.. 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.
bigboab1916 20th August 2018 at 23:09
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.
…………………..
Great sentence that. was not created to suit a narrative for my or others benefit.
Wish i had thought of that,would have saved me asking all those questions.
ADMIN – i have put this in the wrong thread, even although it answers a post in this thread. Happy for it to be removed and i have copied into the other thread.
bigboab1916 20th August 2018 at 23:09
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.
_______________________________________________–
The pictures and comments from media, players and management mean absolutely zero. And that is true of both sides of the debate. Nothing is proven by Dermott Desmond or Neil lennon saying we are the same club and equally nothing is proven by Gough or Walter Smith saying we are a new club.
TUPE is the law. The existence of the administration event and the subsequent “takeover” meant every person employed by Rangers was entitled to TUPE. But remember, in order for TUPE to be relevant, then there has to be a continuation of something. Otherwise its a brand new company with no past and can employ new people without taking on the huge cost of potentital redundancy payments (job continuation) and inflated salaries.
HMRC made one statement on the case and that 100% SUPPORTED same club even in liquidation. Again, i use the word SUPPORT and not PROVED.
As for courts, there has been i think 3, possibly 4 high profile cases that at given points touched on the club and its existence post liquidation. Whilst none of them were being specifically asked to rule on the specific point of new/old club, all 4 of them in the summary findings again supported the view its the SAME club. Again, im not entering this as ultimate proof, but simply narrative around supporting it.
I too share the feelings of Hirsute and Ludo.
There are many of the serious who recognised the attempts to deflect and derail the site with circular arguments but see the need to continue the OC/NC debate. Not to prove one or two continuity believers wrong but to make sure that every relevant part of the issue is displayed repeatedly for those first time or irregular visitors whose only other source of info is the seriously compromised MSM. If the subject is relegated to a sub-forum then those that attempt to derail the site have succeeded because accessing that sub-forum is not something that casual visitors will bother to do.
If we decide that OC/NC is too repetitive for a place on the main blog, and in this case a blog whose subject matter IS OC/NC, at what stage do we decide the same for 2011 licensing or the manipulation of LNS? What then? Do we only discuss our administrators current faux pas, current hot/cold ball cup draws or biased referees?
If we continue that line then the site might as well close because THEY would have been proven right, we WILL have moved on.
Darkbeforedawn……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…..
Question. What was the name of the selling company?
HirsutePursuit 20th August 2018 at 22:59 38 0 Rate This 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
____________
Looks like an outcome a troll might think of as a major result
Some time ago we discussed creating a library of factual material about the way the authorities handled the demise of the club and the subsequent phoenixing of the business.
It never happened for whatever reason.
I think it should, and as a matter of priority, because without it we leave ourselves open to flat-earth type challenges and discussions that might provide a certain amount of enjoyment for some on either side of the debate but which add no value, are not campaignable and will never change anything.
In the 6 or so years this blog has been running there is a wealth of factual material that should be set out as the reason for our continuance.
i.e The things that were wrong and how we want them to be changed by those who perpetrated the various actions.
The closest any of us have ever got to that is the factual and legal basis pursued by the Resolution 12 shareholders.
By not doing that we are selling ourselves short and are not capturing the hearts of the fans.
Worse still we are leaving ourselves open to being irrelevant opinions in an irrelevant circular discussion because the rest of the football world has moved on and doesn't care enough to listen or do anything about it.
TheLawMan2 21st August 2018 at 07:36
'..But remember, in order for TUPE to be relevant, then there has to be a continuation of something. '
Rubbish!
Certainly,there has to be a new entity, built on the assets that were bought/stripped: that does not mean that the old entity continues in existence.
Your point would be relevant if Charles Green had bought Rangers Football Club plc from Craig Whyte, as the latter bought it from SDM in a genuine change of ownership.
But he did not. He merely bought some assets, and created a new football club which would utilise those assets.
By very definition that club was a new club.
And everything said or done by the SFA to deny that fact is a denial of objective truth, true in the law of the land and in Sporting law.
And, sooner or later, the sporting record books will have to recognise the truth:Rangers Football Club of 1872 is dead, and ceased to participate in Scottish Football in 2012.
You and other supporters of the dead club may transfer your loyalty and affection, and pay your money to TRFC Ltdand call that new club 'Rangers'.
Do so by all means, with my blessing.
But do not continue to try to pervert the sporting records of Scottish Football.
Claiming sporting honours not won is pointless and crass.
I'm with you on that Finloch.
In fact it is something I was intending to do with the respect to OC/NC when time permitted.
What I was considering was a split page type of set up with one side for the arguments for OC and the other for NC. There would be hyperlinks to the documental evidence for both as well as the same as a counter points. It would be open for proponents of both sides of the argument to submit entries but with a gatekeeper to guard against attempts at disruption.
Arguments would be allowed without supporting evidence but that lack would be highlighted.
The final document would then be available to anyone, in particular the undecided, to view and use to balance the arguments against each other.
I would see it visually as a simple two column affair with a brief summary of the points, pro and con, that in themselves be hyperlinks to the full argument and counter argument and the links to the documented proof.
As I say, the time needs to be set aside to tackle the initial set up. The summer months for a gardener and DIY guy like myself are not the best and winter is probably still too far off(I hope) but perhaps a compromise could be found. I would be happy to receive PMs with suggested points from both sides. Let's not clog the main forum with that. A regular summary could be posted on OC/NC forum that should be referred to to prevent me receiving too many duplicate PMs.
Of course, Finloch and myself may be isolated in our view of a need for the like so put us right if that is the case
Big Pink, can I ask that you give everyone a chance to answer the documented and factual question I posed over the past week regarding the incorporation of Rangers FC and also the question – would there be any kind of Rangers at Ibrox if Sevco (Scotland) Ltd hadn't changed it's name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd?
I've posed these questions a number of times over the past year and not once had a reply, but I am sure those deniers who continually post 'he said, they said' type reasonings are busy just now searching through every conceivable source for something factual with which to contradict what I posted. It is only fair that they are given a chance to give us their factual (for once) reply.
You see, I think circular arguments only come about when the points under discussion are linked to matters of opinion of what something might mean or indicate, but an argument based on factual evidence, alone, must have a conclusion. So, if one side of the debate uses documented facts, then the other side must counter with similar facts, and not opinions or the unsupported opinions of others they may perceive as having some authority on the matter.
I think those who proclaim TRFC and RFC to be one and the same should be given a chance to counter all future posts that pose questions based on documented fact, provided they too can provide some document to counter the fact presented. But if they can't…
LM2, “then there has to be a continuation of something.”
Yes indeed Lawman2. That something being a legal entity than can employ people, pay tax and NI and sell tickets etc.
RFC, the previous legal entity ran up massive debts and went out of business. Charles Green came along formed a new company and bought some of the distressed assets from the company that was being liquidated. Crucially though the debts remained with the old company.
And this is where we part company. You believe the football club survived. I disagree about that and that’s where I’m leaving it. It was interesting that even Alan Rough, when he was on the Real Radio phone-in, observed that it was the strangest administration he had encountered. Then again nothing in the whole Rangers debacle has been straightforward and by the book.
How depressing
This blog used to be so much better before it was invaded by a saboteur with multiple accounts who makes no financial contribution to the blog
Could I add my very rare tuppence worth to the OC/NC thing?
If you return time after time to a discussion where you have been presented with irrefutable documentary evidence and (naturally) can produce no relevant counter-evidence then it’s not a circular argument, it’s trolling.
I don’t believe that the trolls will be satisfied with the echo chamber of a dedicated OC/NC thread as it would not fulfill their sole purpose for engaging with SFM, ie disrupting the biggest threat to the big lie.
I'm surprised to read about this from Chris Sutton, but will ask – why now? Why is this idea, that Kyle Lafferty could be a disruptive influence on Steven Gerrard's squad*, only being aired now, many weeks after TRFC first started to pursue Kyle Lafferty. If it wasn't Chris Sutton making the point (alledgedly), who I find it hard to believe would allow himself to be part of the TRFC PR machine, I'd suggest it might well be the start of a failed signing bid deflection process.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1005922/Rangers-transfer-news-Steven-Gerrard-Kyle-Lafferty-Hearts
*Is it only a Steven Gerrard squad that Lafferty could disrupt, or is it only his squad that matters? Seems a bit bizarre as, as far as I'm aware, there's been no reports of him disrupting Craig Levein's squad, far from it, in fact.
Other ernie's are available (and have seniority over the Becker identity).
Much as I get frustrated with the troll it is important not to derail the blog by sterilising everyone else; that's the point of trolling. Ignore it, that is, do not feel it is necessary to answer every circuitous argument. I know we have some excellent posters on here who have a level of integrity that demands they should "right wrongs" but you have to desist. This guy is playing you. As long as he gets bites he'll keep fishing.
The following letter will be snailing its way to London in half an hour or so when I post it on my up to Stirling.
The statement referred to annoyed me intensely at the time: I always felt from its tone that it simply had to have been written by a Scottish officer of HMRC who happened to be a supporter of RFC pl who could not divorce his personal feelings from his official functions as an impartial officer of the Crown!
" 21th August, 2018
Mr David Bunting,
Interim General Counsel and Solicitor,
HMRC,
100 Parliament St.,
London SW1A 2BQ
Dear Mr Bunting,
The Liquidation of Rangers Football Club plc in 2012/ HMRC
May I ask you, please, to cast an eye over the following statement issued in 2012 by HMRC to give comfort to the supporters of Rangers Football Club plc which, because HMRC would not agree to a CVA, was liquidated in 2012?
“Statement on Rangers Football Club
"A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.
So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start."
see this link
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130502100322/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/rangers.htm
This statement is, I believe, an extraordinary endorsement of the vile practice under which the Directors of a debt-laden football club choose to put the club into Administration to shed the debt, in the expectation that the Administrators will fail to find a buyer who is prepared to take on the debt as part of the cost of buying the club, and thus be constrained to offer for sale such assets as may be legally sold, to a pre-agreed preferred bidder.
In 2012, Rangers Football Club plc, owned and operated by The Rangers FC Group Ltd went into Administration.
The Administrators failed to find a buyer, due to the possibility that any bidder might find that he was taking on liability for a huge mountain of tax indebtedness to HMRC.
The Administrators then entered an agreement with their 'preferred bidder' under which, if a CVA could not be arrived at with the Creditors, they would sell those of the assets of the football club(and only those) that their powers allowed them to sell, to that preferred bidder.
In the event, no CVA was reached, and the legally saleable assets were indeed sold to a new company set up by that preferred bidder, SevcoScotland Ltd.
This company did not, of course, become the owners of Rangers Football Club plc, which was allowed to sink into Liquidation: where it still is, under the new name given to it (RFC 2012 plc) very shortly before the Liquidation order was signed.
The Rangers FC Group, the 'holding company' of the Liquidated club, itself stayed alive as a legal entity, neither in Liquidation nor in Administration: and, indeed, it is currently in litigation with the Liquidators of the Rangers Football Club plc (aka Rangers 2012 plc(IL))
That is, it was Rangers Football Club and NOT its 'holding company' that went bust.
The consequences of that were two-fold: the club lost its entitlement to the share it held in the then Scottish Premier League, and in consequence of that, lost its entitlement to membership of the Scottish Football Association. It therefore ceased to be a football club recognised by the Scottish Football Association.
SevcoScotland Ltd, not itself being a football club, had to go through the process of applying for membership of a recognised football league in Scotland.
It was not admitted to the Scottish Premier league, nor was it admitted either to the First Division or to the Second Division of the then Scottish Football League.
It was, however, admitted to the Third Division of that latter League and came into existence as a football club named "The Rangers Football Club Ltd" (TRFC Ltd)on 29th of May 2012The club that has played at Ibrox Stadium since then is manifestly not a 'continuity Rangers Football Club' of 1872 vintage!
I accordingly take great exception to such a statement from HMRC as the one I cite above, and in particular with the last sentence in that statement :'Rangers can make fresh start'If HMRC consider that TRFC Ltd is indeed the same debt-laden club that is lying in Liquidation I would expect the most vigorous efforts to be made to collect the millions of pounds of outstanding tax debt due from it.
I would also expect that it is no business of HMRC to seek to give comfort either to a new club that claims, apparently with HMRC approval, to be entitled to the name and sporting honours of a liquidated club but resolutely refuses to acknowledge any liability for the millions of pounds of tax and other debts owed by that club, or to those who support that new club in its false claims.
I suggest that you refer this matter to whomever it was who issued the statement with a view to issuing an amended statement which makes it clear that HMRC is not at all any kind of authority on what constitutes a football club, and that it does not subscribe to the claim that TRFC Ltd is the very same club as the RFC plc/Rangers 2012 plc.
Yours sincerely,
(me, real name and address)"
Allyjambo 21st August 2018 at 09:47
I'm surprised to read about this from Chris Sutton, but will ask – why now? Why is this idea, that Kyle Lafferty could be a disruptive influence on Steven Gerrard's squad*, only being aired now, many weeks after TRFC first started to pursue Kyle Lafferty. If it wasn't Chris Sutton making the point (alledgedly), who I find it hard to believe would allow himself to be part of the TRFC PR machine, I'd suggest it might well be the start of a failed signing bid deflection process.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1005922/Rangers-transfer-news-Steven-Gerrard-Kyle-Lafferty-Hearts
*Is it only a Steven Gerrard squad that Lafferty could disrupt, or is it only his squad that matters? Seems a bit bizarre as, as far as I'm aware, there's been no reports of him disrupting Craig Levein's squad, far from it, in fact.
_____________________________________
Sutton made similar comments at the beginning of the month when Rangers made their initial bid and can be easily found online.
He wasn't sure if Lafferty would play regularly at Ibrox so questioned why he would move there. He also thought with his past behaviour that might be a bit of a risk for Rangers and not one he though was worth taking. He Liked Lafferty as a player and thought Rangers bid was too low and Hearts shouldn't accept it.
On the offer Craig Levein had no problem with clubs trying to 'penny pinch' (his words) players as he does that himself and saw it as part of the business. Levein's comments on the matter are also easily found online.
I've warmed to Sutton and think he's one of the best pundits in the media. He always sticks up for Scottish football when given the chance. Can't see much of an issue here.
Well done JC, I admire your indefatigability! Although I don't hold much hope of a correction statement.
Interestingly, a couple of points from the quote;
"A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.
So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start."
As you say, the statement from HMRC may have come from a Govan-facing individual, however, I have highlighted two parts of this text, (being used by the "Flat Earth Society" to somehow justify the continuation myth). As I read it, this does no such thing.
The preferred, proposed sale of the club was through the CVA route, but when HMRC ensured this would fail, as we all know, the club was consigned to liquidation. As far as I can see there could still have been a sale of the club from liquidation, had the liquidators been offered a sum which would have cleared all the debts, their admin. costs and covered the asset values.
The Glib one even toyed with the idea, or at least teased the gullabillys with such a notion.
Hence sale of the club was possible, but as we know that did not happen and a selection of the assets were purchased instead.
HMRC also state Rangers can make a fresh start, but crucially make no reference to which Rangers AND a fresh start does not mean continuation. Had the HMRC statement read; "should the entire business, including debts, be sold from liquidation, Rangers FC (PLC) can continue to play football at Ibrox." then it could be read as HMRC affirming an avenue for continuation.
They did not! Football can continue at Ibrox and Rangers can make a fresh start are exactly what have happened. A fresh start for a new club, Sevco Scotland Ltd (now called Rangers) and football continuing at Ibrox.
LM2
..and I have given my response. The examples are not relevant as the differences are stark but Hey-Ho.
Last week a very prolific poster here made out that a reported bid had been made for Morelos to undermine his club, in a similar fashion to that of TRFC since it's inception. You know, the weeks and weeks of relentless copy demanding that clubs such as, Hibs, Hearts, St Johnstone, Hamilton sell at knockdown prices, on the never, never, to TRFC or be responsible for spoiling a player's career, and even expected Aberdeen to release their manager for the greater good of his career and TRFC's march to glory. It was, and still is, relentless, with nary a thought on the effect such transfers might have on the clubs unfortunate enough to be pressured into parting with a cherished asset on the cheap.
Well, TRFC are having a taste of their own medicine now, with that relentless campaign in the French press to force them to sell Morelos to Bordeaux.
It is happening, isn't it, the press is full of reasons why TRFC must sell, surely? Or did it turn out to be no more than a one-off puff peice – an excuse to raise the profile of a player they might like/need to sell (purely for financial reasons)?
Charles Green 07:55, 13 JUN 2012
Your reaction to HMRC blocking CVA?
It is very disappointing. I hadn’t spoken to HMRC directly but what I do know is Duff and Phelps had various discussions with them over the past few months and I had no reason to doubt what they told me.
To read in Paul Clark’s statement today that HMRC are saying this is a policy decision – is it a policy from HMRC that came out this morning?
If this has always been their policy why didn’t they tell us this in February or March and save a lot of money and time?
And you are saying they didn’t tell you that?
There was a meeting set up for Monday at 2 o’clock, between Deloitte and HMRC. It was cancelled.
By whom?
By HMRC.
Are you saying you didn’t see this coming today?
Not at all. If we had known this in March – and forget about the effect that it’s had on Duff & Phelps – then the minute Bill Miller withdrew and we became preferred bidder we would’ve gone down the newco route. I spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on fees for professionals for a deal that could never happen.
But people have said that this was always HMRC’s policy. Are you really saying you never got that feedback?
No. Not at all.
You are now being seen as the guy who took Rangers into liquidation or who didn’t do enough to keep them out?
Neither of those things are fair. What I’ve said consistently is that the approval of the CVA would be purely down to HMRC and Ticketus.
What I have said throughout the process – because information fed back to me has always been that we’re talking to HMRC, they haven’t turned it down, so I had to be encouraged – was that I was not in control of that. HMRC have confirmed to Duff & Phelps they would vote in favour.
You can’t downplay the significance of today, it’s a momentous day for Rangers?
I said last week I thought next Thursday, ie this Thursday, was the most important day in Rangers’ history.
But you didn’t even make it to Thursday?
No. Could HMRC change their mind again and at the CVA meeting on Thursday? I would urge everyone to lobby to see if we can get this ridiculous decision overturned because it cannot be in the best interest of taxpayers. Cannot be.
HMRC statement talks about them pursuing previous owners?
My understanding, and I’m not a lawyer, is that going down this route preserves the position they can go after previous owners. But if pursuing previous owners by this mechanism destroys a lot of the hopes and aspirations of the fans, the club and the people associated with it, then my answer would be pursue them through the courts in a different manner, not force this on them.
I understand the logic of not doing deals with people who have failed to pay tax and have made these problems but that is not my group.
We haven’t failed to pay tax. I would understand this decision if Whyte was here or if Murray was here, who initiated the original problem.
Some of your weekend comments about signing targets and a £30million share issue could have antagonised HMRC and blown any chances of delivering CVA?
Then HMRC are stupid if they think that. If I wanted to go and sign Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi and pay them the salaries they get paid, 50 per cent of what I pay them goes back on PAYE so that could be the best news HMRC could have.
They would recoup PAYE and NIC at huge levels. Or we can play non-league football paying £300 every week to players who don’t pay 60 per cent tax.
You are certain you have a binding agreement for an asset sale?
We said consistently throughout that in the event of the CVA being rejected the contract would automatically default into an asset purchase.
Nothing has changed as far as we are concerned. The contract is a binding contract between both parties and this is not a situation where someone can come in now and do another deal. As far as we are concerned we have a binding contract.
So others can’t come in and challenge that?
If someone wants to challenge then my answer is I was criticised weeks ago because no one had ever heard of me, I came in at the last minute, I had appeared from nowhere. Well now people are saying have I got the chance to bid.
But everyone had the chance to bid for this company from February 14 until May 13 when I was given exclusivity, whether it was Blue Knights, Bill Miller, Uncle Tom Cobley or a host of other people who had approached the administrator and no one had put out a credible deal.
Some smart guy might want to come along but all that does is put the fans in limbo again. As far as we’re concerned we have a binding contract with Duff & Phelps.
Three-year European ban as a newco – what does that do for your projections?
We knew what the consequences were and what the opportunities were. If the CVA does fail on Thursday, and it is looking as if it will on HMRC’s current position, then we are not even in the SPL. Forget about playing in Europe we might not even be playing in Glasgow!
When will you start the moves to get into the SFA and SPL?
I have spoken to the SPL and the SFA today and meetings have been set up so those talks are ongoing.
People say the club should take its punishment and accept a drop to Division Three – is that an option or will you apply to SPL?
You would need approval for Division Three and there wouldn’t even be a guarantee of that. My view is anyone who creates a crime like this club did has to have punishment. Whether it’s my backside that gets kicked or someone else’s is an issue but unfortunately it’s mine that’s here and the others have disappeared. So we have to take some punishment.
Will you now lobby other clubs ahead of newco vote?
It’s important that while we are competitors on the field we need to be unified in the product, because the value of the SPL in terms of its image and its marketing rights is not to have a disparate group of people who aren’t prepared to work together.
You could agree to do away with the 11-1 vote to get clubs onside with you?
If the CVA gets rejected then one minute later we won’t be a member of the SPL. And therefore there can’t be an 11-1 vote because they would only have 11 members of the club. So that vote would occur without us.
Player contracts – they can all leave for free under TUPE regulations?
We would expect that all of the employees including the players would transfer into newco.
Can you be sure of that?
No. You can’t be sure. Someone may decide they don’t want to be part of the newco. But at that point they would be in breach of contract.
Is it true you lost a major investor at the weekend and you don’t have money to fund the club once you get control?
Let’s stop these rumours running around. Last week it was said I didn’t have any money to buy the club, I was using season-ticket money. Then I explained I had paid the administrators the money required in the contract, how could I have done that when I haven’t even put season tickets up for sale? The next thing being said is that when I buy it I don’t have money to run the club. In a month’s time, when I’ve dealt with that myth, I’ll be accused of not having enough money to buy Lionel Messi. And when I buy Lionel Messi I won’t have enough money to put a rocket on the moon. Every time someone comes up with something it’s proved to be rubbish.
People see you as the villain of the piece today?
I didn’t expect to be getting it in the neck and I don’t accept that at any stage I’m the villain of the piece. If I wasn’t here there would be no one buying this club. All the bidders disappeared. But if there’s someone out there now who wants this club, then turn up, sign a cheque, we’ll go out the door and they can take over.
Sad day for Rangers?
“It’s a sad day for the club, for the fans … HMRC have got a lot to answer for.
Allyjambo. I made no such allegation. I was being sarcastic and pointing out the stark difference on how these things are looked at.
Apologies if that wasn't obvious but I have been very clear that I think fans on all sides who think the media or referees are out to get them are 100% wrong in my opinion.
However Chic got it all wrong on TUPE
https://www.employmentlawworldview.com/rangers-score-own-goal-over-tupe/
In addition, if an employee objects to the transfer, there will be no transfer of his contract, and so the buyer will not get the benefit of any restrictive covenants contained within it. Every employee is entitled to object to the transfer of their employment, so prospective buyers should make sure the key employees are not off-side and likely to walk away.
One or two recent posts have referred to "phoenixing" and the lack of investigation into this, where a company goes bust, leaving a pile of debts to hundreds of creditors. Then almost immediately starts operating under a different company name, soon to be changed to almost the original name and thereafter claim to be the same business/club, that run up all the debt in the first place.
I am sure the insolvency service has rules and regulations designed to discourage or prevent this very scenario happening. Yet happen it has….
Does anyone know if anyone, perhaps a creditor of the old club, has made a complaint against this????
https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/ExternalOnlineForms/BreachQuestionnaire.aspx
The above link allows for such a complaint to be made although it would probably hold more water if coming from a creditor.
Although the form is not anonymous, would it be worth bombarding them with complaints individually, as concerned citizens, abhorred at the Social Tax evasion without any apparent penalty???
Riever. I will look at your response this evening. Cheers.
CPS drops all charges against former Hillsborough officer
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/aug/21/cps-drops-all-charges-against-former-hillsborough-police-officer-norman-bettison
Just on the SFA's "transfer of full membership."
Has anyone ever nailed the definition of a membership in the SFA's context per the statements that HP has listed above?
To use the well worn golf club analogy when auld Jimmy died I "got his membership" I having been in the waiting list previously, the number of full members being capped due to course capacity constraints. For the absence of doubt I am not Jimmy reincarnate. Jimmy was over 18 and knew one end of a club (small c and an iron shafted bat in case Rodney's reading this) from the other. For those reasons, plus the ironically relevant fact he paid his annual dues, he was considered a full member. For exactly the same reasons I got a full membership. With regards the course capacity issues "Jimmy's full membership" was transferred to me. Because of that membership I have exactly the same playing rights as Jimmy had save for the fact that Jimmy's handicap was not transferred, nor will the name on the wall for the 1955 club championship be changing. Nor for that matter will it be appearing on my golfing cv any time soon either.
The point being the rights of the club in possession of SFA full membership won't change, hence the phrase "full membership". But what wins leagues and cups? Is it a membership?
What was transferred subject to and conditional on giving Dundee the privilege of 6 days notice of SPL participation? "A membership" or simply membership status?
TheLawMan2 21st August 2018 at 12:21 0 3 Rate This Allyjambo at 909. I have given 3 other examples of ncorporated clubs with full links tmon the other thread. Could you please review and revert with questions on there.
____________
Did you provide documentary evidence that a separate club existed after incorporation, or are you again pushing your own opinions of what different examples might mean?
But really, you continue to fail to provide anything factual or documented to make your case, and ignore the questions posed. Is there a document that shows a club separate from the incorporated club continued to exist, or came into being?
Has any reference ever been made to it since incorporation? Is there any record, at all, of a second Rangers Football Club existing, or a mention of it in any of the millions of words and dozens of books written about Rangers prior to the failed CVA? Has any reference been made of a separate club from TRFC Ltd since 2012 other than in discussions surrounding the OC/NC debate? Can you tell us what function this separate club fills? Can you tell us why on earth it would exist if it's never been seen, heard or even spoken of?
Of course, I'm not bothered whether or not you answer that list of questions, for there can be no factual answer, just opinion formed from wishful thinking, but you might like to attempt to answer the one surrounding incorporation, Rangers incorporation, and the paucity of any solid evidence that two entities, both called Rangers Football Club, were formed when the club became a limited company.
You might also like to answer the question – if Sevco (Scotland) Ltd had not changed it's name to 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd' would there be a 'Rangers FC' playing out of Ibrox in the SPFL today? And if you want to assure us there would be, could you provide the mechanics of how such an amazing event could possibly come about?
Lawman2
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) known colloquially as TUPE and pronounced tu-pee,[1] are the United Kingdom's implementation of the European Union Transfer of Undertakings Directive.[2] It is an important part of UK labour law, protecting employees whose business is being transferred to another business. The 2006 regulations replace the old 1981 regulations (SI 1981/1794) which implemented the original Directive.[3]. The law has been amended in 2014 and various provisions within the 2006 Regulations have altered
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Undertakings_(Protection_of_Employment)_Regulations_2006
(as an aside a protection for workers that might disappear under Brexit)
I experienced and welcomed its existence back in the late 90s when the UK Government was market testing parts of Government services to see if they could be run more cheaply and efficiently by the private sector.
But for TUPE a goodly number of dedicated technical staff could have found themselves working for Arthur Andersen or such like in conditions inferior to those enjoyed in Government and so public service.
I submit that Naismith etc used that protection of employment conditions aspect (not fancying life in the SFL under Green) to continue their gainful employment elsewhere as their current employers (Rangers FC) ceased to exist as the same legal entity those footballers had a contract of employment with to play football, a contract that Rangers FC were no longer in a position to honour.
I was surprised at the time Green was unaware of the consequences of TUPE – the hint was in its title.
My staff won the test btw.
Id flip that question the other way AJ. As long as there was a club with "Rangers" in the title that everyone commonly referred to as "Rangers" who's base crowd, media exposure and generous, ahem, benefactors would ensure would be competing at the top end in relative short order to sustain and enhance said base crowd what was gained in addition by going down the semantic route they (the rest of the clubs) did. Id be interested how many absentee Leicester fans maintained their principles with two weeks to go sitting atop the premiership.
And no, for the absence of doubt, I haven't extensively researched the Leicester case!
From Companies House:
RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
21 Aug 2018 Appointment of Mr Julian Juul Wolhardt as a director on 21 August 2018
SFNASA
Smugas
When the SFA transferred Rangers full membership to Sevco, it transferred nothing more than the rights associated with being a full member of the SFA. Attending AGMs, voting, etc
If memory serves me right (it may not) Gretna was a member of the FA until the late 1990's when it applied to join the SFL.
Its membership of the FA or SFA did not define its existence as a football club.
It was founded in the 1940's (I think) as an unincorporated association, incorporated in the noughties and ceased to exist in 2008.
TheLawMan2 21st August 2018 at 07:36TUPE is the law. The existence of the administration event and the subsequent “takeover” meant every person employed by Rangers was entitled to TUPE. But remember, in order for TUPE to be relevant, then there has to be a continuation of something. Otherwise its a brand new company with no past and can employ new people without taking on the huge cost of potentital redundancy payments (job continuation) and inflated salaries."
In a continuation there is no rights for an employee to TUPE ( this would be a loss to a new owner in experienced staff been allowed to leave etc) as it is merely a takeover, simply a change of ownership and, therefore in a takeover there is no change just new hands at the helm, there can be no change to conditions or contracts ( would be in breach to change terma and conditions) the owner promises/ has to keep on all staff and the business the employee has no rights in a takeover except to his conditions must remain the same. I thought Fraser Wiahart would have explained that to you.
And…
RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
21 Aug 2018 PSC01 Notification of Julian Juul Wolhardt as a person with significant control on 21 August 2018
SFNASA
Hirsute Pursuit
Here are the SFA rules on Membership in 2012, (subsequently amended in 2013 to two classes of membership)
SFA Handbook Articles 2011/12
4.2 Members shall be of three classes: full members: associate members: registered members.
Article 6.2 A club or association shall be admitted as a registered member automatically by reason of its being admitted as a member of an Affiliated Association or an Affiliated National Association, or , in the case of a club in membership of or participation in an association. League or other combination of clubs formed in terms of Article 18 and in the case of an association by being formed in terms of Article 18 , provided it is not already an associate or full member . A registered member shall not be a member of more than one Affiliated Association or more than one Affiliated National Association. A registered member may apply at any time to become an associate member.
Article 6.3 A club or association desiring to qualify for full membership of the Scottish FA must first be admitted as an associate member . A club cannot be admitted as an associate member unless it meets and commits to continuing compliance with the Membership Criteria and amendments thereto as shall be promulgated by the Board from Time to time in connection with the membership of the Scottish FA.
Definitions.SFA Membership Criteria means the criteria promulgated by the Board from time to time in connection with qualifying for associate membership of the Scottish FA in terms of article 6.3
and the rule the SFA justified the transfer under
14. Prohibition on Transfer of Membership
14.1 It is not permissible for a member to transfer directly or indirectly its membership of the Scottish FA to another member or to any other entity, and any such transfer or attempt to effect such a transfer is prohibited, save as otherwise provided in this Article 14. Any member desirous of transferring its membership to another entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction must apply to the Board for permission to effect such transfer, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any other application for transfer of membership will be reviewed by the Board, which will have complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.
My take on how it worked out was that
A) Green would not buy a new club, even with a Rangers label, that had no Full SFA voting rights at the SFA and more importantly would make his job of selling STS to supporters of Rangers FC a lot more difficult than it was until the idea of being the same was peddled.
He could hardly lay claim to Sevco being the same club as RFC if it had a different type of SFA membership (Associate) from the RFC one (Full) could he? Could anyone?
(That in any case UEFA do not recognise the continuity of full SFA Membership of the current club, who were inlegible to apply for a UEFA licence until they had been full members of the SFA for 3 years is a matter of fact, not opinion or interpretation. A fact Green mentions in his interview posted earlier)
B) The SFA and SPL for their parts were driven by fear that
1) Green would pull out of the deal unless full SFA Membership was granted and
2) they themselves were as aware as Green was of the commercial risk to the new venture and knock on effects of Scottish football if it were not Rangers.
Thus a readiness on both sides to accommodate an extra-ordinary request requiring the extra- ordinary existence of a "conditional licence".
However the consequences of agreeing to Green's request might have been mitigated if not forgotten altogether had the titles won under that full SFA Membership been left open to sanctioning, but there appears to be a side note saying this will not happen and why would that be given if not for its commercial value?
When the timeline in summer 2012 leads to the LNS Decision in early 2013 that meets what Green was guaranteed by excluding information that would have prevented the guarantee being met, then the carbuncle the 5 Way Agreement has formed continues to poison the body of Scottish football and no amount of sophistry will cure what was created by sophistry.
Interestingly to heal a carbuncle:
Carbuncles usually must drain before they will heal. This most often occurs on its own in less than 2 weeks. Placing a warm moist cloth on the carbuncle helps it to drain, which speeds healing. Apply a clean, warm moist cloth several times each day.
<
;Perhaps SFM is that healing process as it applies the latter several times a day even if it takes years?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/airdrieonians/2000634.stm
http://cdnedge.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/2051975.stm
Read the link articles above. Airdrieonians tried the very same and applied for league membership. Funnily enough, the authorities felt it would "set a bad precedent" for debt dumping and continuing as a football team so let Gretna in instead (what a great move THAT turned out to be). I guess Airdrie were not "socially fabric" enough or "socially unrestable" enough. 40 out of 42 clubs in the SPFL know exactly what liquidation will mean for them. 1 suspects what it would mean and the other seems to feel impervious.
Clyde fan with many Airdrie supporting friends who knocked their pans out to avoid liquidation. No interest in either R or C.
Whilst talking about the appointment of a new director does anyone know the current status of the two resignation letters that were "parked" until after 30th June.?
Thanks HP.
That was my understanding also explaining why I've never got too hung up about the SFA announcements around that time. There was a club. It had a full membership. It was allowed to be called Rangers There is a club. It has a full membership. It is allowed to be called Rangers. That was all that really needed to be said. From the SFA’s perspective I maintain that is all they have said.
I was TUPE'd twice during my career and on neither occasion, following transfer, did I consider myself to be working in the name of, or for the benefit of, my former employer, despite carrying out a similar role..
From KdS: Wolhardt's shares went to Borita (7,500,000). New Trace have 7,500,000. New Trace run by Liu Haifeng. Both connected to DCP Capital Partners, L.P. Ostensibly out of Hong Kong, ultimate holding company registered in Caymen. Related parties. Bigger shareholder than King.
Takeaway from Twitter.
redlichtie 21st August 2018 at 14:57 3 0 Rate This From Companies House: RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC 21 Aug 2018 Appointment of Mr Julian Juul Wolhardt as a director on 21 August 2018 SFNASA
______________
Now that's interesting.
I made the suggestion last week, slightly tongue in cheek because I have no real knowledge of the such things, that the TOP might view an influx of hand-picked investors as a fresh concert party, but had little belief in it being the case as proving it (by the TOP) might be quite difficult; but for one of their number to be appointed to the board, even before the share issue takes place, might well smack of a new member of the concert party and open up all sorts of problems for those involved! And if one of the hand-picked shareholders is deemed to have joined the concert party, I suspect all of them might well be viewed as such.
An interesting further Companies House notification which seems to correct an earlier one.
RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
21 Aug 2018 Change of details for Mr Julian Juul Wolhardt as a person with significant control on 21 August 2018
“New Nature Of Control
The person has the right to exercise, or actually exercises, significant influence or control over the company.”
The previous notification stated :
“Nature Of Control
The person has the right to exercise, or actually exercises, significant influence or control over the activities of a trust, and the trustees of that trust (in their capacity as such) hold, directly or indirectly, 75% or more of the shares in the company.
The person has the right to exercise, or actually exercises, significant influence or control over the activities of a trust, and the trustees of that trust (in their capacity as such) hold, directly or indirectly, 75% or more of the voting rights in the company.”
Is this a record screw up by the world-class administrative side of the organisation?
SFNASA
Auldheid,
Apologies, our posts crossed else I would have referenced yours also.
Green could not sell the new club if it did not have full membership status. But that full membership status (and you can call it Rangers' membership if you like with full membership status anointed on it purely because of the physical attributes that a Rangers title gave it, not least a bloody great stadium) but it was only a status nonetheless which was relatively easily transferable without the OC/NC pish.
Would some then have walked away rather than joined 'the journey.' Frankly I couldn't care less. It was self imposed and a bit of realism might have saved them getting ripped off quite so much and quite so often. But would they have remained absent when the journey was nearing completion? And in sufficient numbers to compensate for every other middle aged fan in the country trying to introduce their little ones to the game knowing in their heart of hearts that the reality of it was a pretty unsavoury affair? Don't think so.
And for what its worth I cannot help but feel that the simplistic but honest description of a simple transfer of membership status is what the original pitch to the remaining clubs would have been. I don't have it to hand but I recall the wording of resolution 1 in the SFL vote to admit the new club in August 2012 would seem to support that.
The gradual increase in Julian Wolhardt's influence and investment is an interesting one which I think signals a shift in direction which dependent on your viewpoint could be good or bad for them.
I say this because he's a different type of investor. The guys keeping them afloat just now ie Taylor, Letham, King, Bennett, Park etc may be successful businessmen but in this instance appear to be treating this as an emotional investment, rich men funding their hobby if you like. Wolhardt appears to be a non-emotional institutional investor which in a way is good for them as they certainly couldn't have attracted a non-emotionally invested person to part with their money a couple of years ago with the wounds of the Charles Green debacle still fresh. What Rangers fans will probably not like so much is that no non-emotionally attached investor is going to happily subsidise losses indefinitely as the "Rangers men" had appeared content to.
If we assume Mr Wolhardt isn't a closet bluenose then my guess is they have a coherent plan for the club to start living within it's means and generating value for it's shareholders. I'm not sure that necessarily means downsizing as they are starting to access meaningful European revenues, merchandising income & will probably have increased domestic tv revenues coming their way soon but I think it means an end to the admittedly modest "upsizing" of the last few seasons in terms of playing budget.
The key question is can they sell a sustainable Rangers which will probably be behind Celtic for many years to come to a support hungry for success?
John Clark from 18/08/18 00:56 – sorry it's taken a while to come back on this but in terms of FT
I'd suggest getting in touch with Cat Rutter Pooley, Mamta Badkar or Mure Dickie – they were all credited on an FT story entitled "Regulator takes Dave King to court to force takeover bid Chairman could be forced to make £11m bid for Glasgow football club" from April 17 last year… in that they detail the latest "chapter in the often bizarre legal woes that have beset the Glasgow club in recent years".
They mentioned "It is the first time since the panel was granted enforcement powers more than a decade ago that it has taken such action" and quotes a lawyer from Clifford Chance (Katherine Moir) who said "The panel is usually able to rely on the reputational impact of its public censure regime and other traditional sanctions, but the initiation of these proceedings demonstrates that it will take further action where necessary to enforce its decisions".
https://www.ft.com/content/b934f388-2069-11e7-a454-ab04428977f9
I'd also recommend Bryce Elder's seminal "Ship of Theseus seeks flotation" story from Oct 11, 2012 about the new listing of Rangers in which he states "Also worth noting, from an investor perspective, is the fact that Rangers Football Club Ltd has no corporate history whatsoever. The club may have been founded in 1872 but the company it has hermit-crabbed into has only existed since May and has never published a single page of accounts."
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/10/11/1204671/ship-of-theseus-seeks-flotation/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRmCEGHt-Qk
Nick, I must say reading the news I am wondering is the Rangers business model going forward to spend the money this year in a final throw of the dice to stop 10IAR and then downscale from next summer?the loan boys return to their parent clubs, some of the better players can be sold? Throw a few more million in the hope of winning this year then start to live within their means?
jockybhoy 21st August 2018 at 17:04
'..John Clark from 18/08/18 00:56 – sorry it's taken a while to come back on this but in terms of FT
I'd suggest getting in touch with…'
__________________________
Thank you, jockybhoy.
I've just come home from my trip to Stirling.
I hadn't seen any of the items you mention, and I might well get in touch with the persons you mention, just to see if they will express a current view!
DBD @17.50
If what you are suggesting is the strategy then it would be reckless in the extreme. Then again Mr King does like to sail close to the wind.
TheLawMan2 21st August 2018 at 07:36
0 46 Rate This
TUPE is the law. The existence of the administration event and the subsequent “takeover” meant every person employed by Rangers was entitled to TUPE.
……………..
Now that is two wage slips i would like to see.
Who paid the players before TUPE and who paid them after TUPE.
redlichtie 21st August 2018 at 15:22
5 0 Rate This
And…
RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
21 Aug 2018 PSC01 Notification of Julian Juul Wolhardt as a person with significant control on 21 August 2018
SFNASA
……………….
What happened to Alistare Johnston and his significant control?
Just a little test posting, as I've had some difficulties with the site.
Carry on!
slimjim 21st August 2018 at 15:53
4 6 Rate This
Whilst talking about the appointment of a new director does anyone know the current status of the two resignation letters that were “parked” until after 30th June.?
………………..
Maybe they stay parked because the £16 million share issue did not happen by the end of june.
https://www.footballinsider247.com/done-by-end-of-june-16m-rangers-deal-to-be-finalised-by-next-month-confirmed/
8th May 2018.
Dave King has announced plans to launch a new Rangers share issue worth over £16million – and is confident the deal will be done by the end of next month.
The South Africa-based businessman remains at odds with the Takeover Panel but decided to press ahead with the share issue after announcing Steven Gerrard as manager last week.
King claims the share issue will see around £10million of loans converted to equity as well as bringing in fresh finance of £6million.
“At the moment I’m thinking probably £6 million new cash and the balance converted to loans,” King said, as quoted by the Times. “We’ll be looking at [a total] just over £16m. Right now it’s £6m and £10m in loans but we might go £8m and £8m. We’ve not yet made our final decision but it won’t be less than £6m new cash.
…………….
As with everything down ibrox way more goes on behind the scenes that is not reported, or things are reported to deflect from the real issues behind the scenes.Maybe in the fullness of time we will find out why the two resignation letters were “parked”.
A bit like the time king claimed a victory over Ashley then later we found out he paid £3million just to stay in bed with him.
Ex Ludo, I agree 100%. It’s the mentality that got us into this mess. It’s the same mentality that’s seen LEEDS Utd in the football wilderness the last 15 years.
TheLawMan2 21st August 2018 at 07:36
TUPE is the law. The existence of the administration event and the subsequent “takeover” meant every person employed by Rangers was entitled to TUPE. But remember, in order for TUPE to be relevant, then there has to be a continuation of something. Otherwise its a brand new company with no past and can employ new people without taking on the huge cost of potentital redundancy payments (job continuation) and inflated salaries.
Regarding TUPE. Paul McConville had a few inspired Blogs about such things.
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/green-well-fight-for-compensation-for-players-who-didnt-join-sevco-rangers-and-lose/
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/guess-who-has-been-ordered-to-pay-legal-costs-of-5-players-with-whom-it-was-in-dispute/
Please explain how the former Rangers players got TUPE thrown out of court. Was TUPE relevant for these players? Continuation and all that!
Allyjambo 21st August 2018 at 14:24
You might also like to answer the question – if Sevco (Scotland) Ltd had not changed it's name to 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd' would there be a 'Rangers FC' playing out of Ibrox in the SPFL today? And if you want to assure us there would be, could you provide the mechanics of how such an amazing event could possibly come about?
—————————————————————————————————————
Actually Ally, the documented name change from "Sevco Scotland", to a Rangersy sounding name is well recorded……What would really clear the matter up, would be the documentation showing Rangers(I.L.) changing their name to "Sevco Scotland", prior to….Errrrrrrrr…Errrrrrrrr, changing it back to a Rangersy name.
So really, one item of documentation is all that is required. The Rangers(I.L.) to "Sevco Scotland" name change……….It shouldn't be too hard to rustle that up……….Then we can all go home.
MercDoc 21st August 2018 at 19:49
Please explain how the former Rangers players got TUPE thrown out of court. Was TUPE relevant for these players? Continuation and all that!
_________________________________________________________
Yes. It was. Thats the reason it was thrown out. Because they all had the choice to TUPE or not. They chose not to.
Can you explain why they were offered to TUPE. Why would a brand new entity with no history or connection to an old entity that died, offer to TUPE all its staff over ?
Hong Kong based investor Julian Wolhardt scoops up other half of the shares previously owned by the Newcastle owner Ashley.Ashley sold his shares to Club 1872 and Woldhart for 27.5 pence a share.
So the person who paid over the odds for half of Ashley’s shares is now a person with significant control.
Corrupt Official
Allyjambo 21 August 2018 at 14.24
You might also like to answer the question – if Sevco (Scotland) Ltd had not changed it's name to 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd' would there be a 'Rangers FC' playing out of Ibrox in the SPFL today? And if you want to assure us there would be, could you provide the mechanics of how such an amazing event could possibly come about? ————————————————————————————————————— Actually Ally, the documented name change from "Sevco Scotland", to a Rangersy sounding name is well recorded……What would really clear the matter up, would be the documentation showing Rangers(I.L.) changing their name to "Sevco Scotland", prior to….Errrrrrrrr…Errrrrrrrr, changing it back to a Rangersy name. So really, one item of documentation is all that is required. The Rangers(I.L.) to "Sevco Scotland" name change……….It shouldn't be too hard to rustle that up……….Then we can all go home.
____________
The question I pose, CO, is taken from another, unanswered, post, where I was making the point about documented facts such as this. I obviously don't expect any serious attempt to suggest that, without that legally constituted name change, a 'Rangers' would be playing in the SPFL today, but do hope that someone makes an attempt, as it's pretty much impossible for them to do anything else than post a guess based on wishful thinking. But my next question/point, should no one successfully show that a 'Rangers' would now exist without that name change, will be quite interesting, to say the least.
So come on, someone, show me by what slight of hand a club would be playing football at Ibrox, with a Rangersy sounding name, if Charles Green hadn't gone through the legal requirements of changing the name of his limited company to 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd'.
TheLawMan2 21st August 2018 at 20:21
Please explain how the former Rangers players got TUPE thrown out of court. Was TUPE relevant for these players? Continuation and all that!
Can you explain why they were offered to TUPE. Why would a brand new entity with no history or connection to an old entity that died, offer to TUPE all its staff over ?
……………..
Maybe the reason the TUPE was thrown out of court, as there was no TUPE. Just a ready made line of employees seamlessly ready who could fit right in and knew what jobs they were doing.Great money saver for charles Green and a nod in keeping his continually myth going.
I think you may be getting mixed up. There was TUPE. TUPE protects employees. It means they either continue on the exact same conditions they are currently on, or they walk away free of any impediment.
Wednesday 22nd August
LORD MALCOLM
STARRED MOTIONS
45min
A295/16 David Whitehouse v Chief Constable for Police Scotland &c
Urquharts LLP
Ledingham Chalmers LLP
I might manage in to this hearing tomorrow, although it's only of secondary interest, being Whitehouse's claim for damages re loss of earnings and damage to professional reputation.
There are so many 'secondary interest' stories attaching to the 'saga' that one would wish one were a John Grisham or TV dramatist!
There could be money to be made out of it all.
Eh, anybody know who has the film and/or book rights?
I am not CW, by the way.
But I’ve always fancied myself as a casting agent.
I frequently ask myself, m’lord, which actors I would select to play in ‘Saga: the movie”
Hoffman and Redford as journos for the G H and the Hootsman?
Let’s have a wee, non slander-actionable little game.
TheLawMan2 21st August 2018 at 21:43
TUPE protects employees. It means they either continue on the exact same conditions they are currently on, or they walk away free of any impediment.
………………..
Same Conditions.
Now would that be same conditions of contract they were on?
Who’s name was on the letterhead for these employees to sign so they could continue on the exact same conditions they are currently on .And who’s name was on their original contract the employees signed to be on the conditions they were on?
“I have a long held love for Scotland and football and I am keen to see Rangers FC unlock its considerable commercial potential.
With the successful restructuring of the retail operations, RIFC is now on a firm financial footing and I look forward to being a part of its exciting future.”
Thus the quote from 同志 Wolhardt in the 'Sun' in its report today.
Honest to God, can nobody at Ibrox, jabba for example, try to be a bit more original?
It may very well be that our Julian has had ' a long held love for Scotland'.
I've similarly had a long held love for Denmark, and the People's (Ah, so!) Republic of China, but I think I would be questioned as to how that 'love' was inspired in my heart!
The sheer inadequacy and ineptness of the TRFC ltd PR people is actually an affront to anyone over the age of about 4 years!
On a par with their defence of the Big Lie.
I am no friend to the boy frae Castlemilk, but common decency urges me to tell him to get shot of jabba and his peculiar ideas about PR.
 Not that I run a PR agency.
Regarding the Companies House Filing that J.J. Wolhardt has become a, "Person of Significant Control",
ScotGov. says of such a person:
"A PSC must meet one or more of the following conditions of control.
Most PSCs are likely to be people who hold:
or alternatively,
"Your PSC might influence or control your company through other means. This could be directly, or on behalf of someone else. For example, someone who tells the directors or shareholders what to do".
Wolhardt's 7.5M shares are in addition to those he holds and come from the forthcoming offer, as do New Trace's. Neither own them yet.
Where is his "significant control" coming from?
( https://www.gov.uk/government/news/people-with-significant-control-psc-who-controls-your-company)
The latest poll from North Lanarkshire is just in. The most unpopular prime ministers of recent decades are:
Thatcher
Cameron
Major.
Favourite football clubs are withheld for obvious reasons.
(it's Celtic)
The 3rd. possibility should have been in my previous post also:
"Companies controlled by a trust or firm
If a trust or firm influences or controls your company, you must decide if they meet any conditions of control described above. If they do, any person who controls the trust or firm is a PSC of your company.
If you think this applies, you should get professional advice".
The "Person with Significant Control" slant on Wolhardt is not an issue. RIFC have probably played safe with him and other directors by designating them as PSCs, simply because they are directors and do exert influence over the companies activities.
easyJambo 21st August 2018 at 23:15
———–
Thank you.
Macfurgly,
That's a lovely dog.
Lie back, close your eyes. Think of your favourite football team/players.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk4bcnBqls
TheLawMan2 21st August 2018 at 21:43
TUPE protects employees. It means they either continue on the exact same conditions they are currently on, or they walk away free of any impediment.
………………..
Same Conditions.
Now would that be same conditions of contract they were on?
Who’s name was on the letterhead for these employees to sign so they could continue on the exact same conditions they are currently on .And who’s name was on their original contract the employees signed to be on the conditions they were on?
————————————————————————-
TUPE only applies when its a new company, there is no need to apply TUPE when it is simply a takeover of an existing incorporated company/club, existing companies/clubs are exactly that an existing company, terms and conditions and collective agreements all remain as they are. however a new owner may wish to change these terms and conditions in exchange for renumeration or holidays etc and these become collective agreements and form new contracts, but that does not alter the structure of the company in that it remains the same just has a new boss.
I've seen the phrase 'Chinese Laundry' used a few times recently across social media regarding goings on down Ibrox way. Knowing fine well what the phrase means my only views are that IF, and it remains an IF, anyone was going to become involved in such practices then it would be the perfect club to do so, because of the lack of scrutiny from the media or anyone who would normally take an interest in such matters. I maintain there are many in Scotland who only want Rangers to be better than Celtic and they don't care how it is financed, or where the money comes from. We already have proof that is the case, as for years Rangers were financed by a bank who the taxpayer had to pick up the bill for, and who let the then Rangers owner off with almost £1 billion in unpaid debt. The people who only want Rangers to be better than Celtic didn't care. They also didn't care when Rangers elected to unlawfully withhold tens of millions that should have gone to the public purse in tax, and used it to finance success on the pitch instead. Why would they care about 'laundries', Chinese or otherwise!
Re the Wolhardt "person of significant control" status this debate came up when Alaistair Johnstone was appointed to their board, all of their directors are designated as PSCs. This is actually slightly unusual and not strictly necessary but is also fine for them to do.
I assume this helps with "consortium politics" as it confers equal status on them all, rich people can be surprisingly petty…
It is obvious that the OC/NC being transferred to its own forum means it is now in a place with little footfall and definitely a place where the casual visitor to this site will never venture. This is all very well if repetitive well trodden points are clogging up the main forum but, as in the case I am about to cover, it means that relevant, rarely covered points are lost to the general discussion.
So apologies for my submitting this post but I DO feel this is something that needs clarified. It may be that this septuagenarian brain has forgotten it being covered previously if so I apologise.
Yesterday LM2 drew my attention to the following document and his accompanying comments. –
The full post can be read at the OC/NC forum.
What he draws attention to is genuine and that D&P assure everyone that the business and history were sold. This fits in with their earlier assertion that, if there was no CVA, they were confident that the business would be sold as a going concern.
It really behoves this site to take these points seriously as the object of the site is not just to slap down any dissenting opinion but to consider their points and, if valid, to fit them into our overall interpretation of the administrative failings of the SFA and SPFL.
The document quoted is not a legal document per se but under their remit D&P have a duty not to mislead. Earlier, suspicion of on whose behalf they were actually working came under suspicion to such an extent that legal action was taken against them by the subsequent liquidators BDO. This action and, I believe, one other failed in the courts so we are now in the position where we cannot argue against there statements as being illegal.
Since LM2 put this before me I have researched the issue to some extent and, if you will forgive me not doing so on the OC/NC forum I would like to answer LM2 here in my next post.