
It is not yet known if Queen’s Park will be allowed to play some of their games in each of the two seasons at their home ground, or if the SFL will insist on them ground-sharing for two complete seasons.
Lesser Hampden, the small ground adjacent to the main stadium, is not an option to host Queen’s matches because it is to become a warm-up area for the athletes.
BBC Scotland understands that Partick Thistle have been approached about a ground-sharing deal at Firhill, but that is one of a number of clubs who have been in discussions with the Spiders.
Queen’s Park hope to have their fixture future decided by the end of this year.
SFL chief executive David Longmuir said: “We will work with Queen’s Park and other member clubs to ensure that suitable arrangements are made for all displaced league fixtures.
“We will also turn our thoughts to possible venues for displaced League Cup semi-finals and the final itself.”
neepheid says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 13:51
If TRFC have to rent Hampden, I can guarantee you this- the terms will be VERY favourable.
==================
Of course they will, they’re only a 3rd division outfit after all.
dentarthurdent42 says: Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 14:33
“…If Rangers FC Ltd are the club then why do people constantly claim it raised over £22m in an IPO. That simply isn’t true.“
Or is Rangers FC the club, and Ltd is the company? Who knows anymore.
neepheid says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 14:21
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2157407/Rangers-backed-seal-CVA-deal.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21458998
Compare and contrast? What’s Neil Patey’s agenda? And why is opinion still being canvassed by any media outlet, much less the BBC?
=======================
I have listened to and read Mr Patey’s comments throughout this and often felt that he either didn’t know what he was talking about, or had some sort of agenda.
Wonder if he will “do a Traynor” and get a job with some Scottish football team.
neepheid says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 13:51
All signs point to a company struggling to keep afloat, by the way. Green should have halved the wages bill 6 months ago, if he had been serious about rebuilding Rangers. It would have been easier then, and I was surprised that he did nothing.
I’m a bit confused, though, as to why he’s trying to make cuts right now, after all his recent posturing about £22m in the bank, debt free club, etc. That will prove a hard sell to the peepil- even for Green.
————————————————————————————————————————-
He can’t renegotiate contracts for any players and non playing staff that transferred from the oldco if they have a long term deals because of TUPE, see down below.
Therefore if a cleaner was on £100k a year in the oldco then then is the same £100k for the newco.
Alexander can have his contract altered because it is due to end and is up for renoegotiation. Similarly the youngsters being signed up on longer term contracts can go through because it can be argued the renegotiation is ‘positive’ in terms of the benefit to the employee.
The reality is that Charles is saddled with the contracts and salaries for everyone that transferred over from the Oldco unless he starts shedding jobs.
I would guess that if he did that too early to the transfer and without the proper consultation he would be spending a fair amount of time at unfair dismissal hearings.
He took everyone one on so he has to pay them.
As has been discussed Gordon (I know nothing) Smith said on the radio yesterday that the players wages wasn’t the problem it was all the other costs that were ‘outrageous’.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qq5g8 around 39mins 45 sec for 15 seconds.
In those other costs I have to assume the wage bill for all the coaching staff and those in the back office. Jon Pritchett of Club 9 in his Frobes article last year made mention of BIll Millers £30m black hole and that this was due to overly generous wages and conditions within Ibrox – McCoist included.
With crowds of 48k then operational costs are still as high as they ever were.
I still can’t see where any expenditure savings have been made other than the players wages.
http://www.is4profit.com/business-advice/employment/tupe/3-contracts-of-employment.html
Changes to terms and conditions
The Regulations ensure that employees are not penalised when they are transferred by being placed on inferior terms and conditions. So, not only are their pre–existing terms and conditions transferred across on the first day of their employment with the new employer , but employees may not validly waive their acquired rights. The Regulations therefore impose limitations on the ability of the new employer and employee to agree a variation to terms and conditions thereafter. In particular, the new employer must never vary contracts where the sole or principal reason is :
•the transfer itself; or
•a reason connected with a transfer which is not “an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce”.
If contracts are varied for these reasons, then those variations are rendered void by the Regulations.The same restrictions apply to the transferor where he contemplates changing terms and conditions of those employees who will transfer to the new employer in anticipation of the transfer occurring.
As mentioned, the underlying purpose of the Regulations is to ensure that employees are not penalised when a transfer takes place. Changes to terms and conditions agreed by the parties which are entirely positive are not prevented by the Regulations.
Q. Is there a time period after the transfer where it is “safe” for the new employer to vary contracts because the reason for the change cannot have been by reason of the transfer because of the passage of time ?
A. There is likely to come a time when the link with the transfer can be treated as no longer effective. However, this must be assessed in the light of all the circumstances of the individual case, and will vary from case to case. There is no “rule of thumb” used by the courts or specified in the Regulations to define a period of time after which it is safe to assume that the transfer did not impact directly or indirectly on the employer’s actions.
http://www.hrlaw.co.uk/site/news/Dismissing_employees_harmonising_terms_TUPE_transfer
Dismissals following a TUPE transfer are automatically unfair if the sole or principal reason for them is a) the transfer or b) a reason connected with the transfer which is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce.
A common question asked of our TUPE team is how much time needs to elapse for a dismissal to no longer be “connected” with a transfer. The same question is often asked in relation to post-transfer changes to employment terms which are void for the same reasons. However, there is no magic answer. Whilst Tribunals consider the length of time which has passed since the transfer, the length of time does not itself determine whether or not there is a connection. In one case a change to employment terms made 2 years after a transfer was found still to be connected with the transfer.
neepheid says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 13:51
I’m a bit confused, though, as to why he’s trying to make cuts right now, after all his recent posturing about £22m in the bank, debt free club, etc. That will prove a hard sell to the peepil- even for Green.
——
Indeed, the Rangers fans voted to allow the renaming of their stadium on Friday evening following much cajoling by Mr Green recently – the justification being that “it’ll bring in some much-needed money”.
Why is this money “much-needed”?
I can only imagine that the trumpeted £22m doesn’t actually involve that much cash-in-hand. It may be that shares were dispensed to “investors” for “other considerations”.
Has Mr Green ever actually said that there’s £22m “in the bank” from the share issue, or just that investors took up £22m worth of shares?
willmacufree says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 15:04
Or is Rangers FC the club, and Ltd is the company? Who knows anymore.
——
1. RIFC plc has the cash (if there is any).
2. TRFC Ltd is the “owner and operator” of Rangers FC.
3. Should LNS find Rangers FC guilty of misemeanours, he’s already made it clear that the “owner and operator” will be held responsible. This is TRFC Ltd, not RIFC plc.
4. The cash (if there is any) belongs to RIFC plc, at a remove from TRFC Ltd.
5. I wonder which company signs contracts for services, etc? TRFC Ltd, or RIFC plc? My money’s on TRFC Ltd. Should they go tits up, RIFC plc (and the cash) is left intact.
6. I may be speaking mince.
Hello all. I read of some fussing about Companies House showing a mortgage charge over Sevco. As mentioned by others above, this is just the Scottish Sports Council’s charge on Murray Park and does not have any practical financial implications- and does not mean that Sevco have external debt.
However I also noticed on a T01 form, that Malcolm Murray was terminated as a director back on 18th December. Is that old news and it just didn’t create much fuss or is this new information?
angus1983 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 15:17
Correct no-one has ever seen the colour of the investors money. Therefore until formal accounts are produced then we will never no what the cash position is at Ibrox.
All we have is a set on knowns from the last audited accounts.
A range of half decent guesses to income v operational costs.
A range of guesses for the costs of fulfilling Charlie’s plans, Ibrox Refurbishment, new shops,hotel, cancer centres world wide acadamies.
A load of unknowns about what hard cash has actually been invested, how much was swallowed up immediatley and what sums may need to be paid out to investors and loan repayments.
My guess is that the season ticket money covers the players wages for this season.
The ‘pay on the day sales’ will go some way to cover the coaching staff at Ibrox and Murray Park and the board members salaries and expenses.
Therefore the costs that have to be covered are all the remaining wages for around 100 plus (?) staff, the security of games with 48k, the utility bills, the cooncil tax, business rates etc et etc.
The oldco accounts show these as all being failry hefty.
We know that despite all the wage cuts when in administration (which at a sliding scale of 75% cut downwards may very well replicate what is being reported is the current squads wage bill) D&P still managed to rack up a £4m loss from 14 Feb to the sale date. Therefore around £1m a month.
The Orlit invoices seem to suggest that some pre-acquisiton costs have ended up on the books of the football club, so lord knows what else may have found itself onto that side of the balance sheet.
I’m sure Charles and his pals have it all under control.
Neepheid
Neil Patey’s agenda based on all his utterances on The Rangers is to present their situation in the most hopeful and optimistic of light possible.
In his latest he aknowledges the possibility of running at a loss but that will be covered from the IPO money.
He also aknowledges he does not know the actual figures but puts a lot of emphasis on a much reduced cost base but the Alexander story suggests the cutting has not started and Ive seen no news of the 175 Admin staff whose costs are protected by TUPE being laid off.
We should get a better picture if they can make through the next two seasons when the current licencing round is being completed. A process in itself that raises interesting questions like will The Rangers be allowed exceptional dispensation from producing historical accounts.
The answer will of course be yes but the follow up- just what will the SFA use in their place will be of more interest as will the SFA then make public the total wage and turnover figures they will surely have to have presented to make an informed (and informing) decison on granting a licence?
They will not you say, well the licencing rules tell clubs that in the interest of transparency ( and well done SFA putting this one in, even if only to protect yourselves from lies you may be told,) the SFA will publish Total wages, turnover and ratio of wage to turnover.
Info should be with SFA by end of April so perhaps close season before SFA publish but its a new twist in the Rangers tale.
rangerstaxcase says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 15:33
Hello all. I read of some fussing about Companies House showing a mortgage charge over Sevco. As mentioned by others above, this is just the Scottish Sports Council’s charge on Murray Park and does not have any practical financial implications- and does not mean that Sevco have external debt.
===========================
If that charge survived the sale of the asset then is there a prospect that a charge over Ibrox Stadium also survived it being sold by the administrator to the new entity. Or would that be a different arrangement.
Oh and hello, good to see you about. I hope you are well.
rangerstaxcase says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 15:33
Nice to see you back.
Think it was noted that a game of boardroom musical chairs took place when the Plc was formed to make sure they had the right number of non-execs.
Ps
I think assets are published but not net debt although the SFA have to be told of any.
Apols for typos, am on mobile.
Rangers Tax Case
Hello to you.
I read somewhere that if Murray Park was to be utilised for any other purpose than a training ground, the debt to SSC would be called in.
The last time I checked Sevco Scotland on Co House was granted a few months back- but certainly it wasn’t apparent on the Co House site then.
Even though charge related to July 2012, it looks as if it has just appeared on Co House quite recently.
I may be barking up the wrong tree- indeed, some would say I am simply barking- but could the appearance of it relate to a possible planned sale?
PS the Malcolm Murray stuff never made news, except from perhaps Keith Jackson’s article a few weeks back, in which he claimed M Murray & Green had fallen out.
rangerstaxcase says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 15:33
However I also noticed on a T01 form, that Malcolm Murray was terminated as a director back on 18th December. Is that old news and it just didn’t create much fuss or is this new information?
——————————–
May have my dates wrong but was the 18th dec not 1 day before the share issue launched and should’nt have this been declared?
That’s a very good observation, Robert.
However, remember, the share issue was not for “the club”, it was for the “holding company”- Rangers International.
I’m sure that Malcolm Murray simply resigned from the board of “The Rangers Football Club Ltd” at the same point as he became a director of “Rangers International Football Club PLC” around the time of the IPO.
I don’t think that there was anything untoward in that.
On another note, a colleague of mine from twitter pointed out earlier today that there will be no audited accounts until 2014. This can be checked on their Companies House entry. So it will be 2016 before Sevco Scotland, sorry, Rangers, have 3yrs of accounts, and can play European football.
Next Accounts Due: 28/02/2014
So, considering the season will be half way through by 28/02/16, it will actually be 2017 before they can play Euro football.
bartinmain says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 16:02
easyJambo says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 16:04
——————————————————–
According to this Malcolm Murray was never on the TRFC board,only a director on the RIFC board.
http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/903135377
Here is a copy of the TR-01
http://rangerstaxcase.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/tm01-malcolm-murray1.pdf
Sorry should be TM-01.
dentarthurdent42 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 15:49
rangerstaxcase says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 15:33
Hello all. I read of some fussing about Companies House showing a mortgage charge over Sevco. As mentioned by others above, this is just the Scottish Sports Council’s charge on Murray Park and does not have any practical financial implications- and does not mean that Sevco have external debt.
===========================
If that charge survived the sale of the asset then is there a prospect that a charge over Ibrox Stadium also survived it being sold by the administrator to the new entity. Or would that be a different arrangement.
Oh and hello, good to see you about. I hope you are well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Was it not the case that the SSC charge was a fixed charge and went with the property whereas the floating charge ‘floated’ over all assets? I don’t think a floating charge will transfer with the sale of a property unless some ‘special arrangement’ was entered into.
Angus@15.22
I was kiddin. Must learn the smileys again. Thanks for the explanatory list. As for number 6? Nae chance! (:)
Robert Coyle says: Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 16:12
=================
According to Companies House records, an AP01 confirming Malcolm Murray’s appointment as a director of TRFC Ltd was lodged on 29th June 2012. The TM01 notifying his termination was lodged on 20th December 2012.
I’d be tempted to believe the info at CH rather than a third party site.
dentarthurdent42 & neepheid
David Hillier was the go-to-guy for the media during the first few months of the administration, they stopped using him around the time he was accused of being a Tim on various Rangers forums. His assessments were never sugar coated like Neil ‘the CVA will be accepted’ Patey.
Simply put, if you don’t tell them what they want to hear, your a Tim.
bartinmain says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 16:11
0 0 Rate This
Next Accounts Due: 28/02/2014
So, considering the season will be half way through by 28/02/16, it will actually be 2017 before they can play Euro football.
_________________________________________________
Bartin,
Last time I checked both UEFA and SFA rules for getting a UEFA license, I recall that there was no absolute requirement for 3 years of audited accounts- rather it requires 3 years of membership of the association. See below:
“Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant
2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at
the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any
alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example,
changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings
between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on
sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a
competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual
relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.”
http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Of course, this still raises some issues. Does “associate” membership qualify for the 3 year membership period?
Interesting definition on continuity of membership as well. 😉
StMiley (@StMiley) says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 16:27
Simply put, if you don’t tell them what they want to hear, your a Tim.
==============================
Another part of the history transferred from the old club to the new.
Cheers RTC- yes, interesting definition!
There was also a “standard security” referenced in the prospectus (page 65) in respect of the refurbishment of fast food outlets The sum involved was £1.539M. The assumption is that this related to Close Leasing.
An “Assignation of Security” was created in Close Leasing’s favour on 9th Aug 2011. The indebtedness to Close Leasing was recorded in the D&P Creditors report as £1.56M at the date of Administration
I am sure that if any “special arrangements” were put in place regarding securities or specific creditors then BDO would have more than a passing interest in those arrangements and who put them in place.
Hi RTC – glad to hear you are back!
So if Malcolm Murray was terminated at TRFC – then why is he still appearing as TRFC chairman in media – did Ahmed also not do a similar trick?
Who is in charge of TRFC and who is in charge of RIFC the holding company…………we demand to know!
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/12040/8499461/Rangers-chairman-Malcolm-Murray-backing-Ally-McCoist-after-turbulent-year
From Feb 14th
Rangers chairman Malcolm Murray maintains manager Ally McCoist is the best man to lead the club back to the top following a turbulent year at Ibrox.
The past 12 months has seen a spectacular fall from grace for the Scottish giants, who entered administration on February 14th last year.
The months that followed saw the oldco club liquidated while newco Rangers, under the new ownership of a consortium fronted by Charles Green, were consigned to start life in the third division of Scottish Football.
Murray, who was appointed chairman of the club in June, is concentrating on the rebuilding process after a nightmare year for the Glasgow side.
Nice to see RTC contributing something for a change! 😉
timalloy67 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 10:52
There are very strong rumours going about that the repairs needed at ibrox are more urgent than predicted and must start soon. This could mean Green renting Hampden for next season.
———————————–
The prospectus that accompanied the offer of shares went out of its way (as was discussed on this forum at the time) to stress that no detailed or structural survey of the properties had been carried out, services had not been tested, nor evidence even sought of asbestos risk assessments etc. To quote from the document:
“Condition of Buildings
Our inspection of the subjects did not constitute a structural survey nor did we inspect woodwork or other parts of the structure which were covered, unexposed or inaccessible. Also, the various services have not been tested and we are not in a position, therefore, to report that any of the properties are free from defects. We have not had sight of an Asbestos Risk Assessment relative to the subjects and cannot report that they are free from risk in this respect. Accordingly, we have made the assumption that such an investigation would not disclose the presence of any such material in any adverse situation or condition.”
Anyone signing on for shares seems to have been well warned that the condition of the fabric and services were a potential pig in a poke.
easyJambo says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 16:35
——————————————————————————————————————————–
That’s not anywhere near 3.59% of the issued share capital by any chance is it, easyjambo?
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 17:05
Would a shareholder with over 3% not have to be specifically identified.
Unless it’s included in one of the nominees’ (if that’s the right term) shareholding of course.
bartinmain says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 15:52
I read somewhere that if Murray Park was to be utilised for any other purpose than a training ground, the debt to SSC would be called in.
——
A training ground for “The Club”? Would letting other Clubs use it for financial gain, say maybe Italian ones, affect this?
What about playing closed-door friendly matches against Albion Rovers or Airdrie Utd on it? I guess that could count as training.
bartinmain says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 16:08
Interesting – page 15 of the TRFC prospectus states “[European competition] may be unlikely before the 2015/2016 season due to the requirement for a three year trading history.”
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:m6VfBlLMyEoJ:https://www.rangersshareoffer.com/Prospectus.pdf+rangers+ipo+document&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjnMzWbvw4bflFGDoC2Ao1nNTQHcwTeaDgoaYVw5aKaX3eE1lkQc7JWoyYlHCCCFYElSC3AyIknjJcFhuiY3iDF0uGE–nvqo2MH6seh0DIJ1-DIvjeSNf83EjZY5GYm-KQUM4p&sig=AHIEtbR3CdafL-1Mu9S6AZWrjBecmbEf5w
When drafting the prospectus did C Green et al make provision for audited accounts to be put back to the latest possible time frame?
rangerstaxcase says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 16:30
1 1 Rate This
bartinmain says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 16:11
0 0 Rate This
Next Accounts Due: 28/02/2014
So, considering the season will be half way through by 28/02/16, it will actually be 2017 before they can play Euro football.
_________________________________________________
Bartin,
Last time I checked both UEFA and SFA rules for getting a UEFA license, I recall that there was no absolute requirement for 3 years of audited accounts- rather it requires 3 years of
…
Of course, this still raises some issues. Does “associate” membership qualify for the 3 year membership period?
Interesting definition on continuity of membership as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The associate membership is of the SFL, is it not? All new SFL members become associate members for, as I recall, a period of five years. Was the ‘conditional’ membership off the SFA not converted to full membership after about four or five months?
easyJambo says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 16:23
I’d be tempted to believe the info at CH rather than a third party site.
————————————————————–
Think you may be right,it’s giving 2 different date of births.also giving 2 different director id numbers as well.
RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
Director ID : 903135377
Year of Birth: 1955
THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
Director ID : 917026773
Year of Birth: 1956
Hello RTC always a pleasure 🙂
Robert, where are you getting these two different D/O/Bs for Malcolm Murray from?
Two Rangers…two Malcolm Murrays…what’s next… two Charles Greens as well? Maybe one sits at home in Ibrox while the other tours the world? It might also explain the contradictory statements that come out from time to time.
dentarthurdent42 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 17:10
————————————————————————————————————————–
Norne Anstalt = Turquoise Capital = Turquoise International.
Francis Wright …………..ex close brothers
Ian Thomas……………….ex close brothers
Ali Naini…………………….ex close brothers
Howard Lack……………..ex close brothers
http://www.turquoiseassociates.com/page.asp?pageid=29&TID=1
Probably just a co-incidence.
bartinmain says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 17:40
Robert, where are you getting these two different D/O/Bs for Malcolm Murray from?
———————————————————–
RIFC…http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/903135377
TRFC….http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/917026773
RTC’s document also says 1956….http://rangerstaxcase.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/tm01-malcolm-murray1.pdf
scottc says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 17:32
The associate membership is of the SFL, is it not? All new SFL members become associate members for, as I recall, a period of five years. Was the ‘conditional’ membership off the SFA not converted to full membership after about four or five months?
======
TRFC (ex Sevco) are associate members of the SFL. They acquired the full membership of the SFA previously held by RFC by transfer, under the terms of the five way agreement, They had previously been given conditional membership by the SFA to allow their game with Brechin to go ahead. That conditional membership only lasted for a week or so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19120224
Cheers Robert.
There’s only two Malcolm Murrays…seem to remember another guy with different D/O/Bs…
Notice how he uses his middle name at TRIFC PLC but not at TRFC Ltd? As well as different dates of birth? Hmmm, familiar, that.
RTC,
…you never write to us, you never phone… 😉
Welcome back to the ‘Internet Bampot’ fold !
Feels like something significant is in the offing down Govan way…?
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says: Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 17:49
————————–
Norne Anstalt certainly held 3.59% of the shares in TRFC LTD before the IPO. That equated to 1.2M shares. If the shares were given in lieu of the debt, then it would equate to paying £1.28p a share which seems too high.
The fact that the standard security was still listed in the prospectus together with a debt of £1.539M yet the D&P Creditors report stated a debt of £1.56M. The difference of £21,000 could still have been used to purchase shares.
Remember that Imran Ahmed received 2.2M shares in TRFC Ltd at 1p a share in lieu of £22,000 of a loan he had provided to the initial consortium.
Is it possible that Close (or associates) provided some of the initial funding? I would guess so, but I’d like a bit more that just speculation.
So it will be 2016 before Sevco Scotland, sorry, Rangers, have 3yrs of accounts, and can play European football.
______________________________________
That’s provided the 3 year accounts are in order – a big ask given the swamp they are manoeuvring in at present.
The rule states categorically that a club “must be a member for three consecutive years”
Associate membership does not fulfil this condition. Of course this applies to only 99.9% of organisations and the rules and regulations therein.
The clock has not started ticking yet! – or, then again maybe it has.
easyJambo says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 18:42
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Thanks easyJambo.
A company with nearly four per cent of the present incarnation have four execs with past links to Close Brothers. Is that better?
StMiley (@StMiley) says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 16:27
David Hillier was the go-to-guy for the media during the first few months of the administration, they stopped using him around the time he was accused of being a Tim on various Rangers forums. His assessments were never sugar coated like Neil ‘the CVA will be accepted’ Patey.
Simply put, if you don’t tell them what they want to hear, your a Tim.
=======================================================
It’s puzzling why Neil Patey is now the only show in town in terms of ‘expert’ comment. There must be several highly qualified, articulate people from the world of finance who could pass comment, but even this week Patey was once again wheeled out to give a happy clapper view of the world which in reality told us very little. It’s just a continuation of the lazy journalism we have witnessed throughout this entire affair.
And another thing…why does Patey always appear to be so smug about it all? Or is it just me who thinks that?
Senior says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 18:50
1 0 Rate This
So it will be 2016 before Sevco Scotland, sorry, Rangers, have 3yrs of accounts, and can play European football.
______________________________________
That’s provided the 3 year accounts are in order – a big ask given the swamp they are manoeuvring in at present.
The rule states categorically that a club “must be a member for three consecutive years”
Associate membership does not fulfil this condition. Of course this applies to only 99.9% of organisations and the rules and regulations therein.
The clock has not started ticking yet! – or, then again maybe it has.
=====
IIRC they are full SFA members on account of transfer of the dead RFC’s membership (how do FIFA view that btw?)
but are associate members of SFL