.. and why sites like SFM matter.
When SFM blasted off in 2012, we had a fair idea that Scottish Football had not only veered violently off the rails,but that it had done so deliberately.
Our intention was to try to help – in some small way – to steer it towards a straighter track, and to see it restored as a sporting institution and spectacle worthy of sporting principles. To see integrity restored to our national sport, to see honesty, fairness and adherence to both the laws of the game and land.
Of course we didn’t know what route our own journey would take, even although we were clear about the destination. What we did know about the journey was that no matter the route, the first leg started outside our own front door.
Who knew we would be taken on a magical mystery tour, blindfolded, spun around a few times, but still find ourselves at that front door. Via the road less traveled, the high road, low road and an endless series of shortcuts and wrong turns we hadn’t moved an inch.
On every stage of the “journey” the SFA, the SPL, and their quasi-legal tribunals & inquiries ducked and dived, twisted and bent the truth, and aided and abetted the greatest scam in the history of UK sport.
Newly coined idioms emerged; “Imperfect registrations”, “boiler-room subsidiary”, “emerged from liquidation”, “ethereal entity”, – and the real doozy; “other clubs could also have broken the tax laws had they wished” – all in an effort to;
1. pretend that what happened had not happened, that cheating was fair, that the rights of one football club were not enshrined in law but decreed by the heavens;
2. hope against hope that the rest of us had gone stark raving bonkers and would accept the “Santa is alive” fallacy as truth.
The facts were;
- That Rangers, having been subjected to the ignominy of administration, had now entered liquidation, leaving behind a mountain of debts, the vast majority of which were underwritten by us, by the taxpaying public.
- That almost £100m of funds was denied to the exchequer as the first ever nationalised football club, bought and paid for by the people of the UK, slid into oblivion, a trail of devastation in its wake.
- That in the course of that calamitous conduct of business, the SFA and the SPL were given false and incomplete information about the nature of players’ contracts. This in order to cover up a tax scheme that was (according to the man who devised it) operated incorrectly and thus unawfully.
Every football club in Scotland and their fans were cheated by a club which quite simply refused to play by the rules – even as the noose around its neck was being pulled ever tighter due to HMRC and Lloyd’s Banking Group taking steps to erect buffers ahead of the onrushing gravy train.
The result was that 140 years of history came to an end; an insatiable hunger for success ironically bringing about the ultimate and irreversible failure of a Scottish institution.
Not for them though, the recognition that they had transgressed. “It wasn’t Rangers – it was Craig White” was the cry.
I’m sure Hearts supporters in 1965 might have said the same about Willie Wallace after he missed a sitter in the final league match against Kilmarnock at Tynecastle. Had he scored, Hearts would have won the league, so Hearts should, by the RFC logic, claim that title anyway. Likewise Celtic fans could have pointed a finger at Georgios Samaras when his penalty miss at Ibrox lost them the league.
More facts: every football club in the world is the sum of its parts, onfield and off. We take the good that people do for our clubs and celebrate them. We have no right to cherry pick and ignore the consequences when people screw up.
Footballers – and administrators – are often gifted individuals given to moments of blinding inspiration which benefits their clubs. They are also often prone to reckless behaviours, the consequences of which we all have to bear. Murray’s knack of talking money out of trees and his reckless and irresponsible practices gave Rangers huge success, but that behaviour also – perhaps inevitably – led to the appointment with the buffers mentioned above.
The good and the bad. Both sides of the same coin, inseparable, inevitable, and there is no choice but to accept the whole package, not just the good bits.
In the circumstances, the hostility towards the old club was understandable. It was always a given that Celtic fans were unlikely to cut them slack as they headed towards an ignominious end.
However, had there been contrition, an acknowledgement of wrongs and some humility in response to talk of consequences, fans of other clubs outside of the Old Firm bubble may have extended some sympathy. But there was none of this. Instead, denial, arrogance, blaming others (“kicking us when we are down”, “who are these people?”) and a pugilistic reaction to the very idea of punishment. The outcome was an absence of sympathy for the plight of RFC.
Let’s revisit this; on an industrial scale, Rangers misrepresented (accidentally if you believe that the board of a PLC was comprised exclusively of halfwits and individuals unable to bite their own fingers) crucial information regarding compliance with registration rules, They subsequently withheld evidence from multiple enquiries into their conduct over these registration rules.
As far back as 1996, Rangers PAYE affairs were being investigated by HMRC and incurring penalties (not a very well publicised event).
Then, for more than a decade, principally through the 2000s they failed to comply with taxation statutes and with crucially important (not merely bureaucratic) SFA rules designed to preserve the intergity of football as a sport. They cheated the revenue out of millions and the fans of every club in Scotland out of their aspirations for their own clubs.
Rangers however were still box-office, and there were 50,000 fans providing a market for the product the now extinct club had provided through the decades. Surely someone would step in and take up the Rangers cause? Surely those people would eschew the catastrophic errors of judgement that had resulted in the economic and existential demise of the original club? Surely they would also acknowledge those mistakes in an effort to convince the clubs and fans they had wronged that this was an organisation that recognised the interdependence of sporting activity?
Surely.
But no. Sadly, no.
Even then though, that matters little.
Why? Because the sins of the old Rangers cannot be visited on the new. The behavior of the new club is a matter for a different argument, but it isn’t relevant in a legal or regulatory sense to the old club. Legally or morally there is nothing you can do to them to ensure that a repeat of the same spivish behaviour does not occur.
So why the fuss? Why the six years of relentless campaigning by SFM and dozens of other football sites?
Because it does matter that the authorities themselves – including all the other clubs – and the MSM have gone out of their way to cover it all up.
No-one at the SFA will talk to fans who have provided them with evidence of wrongdoing in the matter of the 2011 Euro licence. No one will address the witholding of evidence from the LNS enquiry, nor the false premise upon which it arrived at some of its conclusions, nor the mysteriously shifting goalposts of the period investigated by the LNS enquiry, nor the acid-flashback consciousness of the newly arrived at – and totally irregular and unlawful – “imperfect registration” status.
What still requires to be done is to root out those who have enabled the big lie. We need to hold accountable those who have sought to bury evidence, to dispense with logic and to treat fans with contempt and ridicule when legitimate concerns are raised.
We need to replace those people with people of integrity, folk who love the game as much as we do, people who will not yield to intimidation or the dog-whistle.
There are foot thick rule-books in place in football, and the authorities have plummeted into the Asimovian depths of a regulatory Fantastic Voyage to circumvent those. The SFA Chief Executive even told our own John Clark that he would “do nothing” had he been presented with evidence of wrong doing (and he had been presented with such evidence).
Yet one simple rule would have saw the whole sorry escapade brought to a halt – the universal rule that requires people to show due respect and good faith to others.
As I said, we started this journey at our own front door. The authorities and their enablers in the media have been taking us on the Uber route for six years. But we still know the destination, and we will get there. The SFA, the SPFL and the MSM have been relentless in their dedication to half-truths and misdirection.
But the fans are even more relentless in their pursuit of truth and their determination to see our game returned to its status a a sport. That is why outlets like SFM are important. Not because we are any better than others, but because we give a voice to the people in the game who matter most – to the paying public of Scotland who turn up in numbers relatively greater than any other country in Europe. They need that voice. We are not going anywhere.
Stewart Regan, Chief Executive of the Scottish FA: “We are pleased for everyone involved in this process, and indeed the whole of Scottish football, that a conclusion has been reached.
“There were a number of complex and challenging issues involved but, primarily, the Scottish FA had to be satisfied that the new owners of Rangers would operate in the best interests of the club, its fans and Scottish football in general.”
======================================================================== Stewart Regan,
When asked if they were the same club Regan said ” it’s not for me to decide”
I would not take any notice of what a lying rat like regan said on anything, he would sell his soul to the Devil for a profit
TheLawMan2 19th August 2018 at 11:56
Reiver 19th August 2018 at 11:07
Wow! I don't know how to take that considering the source. Most likely it has been stated because LM2 believes that I approve of his attitude that small, insignificant points of rule hold sway over massive immoral and unsporting cheating in the world of football.
__________________________________________________________
I raised the 10 year rankings and the Rangers history on UEFA.com and was shut down. I was repeatedly told they were both inconsequential because of Traversos letter.
The existence of them at the very least asks a question or presents a challenge to the "new club" view which is not to say either of them auto means its "same club" of course.
———————————————-
I wouldn't say shut down. I would say that the only folk who could explain the ambiguity would be UEFA and until such times as that occurs the debate was going around in circles.
The Traverso letter presented UEFA's official position in respect of the current club and the club before in the context of UEFA being unable to sanction the club before.
Had RFC and TRFC been the same club or company operating the same club then that justification could not have been provided.
It is comparable to the situation were TRFC had to play in an earlier round of The Scottish Cup that they would have had to had they been RFC.
Reality reflecting what the rules mean as opposed to what they say.
The reality from 2012 is that Rangers Football Club went bust and another football club with an owner/operator took its place. Had that not happened there could be no "Rangers" at all.
The current " Rangers" though do look like they have finally got their football act together and will once again provide the tribal competition that the game depends on to give so many a living.
The BBC, STV, Skysports, SPFL, SFA, BTSport, The Daily Record, The Sun, The Herald, The Scotsman, Lawman2, Slimjim, Darkbeforedawn, and any columnist in any of the foregoing media outlets propagate the Big Lie at every opportunity. It would suit their objectives if there weren’t reminders placed in front of them by this site and others. It doesn’t take a lot of time to refute the various assertions. The big advantage the truth has is it that it doesn’t have to be invented. There is a mountain of evidence to support this truth. Everything else is deflection, denial and dissembling.
In the absence of nothing outrageous emanating from Mr King today, this is what we have to be going on with.
Seems to me Rangers fans live in a world where their gin 'n' tonic fell off the table and smashed but only the gin was spilt. Strange world.
We've created a society with 2 truths now and that can only be harmful to us all. Take today for myself for instance. Incorporate I thought, is a verb. It has to be done TO something. In my world incorporate means to "absorb, subsume ,include , assimilate, integrate, take in, swallow up" et cetera et cetera. Lots of my fellow Scots on the other hand believe(post June 2012) that incorporate actually means the antonym of itself, i.e "separate, divide , unmix,disjoin , part, et cetera et cetera.
We're heading for a confrontation somewhere down the line because words matter.
=============================================
"it won't change the fact that it happened. Rightly or wrongly"
Interesting phrase that could be used in respect of a number of events throughout the Rangers saga.
Ian McMillan lied to HMRC about the existence of side letters …….. "it won't change the fact that it happened. Rightly or wrongly"
Alastair Johnston and Grant Thornton lied about the status of the wee tax bill …. "it won't change the fact that it happened. Rightly or wrongly"
The SFA granted RFC a UEFA Licence for 2011/12 ….. "it won't change the fact that it happened. Rightly or wrongly"
Duff & Phelps failed to provide LNS with all the documents relating to the DOS and EBT schemes ……. "it won't change the fact that it happened. Rightly or wrongly"
Campbell Ogilvie failed to disclose all he knew about the DOS and EBT schemes to LNS ……. "it won't change the fact that it happened. Rightly or wrongly"
LNS determined that Rangers achieved no sporting advantage from their tax arrangements ….. "it won't change the fact that it happened. Rightly or wrongly"
Sandy Bryson deemed that, once accepted by the SFA, a registration remains valid until revoked, even when some of the necessary contractual arrangements were not disclosed at the outset ….. "it won't change the fact that it happened. Rightly or wrongly"
Craig Whyte was found not guilty of Fraud and Financial Assistance in his takeover of RFC plc……. "it won't change the fact that it happened. Rightly or wrongly"
Dave King has, to date, failed to comply with rulings from the Takeover Panel and the Court of Session and subsequent actions are viewed an "absolute master stroke" by some ……. "it won't change the fact that it happened. Rightly or wrongly"
=========================
I was brought up to try and do the right thing at all times. Also that I should endeavour to do what I can to right any wrongs that I encounter.
If some posters on SFM believe that it is also ok accept the wrongs and move on, then they have different values from me.
I was in the local Chinese Takeaway earlier where they leave newspapers lying around for customers to read while waiting on their food. A week old Daily Record was carrying an interview with Mark Warburton who said when he was Rangers Manager he became paranoid because he believed everyone had it in for the club. The reason being so many people within the club told him that was the case. He urged Gerrard not to go down the same route and his only gripe about Scottish Referees is that he doesn't think they are very good.
It has to be a concern if people within Ibrox actually believe this stuff though. What is the basis for it? I have never heard this coming from any other club which financially imploded. While Hearts, Dundee, Dunfermline etc were not liquidated, they did come through very painful administration periods. Never once did any of them look to blame others though.
Brilliant piece in todays observer about trolls etc
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/18/how-to-handle-a-troll-and-neuter-a-sea-lion-dealing-with-online-attacks-astroturfine-trolljacking
Im thinking we are subject to several of these
To the deniers
I have no background in law, no background in accounts, I have a background in been educated enough to know what liquidation means and the reason for it. Liquidation of a company, IMO is not only an attempt to salvage from wreckage the good parts; it is the punishment meted out for the deliberate or mismanagement to control others interests.
It is also a punishment to ensure that never again will the public be deceived, tricked or be insulted when the very same vehicle raises itself from the wreckage and sets out again to profit whilst leaving behind the carnage it caused. It is the only reassurance that gives people the confidence to again trust that a system is in place that reassures that should they lose out financially they will have the satisfaction of closure, like in Death Row, the monster they believe existed is extinguished.
Incorporated meant the joining and together they took on liability to its investors and when it failed both joined as one were liable and both failed to provide liability and so it came to pass it moved on to a memory, as in the memory of the thirds and all who suffered the same financial difficulties.
There is no argument, the man on the street does not need to examine complicated documents and double speak, ignorance of the law is no excuse and liquidation for the common man and business only has one meaning.Once liquidised it is impossible to bring it back, King spoke of it knowing his retric was just speak at no expense to anyone gullible.
The company incorporated with its club died no amount of trickery will bring it back and if so, it was ever possible, the main benefactors would have to first be all creditors, this is never going to happen and it will be consigned to history.
I see Steven Gerrard is saying 4g pitches should not be allowed at the top levels after the injury to Jamie Murphy.
Maybe the SFA/SPFL will now sit up and take notice. They haven't listened to anyone else.
upthehoops 19th August 2018 at 18:07
interview with Mark Warburton who said when he was Rangers Manager he became paranoid because he believed everyone had it in for the club. The reason being so many people within the club told him that was the case.
While Hearts, Dundee, Dunfermline etc were not liquidated, they did come through very painful administration periods. Never once did any of them look to blame others though.
…………………………………
But to blame everyone else the ibrox club points the finger of blame outwards, if they did not do so the finger of blame would point inwards.
Kenny Miller finished at Livingston already. Maybe he has had enough of their plastic/rubber pitch.
lets face it, it was a huge embarrassment on Saturday. Players coming up covered in rubber pellets. Many jokes were made. This is a top league club in Scotland. And they are dangerous to boot.
Talking of Kenny Miller…
What happened at the SPFL Hearing scheduled for 13th to 15th August in connection with the fines imposed on Mr Miller and Lee Wallace?
Adjourned on the basis that Mr King's dog ate the Minutes of the Disciplinary Hearing?
Talking about ' The Wizard of Oz'…
We are all tin men: no brains…or we would / should have dropped the SPFL a long time ago.
But, we have what the lion is seeking: we have a heart.
IMO, all reasonable Scottish footy fans simply want a level playing field and all clubs to be treated the same.
Steven’s not rocket science.
It's sport as 'we' / the majority know it.
It may take the final demise of any Ibrox club to achieve this.
I'm happy to wait…
jimbo 19th August 2018 at 22:29
Kenny Miller finished at Livingston already. Maybe he has had enough of their plastic/rubber pitch.
lets face it, it was a huge embarrassment on Saturday. Players coming up covered in rubber pellets. Many jokes were made. This is a top league club in Scotland. And they are dangerous to boot.
————————————
Definitely time to get rid of these from the top flight in my view. Something might happen now that Rangers are complaining. I wonder if the media will make snide remarks about Gerrard they way the did when Brendan Rodgers complained about plastic pitches!
Upthehoops 07.05
A Rangers manager (Mark Warburton) did pass comment on the different standards of artificial surfaces back in 2015/16 and was criticized by many in the media and on here iirc..Nothing changed then, so why think anything will change now?.
slimjim 20th August 2018 at 07:41
……………………….
(Mark Warburton) did pass comment
12 February 2016
Mark Warburton insists Scottish football must halt the introduction of any more artificial pitches in the SPFL.
………….
15 August 2015
MARK WARBURTON insists there will be no negativity around Alloa’s artificial surface when he takes Rangers to the Indodrill Stadium today.
………………
19th February 2016
Mark Warburton says Scottish football should ban plastic pitches
…………..
15/02/16
Rangers boss Mark Warburton says his players can handle artificial pitches
…………..
Yes just a passing comment.All around the time.
25 FEB 2016
Celtic manager Ronny Deila: Artificial pitches are the future.. I’d LOVE to turn Parkhead plastic
…………..
And at this point i could have filled out my post with an image or two,just to back up the words.
According to reports the Rangers v UFA Europa League tie is in doubt as the Russians are struggling to obtain a travel visa at such short notice which would mean they would forfeit the tie.
I guess this is a highly unlikely scenario due to the amount of money at stake but I think it would be great for Scottish football and for Rangers' reputation if they spoke to UEFA and offered to agree to a postponement until the issues could be worked through. The UFA story is a nice one, they are a new club and this is their first run in Europe, (many on here would say Rangers are in the same boat lol) it's no way for that run to end. Will be a sickener for their fans, I hope football and common sense prevails.
Noticed one or to small things this morning
When you hover over the blogs pictures they enlarge, when you post a comment the page does not go back a page.
And with just over ten days to go you are three-quarters way to your target on the bi-annual appeal Everything is looking good,is all i wanted to say
slimjim 20th August 2018
Upthehoops
And if I recall correctly McCoist also complained about plastic pitches as well..
Yes grass is ideal but the issue is really about trying to sort out how monies are brought into the game to allow all our top flight clubs to provide a decent grass/hybrid pitch.
Maybe folks like Gerrard would like to contribute some of their wealth gained through daft EPL wages and the associated punditry fees generated from exorbitant TV deals to a club like Killie. He may even want to challenge why the likes of Lineker get a higher salary that the BBC gives to the whole of Scottish Football.
Of course Celtic could have donated some of the disco light money to a lesser club to get the type of pitch Rodgers wants to play on.
The laugh is of course that to have a pitch that is playable 7 days a week those who complain the most will have access to astro-turf for training and will happily use such pitches when required for their own needs.
Indeed, a few years back, did T'Rangers not make a big thing about the laying of a new surface at Murray Park as part of the 'look at us were are OK and moving forward' drive.
wottpi 20th August 2018 at 09:14
Indeed, a few years back, did T’Rangers not make a big thing about the laying of a new surface at Murray Park as part of the ‘look at us were are OK and moving forward’ drive.
…………..
Backed by a Grant i believe
Players union spokesperson Stuart Lovell has told BBC Scotland that its members "need to be listened to". He cited the results of a 2013 survey of 700 players in which 73% said they would prefer to play on a "deteriorating grass pitch" than a plastic one.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35551542
That was 5 years ago. Have the beaks at Hampden listened? What do players & managers know?
The suits know best.
We now have 25% of our top league clubs with plastic pitches.
The mixed comments from managers is due to their clichéd comments about ‘not wanting to blame’ the conditions.
As to costs, how come plenty of smaller clubs can still manage to have a grass pitch? It's a lazy argument. Just like their directors. Plenty of senior clubs use other local grounds for training and youth development.
I remember Celtic’s training facility before Lennoxtown. Wasn’t ideal but it did a job for many years until we could afford better.
Cluster One 20th August 2018 at 09:20
I believe the Murray Park astro pitch required an upgrade around 2013 as it was in poor condition and was in danger of not meeting the required standards.
Therefore even when skimming money from Hector the club wasn't even looking after it's own by providing a 'world class training facility' for senior teams and academy youngsters.
I believe the new surface was funded by the club, Rangers Lotto and a grant from a Scottish Football Partnership.
https://thescottishfootballpartnership.com/
Likewise managers deliberately growing the grass long. A cheap, pathetic trick. Craig Levein should be ashamed of himself. Think of the time, effort & money put into Tynecastle recently. I would be wanting to show it off to the highest standard. Celtic beat Hearts that game. Karma.
Celtic have installed a new hybrid pitch at great expense. it doesn't just advantage Celtic. It gives advantage to every team that comes to Celtic Park. That's the spirit.
Also watering pitches (or NOT!) when needed. Especially plastic ones. Pathetic when this is used as a tool.
There are health & safety issues here. We should aim to have the highest possible standard of pitches. It should be in the rules.
I know I know. Don’t post for ages then three in a short spell.
Perhaps better use of language would help us all?
what is this “club” thing we all talk about? In the Premiership there are no clubs. They are all companies. Now why is this? Principally clubs “unincorporated associations” do not have a legal personality and therefore are unable to undertake contracts. This means they would be unable to employ players – a fairly significant issue for a professional football team
There are clubs present in senior football but their officials can only take contracts on personally (hence why their secretaries usually hold the SPFL share)
For those claiming the “club” exists somewhere in the company structure, there will be documents on the officials of the club, minutes meetings and an AGM.
It really is like Auldheid says – no need for parsing and textual analysis – the simple explanations are usually correct.
jimbo 20th August 2018 at 10:25
Celtic have installed a new hybrid pitch at great expense.
———————————————–
And in that comment you have identified the main problem to having decent grass pitches.
(And in case you hadn't noticed Hearts, at great expense, relaid their pitch the other year because it was in poor condition and then ripped that up to provide the current Hybrid pitch. It cannot be said that Hearts have been lacking when it comes to providing a decent playing surface.)
If you want it as part of the rules then how do you intend to resolve the financial aspects for those clubs who are living within their means?
Lets not forget that in the past some clubs ended up spending cash on large stadiums that they couldn't afford to build or maintain and, it could be argued, they didn't need- Just because it was in the rules.
I cant help but feel we will still be debating this in ten years time! I personally don't mind sites like this raising their views on the subject. There is a very militant minority who believe the 'new club' narrative and to be honest I have nothing but respect for the posters like that – it takes a lot of commitment to a cause to not lose faith and to keep fighting for your views. So whether I believe or agree or not, they are your views and I respect them. For the most part this forum is very good at respecting opposing views – the only issue I have is when someone tells me 'I know that my club died'. Who are those people to tell me what I think? I would never tell anyone else what to think, and by all means say you disagree but to say that they know what I feel or think devalues the arguments somewhat.
The other gripe I would have with this site is the fact it is very much written as if the 'Big Lie' as you all like to describe it is the minority view in the country, and that a huge majority believe us to be a new club. On this site I would agree, but on the larger scale I really don't. This site is probably the only site outwith extreme Celtic forums who fight this narrative. Yet there are probably a maximum of 40 regular posters – less than an average of 1 per senior club in the country. So whilst we are a minority on SFM, we are certainly not outwith these pages. When even Celtic legends, and your owner does not believe the new club argument (along with the huge list of names you stated at the start of your post) then I do find it unnusual that posters like myself and Lawman are declared 'flat earthers' for believing a view supported by probably 90+% of the population.
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/rumour-mill-rangers-are-same-club-says-lennon-souness-regrets-not-returning-to-rangers-logan-on-dream-debut-1-4102579
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-chief-dermot-desmond-wants-1359461
Darkbeforedawn
20th August 2018 at 11:16
================================
If we are discussing issues, the one I have is when people treat matters of fact as matters of opinion.
The facts, as I understand them is that Rangers (the previous club) was formed by people who wanted to play football together.
They then decided to formally make that into a club, which at the point existed as an entity in its own right. However its members were responsible for its operation, debts etc.
They then decided to change it into a limited company, presumably to obtain the protection limited liability afforded them. They did not form a new entity which would then operate the club, they changed the club into a limited liability company. At least that is the way I understand it.
That limited liability company then became a PLC. It was not a case of a PLC being formed separately which then held the shares in the Ltd Company. The Ltd Company literally became the PLC, it floated on the stock exchange and its shares were publicly traded.
So we have a continuity from the people playing football right through to the PLC being formed. I do not see any stage at which something new was formed, to control something else.
If someone can tell me where I got it wrong and where this separation happened I would be more than happy to listen to it. However until that happens the only conclusion I can come to is that believing that the club continued to exist when the PLC went into liquidation makes no sense, it runs contrary to the facts as I know them. It is a matter of opinion, and an opinion based on very little as far I can see.
I'm afraid that Neil Lennon agreeing with an incorrect opinion makes it no less incorrect.
DBD
The majority of drivers break the speed limit but it still against the law. So by your logic, those that do adhere to the limit should stop because it is not the norm. Or perhaps you are saying the law should be scrapped.
View Comment Homunculus 20th August 2018 at 12:26 Darkbeforedawn 20th August 2018 at 11:16 ================================ If we are discussing issues, the one I have is when people treat matters of fact as matters of opinion. The facts, as I understand them is that Rangers (the previous club) was formed by people who wanted to play football together. They then decided to formally make that into a club, which at the point existed as an entity in its own right. However its members were responsible for its operation, debts etc. They then decided to change it into a limited company, presumably to obtain the protection limited liability afforded them. They did not form a new entity which would then operate the club, they changed the club into a limited liability company. At least that is the way I understand it. That limited liability company then became a PLC. It was not a case of a PLC being formed separately which then held the shares in the Ltd Company. The Ltd Company literally became the PLC, it floated on the stock exchange and its shares were publicly traded. So we have a continuity from the people playing football right through to the PLC being formed. I do not see any stage at which something new was formed, to control something else. If someone can tell me where I got it wrong and where this separation happened I would be more than happy to listen to it. However until that happens the only conclusion I can come to is that believing that the club continued to exist when the PLC went into liquidation makes no sense, it runs contrary to the facts as I know them. It is a matter of opinion, and an opinion based on very little as far I can see. I'm afraid that Neil Lennon agreeing with an incorrect opinion makes it no less incorrect.
_____________________
I posted a similar post the other day, Homunculus, giving one undeniable, documented, legal fact. I expanded on it with some more, undocumented, facts, and invited anyone who could provide any documented facts that contradicted my post to respond accordingly. I even gave the option of giving us a documented 'fact' to contradict mine without the need to provide evidence of the document, or even where it might be found.
Needless to say that post, despite a proliferation of reality denying posts since, remains unanswered, and so unchallenged.
Quite simply, our deniers are happy to come on here with the same old 'arguments' of, basically, 'he said, they said' nonsense, which, even if everyone they claim said 'it' truly said it, does not constitute factual evidence that Rangers Football Club isn't currently in liquidation and that the current Ibrox incumbent is factually a new club.
Not only is there no documented record of a separate 'club' existing at Ibrox prior to the events of 2012, there is not one mention of it either, anywhere, by anyone, not even in the archives of Ibrox, in over 100 years after the club incorporated!
Things don't exist, not even in peoples' minds, without ever being mentioned. By that, I don't mean that something exists as the result of it being mentioned, I just mean that if something exists, even if only in some peoples' minds, it will get mentioned every so often, and definitely many times in a period of over 100 years!
Anyway, I'd like to say welcome back to Reiver on his return, and he's marked it with an excellent riposte to all those deniers who quote the UEFA rankings as some sort of 'proof' of RFC's continuance. The disclaimer he quoted puts to bed that one, once and for all, but I can guarantee it won't put an end to the deniers claims that the points added to RFC's points proves, beyond doubt, that UEFA recognise them as the same club.
Darkbeforedawn 20th August 2018 at 11:16
I'm afraid I can only conclude you just made that up DBD, which is ironic given that you claim others are wrongly telling you what you think.
The biggest thread on JambosKickback by a considerable distance currently has 2089 pages. The title of the thread is The Rangers Soap Opera Goes On And On, and the thread began on the eve of Valentine's day 2012, a day that I'm sure is etched on the memory of most Scottish fans. The thread covers current and recent events involving the new club playing out of Ibrox, and let's face it there's much to talk about since those connected to Rangers* seem to have a courtroom season ticket, but invariably finds its way back to discussions about the death of the original club and the football authorities’ pathetic attempts to pretend it didn't happen.
Similarly, I've just checked Pie & Bovril, whose longest thread currently stretches to an impressive 10170 pages. The thread title? Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread.
Indeed I've never visited a Scottish club site whose biggest thread isn't about the cheating, death and denial of your late club, so to suggest opinion is restricted to 40 people on here along with 'extreme' Celtic forums, whatever they are, is disingenuous.
I now await accusations that we’re all paranoid about Rangers*.
Hi Ryan.
I don't think the post(sorry can't remember who posted it) was just about showing Your fans in a bad light, I think it was put out there as being Scottish football fans as opposed to naming whatever club they follow.
Another poster either slimjim or LM2(i like that LM2 I can see why he would support ranger mk2), said about the celtic supporter abusing Novo in Belfast the point being it was reported as a CELTIC supporter not a SCOTTISH FOOTBALL FAN.
Each of the incidents so far have had minimal reporting about them or it has said SCOTTISH FANS not your clubs supporters.
Sorry if this sounds all over the place but I am not as converse in writing things as JC, AJ Auldheid I can only apologize for this
Reiver
20th August 2018 at 13:09
========================================
Apparently its the same for tax avoidance, you don't get an advantage by doing it if everyone else could have done it as well. Even if they didn't.
Maybe we should stop jailing people for shop-lifting, we all could do it if we wanted.
Allyjambo
20th August 2018 at 13:09
========================================
Maybe if enough people hold an opinion, even if it is unsubstantiated and in fact even possibly wrong, then that trumps prosaic facts. The opinion becomes true and the fact becomes wrong.
Or, if a group of people are important enough then their opinions outweigh the facts, simply because it is them.
I'm no historian* but am I not correct in saying that there have been quite a few instances of that throughout history.
(* For absolute clarity neither am I a geographer, mathematician, lawyer, accountant, surveyor, police officer, particle physicist, xenobiologist, plumber, costermonger, light entertainer or any number of other things.
I see that the leader of Glasgow City Council has warned the SFA that if they opt to move to Edinburgh and forsake Hampden, they will place a 'historic stain' on Scottish Football.
She clearly has no awareness of the historic moral stain already on the SFA's escutcheon , by the 5-Way agreement which puts an Untruth at the very heart of our Sport.
A physical move to Murrayfield might be a justifiable decision, even if unwelcome.
The creation and propagation of the lie that TRFC Ltd are entitled to the titles and honours of a liquidated club is an unforgiveable crime against the Integrity of Sport, and has rendered our SFA a morally reprehensible, discredited body no longer to be trusted as guardians of sporting honesty, still less multi-million pound 'business' decisions.
Susan Aitken would do better to worry less about where our national stadium should be, and more about restoring the truth , honour and integrity without which football becomes a rigged game instead of genuine sport.
The OC/NC subject is often slated as being too repetitive to be a topic on here but to my mind until it is put to bed every other issue will have no resolution. The 5WA prevents the current club from being found to have cheated because, having been accused, they would have to face punishment. Everyone knows about the cheating but this elephant in the room is not being protected for its ivory. It is not going be shot because the hunter who holds the license knows that he faces serious injury if he pulls the trigger.
The law says the club was part of the company that hit the buffers, that is laid out in black and white in the legislation covering incorporation in Scotland. Also laid out in legislation, the one that covers liquidation, are the facts that the club cannot, MUST not,be allowed to be resurrected on its own volition.
These are the laws of this country and no committee of blazer wearing officials can overrule or ignore them. But ignore them they have.
If they had adhered to the law of the land this would all be resolved. All issues surrounding licensing and responsibility for cheating could have been laid at the door of a club that had died
No, the NC/OC is at the key that will unlock this mess that Scottish football is in.
Homunculus 20th August 2018 at 13:23
Allyjambo
20th August 2018 at 13:09
========================================
Maybe if enough people hold an opinion, even if it is unsubstantiated and in fact even possibly wrong, then that trumps prosaic facts. The opinion becomes true and the fact becomes wrong.
Or, if a group of people are important enough then their opinions outweigh the facts, simply because it is them.
I'm no historian* but am I not correct in saying that there have been quite a few instances of that throughout history.
(* For absolute clarity neither am I a geographer, mathematician, lawyer, accountant, surveyor, police officer, particle physicist, xenobiologist, plumber, costermonger, light entertainer or any number of other things.
===========
I think the perfect example of this is that until a relatively short time ago, the world was flat. It was flat because 'the experts' said it was flat. Suddenly it became round, but not before a lot of people who denied it was flat were ridiculed for saying it was round.
But, and this is the important thing in our long running debate, the earth did not become round because of what the more enlightened people said; it was round, and had always been round, simply because it was (round).
TRFC is a new club, not because of what we said, or even what the hacks prior to the birth of the big lie said, and not because of what the most qualified person to speak on the matter, Andrea Traverso, said, but because they are a new club, and came into being as a result of a football club, that incorporated in 1899, spending more money than it came close to having, and, as a cheating club (as opposed to a club overspending in a search for glory), deserved the ignominious death it came to as a result.
Reiver 20th August 2018 at 13:44
The OC/NC subject is often slated as being too repetitive to be a topic on here but to my mind until it is put to bed every other issue will have no resolution. The 5WA prevents the current club from being found to have cheated because, having been accused, they would have to face punishment. Everyone knows about the cheating but this elephant in the room is not being protected for its ivory. It is not going be shot because the hunter who holds the license knows that he faces serious injury if he pulls the trigger.
The law says the club was part of the company that hit the buffers, that is laid out in black and white in the legislation covering incorporation in Scotland. Also laid out in legislation, the one that covers liquidation, are the facts that the club cannot, MUST not,be allowed to be resurrected on its own volition.
These are the laws of this country and no committee of blazer wearing officials can overrule or ignore them. But ignore them they have.
If they had adhered to the law of the land this would all be resolved. All issues surrounding licensing and responsibility for cheating could have been laid at the door of a club that had died
No, the NC/OC is at the key that will unlock this mess that Scottish football is in.
_______________________
And herein lies the reason for there being no mention of what happens when a football club enters liquidation within the laws of the SFA and SFL (as opposed to the SPL, although it doesn't actually state what should happen, but the wording has been used to RFC/TRFC's benefit) – it was assumed that the law of the land would take precedence over anything the game's governors could write and that the question of continuance would never arise.
DBD
I am not immovable in my stance but, because I base my opinion on facts from law, it would take substantial written proof from similar sources for me to change.
For instance. The laws on incorporation and liquidation are pretty clear and, like most legislation, exceptions will be listed. I am sure that sports clubs that incorporate will have a section detailing that in Act. If it is not listed then there is no path open to continuation and will not be until the law is changed by government or the supreme court.
So there you have it, a simple way to swing opinion on here. Not just me but I'm sure all the sensible folk. You just have to give us the reference to where we can read the exception. If you can't do that then I'm afraid that what you claim is not available to you under the law of land except as a metaphysical concept living in your own head.
I guess that goes back to similar points I have made on here before. As far as the laws of the land concerning incorporation of companies, liquidation etc are concerned then without a doubt it is a new entity. However, in the unprecidented scenario that occured, and with a bit of help from the HMRC statement that allowed Rangers to continue as a football club (the statement that came out the day after the CVA was rejected) the mechanisms were put in place which allowed continuity.
From here the various authorities allowed the transfer of license, the transfer of assets (if this was not allowed, how have the government and trading standards allowed the use of the same name, badge etc?) and set a new UK precident in the event anything like this happens again (I'm sure Rangers wont be the last club this happens too). Since that happened, the authorities (SPL, SPFL, SFA, HMRC, ASA, FIFA and by the 10 year coefficients UEFA) along with the media, the BBC and most of the club chairment all accepted this version of events. There are still a minority who won't accept this version of events as there was no mechanism in law before this case that allowed the scenario to happen. But happen it did, and rightly or wrongly and against the protestations of a lot of the militant 'new club' brigade (newspaper articles, complaints to BBC, ASA etc etc), Rangers continue to be treated as, supported as and reported on as the continuation of the soon to liquidated club. In much the same way as Fiorentina have albeit without the six months they had to play under a different name.
Escutcheon, now there’s a term not often used in this day and age. Wonderful choice of phrase from John Clark.
Scottish football needs cleaner escutcheons.
Darkbeforedawn 20th August 2018 at 15:23
"From here the various authorities allowed the transfer of license, the transfer of assets (if this was not allowed, how have the government and trading standards allowed the use of the same name, badge etc?)"
The answer to this conundrum presumably lies in the fact that nobody complained about it. Who was going to complain about the impact this new brand was going to have? This was not somebody setting up a new burger chain called Donald McRonalds! There is no watchdog body – official or otherwise – as far as I know, scrutinising the brand naming of new business entities to ensure no other rival business' branding rights are breached; although I could be wrong about this. As I understand it, it is the business which believes a rival's branding position breaches its own brand rights that generally objects and seeks redress through the courts. Once again I ask the question, in this particular case, who was going to complain?
Darkbeforedawn 20th August 2018 at 15:23 scenario ….Good word that. Rangers continue to be treated as, supported as and reported on as the continuation of the soon to liquidated club. …………. Not for a time after liquidation they did not.Many media bodies called them and treated them as a new club,and not only the media.(again if we had upload image i could show you many examples of that) It was only when the sh** was hitting the fan with only 250 ST sold the narrative changed,now why was that? BP, Tris please get that upload image sorted
https://thecelticstar.com/i-wont-miss-called-champions-league-gross-elitism-sean-mcdon/
This is a link to a Celtic minded site which may put some off reading the article. That said, however, it’s worth a read and makes a cogent argument against the “gross elitism” of the CL as well as discussing how new technologies might empower football fans once more.
Speaking of badges DBD, is the Red Lion (Ready) badge still used?
Aw, DBD! I now have a conundrum where to start.
I was happy to converse with you because you have been forthright in your recognition of the cheating that went on but now you appear to have broken free from your morality.
Hardly. Third Lanark, Airdrie and Gretna.
No either all clubs are equal within a league in the eyes of the administrators of the game or it is corrupt.
Eh no. A statement from a member of staff from HMRC is not an official statement of policy. Even if it was, HMRC do NOT make the laws of the land they merely act upon them.
I'm sorry? What mechanisms were put in place? Did either Holyrood or Westminster pass a new act of parliament or modified an existing one?
No. Some jumped up blazers put their heads together with crooks and those in the clubs whose interest is not in the sport but only the accounts.
Look back to my first day back and you will see I ask the same question. The answer worries me but I am certain it wasn't "Yes, everything is fine and above board."
The only groups that decided this were the first three and the last. The others asked them for advice in addition to manipulating LNS with that contrived financial witches brew. That is what we are fighting more than OC/NC
You missed some text. Try adding "or after". But you also refer to what you claim to be only a small number. You have no knowledge of the numbers but it matters not because if the law is broken then it is broken. The poll tax was brought in in Scotland before England but large numbers of protesters in Scotland making no difference showed that no matter the number the law stood. Sure when the protests started on Westminster's doorstep the law got changed. Note one thing from this though. Those that withheld their poll tax were chased by the law for many years after the tax was repealed. The repeal did not reverse the fact that the law had been broken.
The numbers do NOT matter if they are in the right.
Half right and many on here would and have supported you on that. "treated as, supported as" is fine in an emotional sense. I am sure the Airdrie United fans behaved the same. But "reported as" that is where the real embarrassment starts. There is no law that says the press must stick to facts as long as they are not slandering(can never remember which one) anyone but morally it is despicable if they print fake news for financial reasons. It is desperate times for the press and they are selling their souls for click bait and sales even to the extent that words such as Sevco are banned on some of our major outlets for fear that Rangers supporters are chased away.
Where the law IS broken is by those who use this resurrection to make money. That, is illegal.
As for Fiorentina, well I do not know the Italian law but you admit they DID play under a different name. For all you and I know maybe the law on Phoenix companies ends after six months there but here, in Scotland, it is measured in years,TRFC has NEVER used another name. Airdrie did and I believe that, now that the time is up, they have adopted the old name. Not because legally they are the same club but because it gave their fans a link to the past.
In summary, we were warned that, if Rangers went out of existence, there would be social unrest. For all we know that may be the very reason that the authorities have turned a blind eye to the law breaking but that doesn't make it right.
The main cause for social unrest in many societies has been the dispensing of a moral standpoint among the masses and that then leads to an ignoring of the law.
One thing is for certain, the binding entity for any society IS the law. Unfortunately you have shown that you are prepared to be selective about which laws you will observe for the sake of watching a group of man kicking about a leather bladder on a field of grass.
Darkbeforedawn 20th August 2018 at 11:16
"the only issue I have is when someone tells me 'I know that my club died'. Who are those people to tell me what I think?"
I don’t think they are telling you how to think I believe they are stating the obvious and if you did not know your club is dead then you do now.
http://thesoccerobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/20120613_rip-rangers.jpg
Mordecai
The law you are referring to is the trade mark law and would take RFC(IL) to sue RCF2012 for using it. Not likely in this situation
But the law on liquidation does make illegal Phoenix companies. That is where a company goes into liquidation and those involved in causing that start up a new company giving it a similar name and operating in the same industry. But I am sure that you are already aware of that and I only make the correction to ensure everyone reading understands.
In the case of those operating out of Ibrox they did this twice. First when Chuck Green bought the assets. Now Chuck claimed to never have met Craig Whyte and went to some lengths to prove it including an internal investigation by (I believe) Pinsent and Masons.(apologies if my memory has failed me here) Of course the Charlotte Fake tapes show how big a lie that was. Once Chucky went on his way it didn't long for the board to be restocked with others from the failed board. The most prominent of these is obviously Mr King.
Now, the Phoenix laws are meant to protect the public by not allowing those who, as officers of a company, have been cavalier with other peoples money and debt to liquidate a company leaving their creditors out of pocket and then resurrect the same company with a different number. Now, I would say that what is currently playing out at Ibrox appears to my untrained eye to be a textbook example of what the law is meant to prevent.
Reiver, I have never tried to hide away from the fact I am embarrassed by how my club acted (and continues to act). I hate the big business mentality of the easy route of administration (and in some cases liquidation) just to stifle creditors. Every day I see another example (this week it's House of Fraser) and every one I find reprihensible. At no point am I trying to condone anything that went down.
I was merely pointing out my own opinion of how we have come to be where we are. Gretna et all were different scenarios in the sense there was no-one willing to take on the business in an asset sale (I believe in all cases they were reformed years later?) so to that extent it was unprecidented. I agree with your points that the government or HMRC have not officially agreed to the narrative – however you cannot tell me they havent noticed what was going on and could have stepped in at any time?
Where there has been examples in British football – Coventry, Leeds, Derry City – where the new business entity has been treated as a continuation of the previous. I guess the entire argument comes down to whether you view a football club as a business entity or as something more (i.e. traditions, fans, history etc?). Can anyone honestly look at the team playing out of Ibrox and notice anything different whatsoever?
And with regards to the ammount of people who believe the different narratives, I don't have the exact numbers but I would imagine the new clubers are very much in the minority. Not from a wide demographic I will admit but I only know of one fan who is adament we are a new club. I would imagine the vast majority of the population know little enough about the politics or events since 2012 and, like myself will not see any difference in the team called Rangers, playing out of Ibrox. And in terms of people who count (i.e the men in charge) – chairmen of clubs, presidents of the governing – bodies – they see Rangers as a continuation of the old.
BB really? A picture from a tabloid that universally on here no-one agrees with anything ever written apart from one front page headline that suits their narrative? I could start posting links to say Rangers are a continuation, and that you know fine well we are. But I would never suggest to know what you think. Are you really expecting me to look at that image and state "well that's me told, I guess we're dead after all. Who the hell was I watching all these years? Ah well, no need for that ticket for Thursday now"
DBD
I understand and applaud your stance on the financial shenanigans but cannot buy into your continuation theory that it is the eyes of the beholder that is the deciding factor. To take that line and have it prove that continuation is fact means that it is not in the eyes of all beholders and it is the eyes of the Rangers supporters that count. Otherwise how I think of the situation, devoid of any legal facts, exists as equally as your view that continuation is fact. To claim that both situations exist at the same time is in the realms of quantum physics.
No, in a situation like that then there must independent judge and jury and the law of the land is the obvious decider. The fact that it should be the overriding arbiter in the first place really trumps all that is in our emotions.
Put yourself in the shoes of the fans of the other teams who looked on as £5 for £10 claims were being thrown about, when top international players were being jetted in by the barrow-load and when the place in Europe was being bought. Bought by money stolen from the exchequer or the Bank of Scotland that we all had to bale out. To see the crash of the club wipe all those debts away only to be told that it wasn't them, that the winning of the cups and the titles would stand as valid and then watch on as the supporters of the old club, without so much as an apology for the events, say "our team still exists" and total disregard for the thoughts of us who lost out through the cheating. That our thoughts were secondary to those who frequented Ibrox and as such or opinions were to be ignored. That that stance was then supported by the very people who were employed to ensure fair play in the sport and the inequality enforced in a secret document that sold the equality rights of our clubs for the benefit of one.
No matter your beliefs that it was a separate entity from the team that spent the stolen money be very, very clear on one fact.The money was spent on and by ONLY your ethereal entity.
Aw, DBD! I now have a conundrum where to start.
I was happy to converse with you because you have been forthright in your recognition of the cheating that went on but now you appear to have broken free from your morality.
Hardly. Third Lanark, Airdrie and Gretna.
No either all clubs are equal within a league in the eyes of the administrators of the game or it is corrupt.
Eh no. A statement from a member of staff from HMRC is not an official statement of policy. Even if it was, HMRC do NOT make the laws of the land they merely act upon them.
I'm sorry? What mechanisms were put in place? Did either Holyrood or Westminster pass a new act of parliament or modified an existing one?
No. Some jumped up blazers put their heads together with crooks and those in the clubs whose interest is not in the sport but only the accounts.
Look back to my first day back and you will see I ask the same question. The answer worries me but I am certain it wasn't "Yes, everything is fine and above board."
The only groups that decided this were the first three and the last. The others asked them for advice in addition to manipulating LNS with that contrived financial witches brew. That is what we are fighting more than OC/NC
You missed some text. Try adding "or after". But you also refer to what you claim to be only a small number. You have no knowledge of the numbers but it matters not because if the law is broken then it is broken. The poll tax was brought in in Scotland before England but large numbers of protesters in Scotland making no difference showed that no matter the number the law stood. Sure when the protests started on Westminster's doorstep the law got changed. Note one thing from this though. Those that withheld their poll tax were chased by the law for many years after the tax was repealed. The repeal did not reverse the fact that the law had been broken.
The numbers do NOT matter if they are in the right.
Half right and many on here would and have supported you on that. "treated as, supported as" is fine in an emotional sense. I am sure the Airdrie United fans behaved the same. But "reported as" that is where the real embarrassment starts. There is no law that says the press must stick to facts as long as they are not slandering(can never remember which one) anyone but morally it is despicable if they print fake news for financial reasons. It is desperate times for the press and they are selling their souls for click bait and sales even to the extent that words such as Sevco are banned on some of our major outlets for fear that Rangers supporters are chased away.
Where the law IS broken is by those who use this resurrection to make money. That, is illegal.
As for Fiorentina, well I do not know the Italian law but you admit they DID play under a different name. For all you and I know maybe the law on Phoenix companies ends after six months there but here, in Scotland, it is measured in years,TRFC has NEVER used another name. Airdrie did and I believe that, now that the time is up, they have adopted the old name. Not because legally they are the same club but because it gave their fans a link to the past.
In summary, we were warned that, if Rangers went out of existence, there would be social unrest. For all we know that may be the very reason that the authorities have turned a blind eye to the law breaking but that doesn't make it right.
The main cause for social unrest in many societies has been the dispensing of a moral standpoint among the masses and that then leads to an ignoring of the law.
One thing is for certain, the binding entity for any society IS the law. Unfortunately you have shown that you are prepared to be selective about which laws you will observe for the sake of watching a group of man kicking about a leather bladder on a field of grass.
Reiver 20th August 2018 at 17:05
Reiver,
Sadly I have to admit you credit me with knowledge I don't possess. I wasn't aware of the intricacies of the Trade Mark legislation. I was relying on mere common sense and my reading of cases where trade mark infringements in the circumstances I described, are brought to court. I have found these particular cases quite fascinating.
However, I now have a better appreciation
of the creation of so-called phoenix companies. I can now understand the situation you refer to where a company goes out of business leaving a lot of debt then immediately resurrects itself as a new company with the same or similar name, branding, officers, etc and the impact that might have on potential customers' perceptions.
I hope I have understood this correctly and if so, thank you for that clarification.
No, at the time I actually didn’t. I knew there had been talk of a Phoenix club for some time, and couldn’t believe that the club wouldn’t exist. I actually thought the newco would be in the SPL with penalties attached (although I was all for going to the third division as the idea of such a paltry penalty for our wrong doings was morally repugnant).
At no point on here have I said that what has happened was right or fair. All I have said is there has been a distinction made whereby a club is seen as an asset of the company, and in this case that asset along with history, badge etc was sold to a different company to allow the continuity of the football team, and that his has been generally accepted by the governing bodies and the media etc in Scotland. I think we’re it not for the Rangers/Celtic element this would never have been discussed again. I’ve tried to read a lot into some of the other clubs who have pheonixed to see if there has been the same outrage or uproar and have so far not come across any.
I could never produce a document showing Rangers coming out of administration because that never happened. Rangers the business went bust. Rangers the football team continued under a different body, and I will honestly be astounded if our next silverware is not added to the existing (UEFA already show it). My view is the club is not the business
Screenshot https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_7LmdtZOnsd1u-g_MIuGcoINBbSmvH6f/view?usp=drivesdk
You’re asking a fan of the club (sorry team
) with a £50m stadium / training ground complex project ahead of it set against 30 years of uncompetitiveness if I see any material difference between the old club with £160m of debt and the new club with what they already wrongly report to be 0? Really?
Reading back and with the aid of some coffee, i feel as if i was applying pressure to Darkbeforedawn to answer my questions.
To me reading back it looks that way,apologies for that
When the rifc
called a general meeting of shareholders on August 31 to approve the issuing of more than £12m worth of new shares.
will this require a
prospectus?
Right. at Lawman's request I have Phoenixed the Bonkers OCNC thread, and there is a link to it on the main menu.
For the avoidance of any confusion it is NOT the same thread as the original – although I have used the same words, and nomenclature. The previous thread was time-stamped and serialised on the old (pre multiple DoS attack) server and has a very different timestamp and serial. However the new thread retains the comments conferred on it by previous posters
Don't know if I've managed to cleanse everything, but if it floats your boat and you have five minutes of your life you won't ever need back, The Bonkers OCNC Thread is the place for you.
I may incorporate Ernie's stuff too if I get time
Update on the Podcasts:
We had intended to resume the podcasts at the weekend. However the seriously expensive bit (£1200) of kit the SFM membership helped us buy went as bonkers as an OCNC thread as I began an interview. It has been sent back for a replacement, and I hope to resume hostilities next week.
Riever, as I said earlier there has never been an example in Scotland similar – where an entire football club has been phoenixed at the time and not years later. I had been looking at many other similar examples in England, Northern Ireland and Europe to see if the attitudes were the same. Which is what brought me to declare this more of a Rangers Celtic think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CMclLT_Hjg
Thanks Big Pink. Im guessing i must have some sort of filter on as i have tried to post something i had written out earlier on the new thread and its still sending it into moderation whereas my other posts are fine on here.
Can you help please.
Big Pink 20th August 2018 at 21:51
Right. at Lawman's request I have Phoenixed the Bonkers OCNC thread, and there is a link to it on the main menu.
For the avoidance of any confusion it is NOT the same thread as the original – although I have used the same words, and nomenclature. The previous thread was time-stamped and serialised on the old (pre multiple DoS attack) server and has a very different timestamp and serial. However the new thread retains the comments conferred on it by previous posters
Don't know if I've managed to cleanse everything, but if it floats your boat and you have five minutes of your life you won't ever need back, The Bonkers OCNC Thread is the place for you.
I may incorporate Ernie's stuff too if I get time
——————————————————————————————
Blimey!
No worries CO, your questions were all asked in a respectful manner and I hope I managed to answer them from my view point. I don’t expect you to agree with them (it would be a boring world if everyone agreed) but hopefully they it has been put across respectfully also
Can I ask…
As the main thrust of the current post is "the big lie" why move comments that address that issue to another thread?
#puzzled
Darkbeforedawn 20th August 2018 at 19.30
The 10 year coefficient table is drawn up from a sporting continuity context in that the results of all clubs playing in UEFA competitions in last ten years are included in the co coefficient calculations, which are then used for income distribution purposes.
The problem is UEFA do not have any reason to exclude Rangers results from that process, given that those results were not wiped out by the LNS Decision that the SFA refuse to revisit.
That is the nub of the problem, not that Rangers are the same club or a new club, but that those results were earned as a result of access to UEFA competitions that might not have happened had the unfair advantage unlawful ebts gave Rangers been recognised and those titles removed (and whilst not unlawful at the time LNS ruled, ebts are and always were unlawful and beyond the power of other clubs to use)
Supporters of other clubs simply do not accept that decision because the LNS Commission was premature (deliberately?) and misled by non disclosure by Rangers themselves in March 2012, and so LNS judged on an issue of administration rather than honesty.
If Rangers supporters were to accept that those titles were won by illegitimate means and surrender them (and therein lines the no surrender mindset problem) then I suggest the whole debate would fall away. The Rangers or Rangers are not going on 55, not 55 honest titles anyway.
If The Rangers want to be accepted as a club who will act in good faith with the rest of Scottish football, they should accept that all trophies and titles won when they were using players paid by ebts were won dishonestly and give them up and stop using UEFA web sites as a reason to argue UEFA recognise the legitimacy of those ill begotten titles.
UEFA don't have a position on the matter, that is down to the SFA who will not reopen the LNS case or revisit The 5 Way Agreement that covered all the dishonesty up.
All that UEFA rules allow for is that anything won before 2011 was won by a different club than the current one.
Either way, won illegitimately or by a different club the effect is the same – not going for 55.
Its just a matter of Rangers supporters accepting which of those two options is the more bearable or if too much to bear, keep arguing wrong is right because that is the only alternative to facing the truth. (see what I did there?
)
If it were Celtic in that position I wouldn't want titles "won" in the circumstances that Rangers did besmirching Celtic's history.
If you want to be seen as the same club, accept all of that history including the bit that shames you, apologise to the rest of Scottish football for it and then we can all move on.
Until then nothing Rangers "won" from 2000 to 2011 is recognised as legitimate by supporters of other clubs who not only feel they were cheated but paid out good money to be so.
The anger from that will simply not go away and no matter what future records might say they will carry no legitimacy.
Darkbeforedawn in reply to 20th August 2018 at 17:12………”I could start posting links to say Rangers are a continuation, and that you know fine well we are.”
That would be welcomed on here but for some reason i am sure it will still be without substance and or supported by evidence.
The pictures and comments from the media and various management , players and TUPEs and the liquidation and court decisons and HMRC decision, was not created to suit a narrative for my or others benefit.
What you have been watching is a team which you believe in your imagination is the same as claimed by a QC in a court of law without objection to the statement.
If you are stating all of the above are wrong then you should organise a fund me to sue the media etc for causing the demise and condition your belief of the same club finds itself in.
I have no problem accepting the truth but i believe the evidence presented regulary on here has bebunked any evidence you presented or could present.
HirsutePursuit 20th August 2018 at 22:59
Can I ask…
As the main thrust of the current post is "the big lie" why move comments that address that issue to another thread?
#puzzled
___________________________________
Probably because so many people complain about "circular arguments" and sabotaging the forum solely based on the fact a couple of people dont agree with them. With the thread elsewhere, people can choose to try and discuss it without derailing this thread, though to be fair, i agree with you on the premise of this specific blog versus previous ones.
Darkbeforedawn 20th August 2018 at 19:30
I could never produce a document showing Rangers coming out of administration because that never happened.
———————————————————————-
In the same way you will never be able to answer the question.
"If Rangers were the same club, why did they have to ask for transfer of SFA membership or seek associate membership of the SFA?"
The club was surely already a SFA member and the issue should have merely about where they could play in season 2012/13.
The SPL dealt with how it decided who could own its shares in the appropriate manner. You may disagree with the vote but it was all above aboard and undertaken in a business like fashion.
Despite all the threats, the SFL kindly accepted a club into their family and slotted them into the lowest division.
The only question left for the remaining footballing authority is why did the SFA need to transfer old or create a new membership for an entity you surely must believe is one of their oldest and most successful members, given that all their footballing history was intact?
When exactly did Rangers lose their membership of the SFA and why was that the case?
When exactly did Rangers lose their membership of the SFA and why was that the case?
They never. The membership was transferred from one owner to the new owner, according to Stewart Regan.
I have to state that I share Hirsute Pursuits puzzlement as to why the OC/NC comments are being sidelined. It is an integral part of the raisin d’etre of this site and as HP correctly points out, it was the latest blog which re-animated that debate. Does this mean the outliers have succeeded?
p.s. There doesnt yet appear to be a link to the new thread.
If you are looking for a quite spectacular example of presentational inexactitude, how about the following:
https://spfl.co.uk/news/joint-statement-2012-07-27
This statement suggested that upcoming the Brechin game could only go ahead because a hitherto unknown "conditional" membership was necessary and had been issued.
Oh how we all puzzled at this new membership category! What we should have focused on was why it was necessary in the first place.Sevco had already been admitted into the SFL and this had also given them registered membership of the SFA.
There was no competition rule that the SFA had to issue any further membership type before Sevco could take part. The only stipulation of the SFL membership was that Sevco had to APPLY for associate or full membership of the SFA within 14 days. Sevco had APPLIED for the transfer of Rangers full SFA membership – so had complied with the SFL's requirement.
There was no timescale in any of the regulations on how long the SFA must take to make a decision. Theoretically, the SFA could have taken months or even years before giving a definitive response.
So, it remained a mystery for some time why the SFA chose to make any statement on the 27th July.
Then the "secret" 5-way-agreement made it all clear:
The key word here is SUSPENSIVE – something "that suspends, defers, or temporarily stops something"
The 5WA confirms that their was no membership issued to Sevco Scotland on the 27th July – only a commitment that the full membership would be transferred when the stated conditions had been met.
So, if it wasn't the membership, what was it that was needed to allow "…Sunday’s Ramsdens Cup tie against Brechin City to go ahead"?
The SFA's article 10.3 is instructive:
For Sevco Scotland to take to the field against Brechin – critically using the "Rangers FC" trading style – it needed the prior permission of the SFA board. This was duly given and communicated .
Sevco Scotland had been a registered member of the SFA (through its membership of the SFL) since 13th July.
Rangers retained its full SFA membership until the 3rd August 2012.
What should have been a short and simple statement to say "The Board of the SFA has given Sevco Scotland permission to use the Rangers FC name", instead became an exercise in sophistry.
TheLawMan2 20th August 2018 at 23:42
0
2
Rate This
When exactly did Rangers lose their membership of the SFA and why was that the case?
They never. The membership was transferred from one owner to the new owner, according to Stewart Regan.
…………………………..
Rangers lost its membership of the SFA on 3rd August when its SPL membership was transferred to Dundee FC (its registered SFA membership via SPL membership) and on the same day its full SFA membership was transferred to Sevco Scotland (by then renamed The Rangers Football Club Ltd)
Of course Sevco Scotland had been a (registered) member of the SFA since 13th July.
So, who played Brechin?