I think everyone on SFM knew that when the new club won its first trophy, whatever that trophy was, the old “same club” mantra would surface. Over the years, and since the nature of the debate is in the “santa exists” ballpark, we have largely discouraged discussion of it.
On the “old club” side, that reluctance to debate is largely because there is little value in arguing the toss with someone who either ;
- knows the idea is preposterous, but won’t admit it for whatever reason; or
- has been lied to by the person at (a) above and can’t be bothered to look at the facts for themselves.
On the “new club” side, the discouragement to discuss is mainly because we are in the main already equipped with the facts, and there seems little need to go over them again and again.
So why republish stevensanph’s blog and Hirsute Pursuit’s response from almost a decade ago?
Well firstly because it is an excellent piece of forensic scrutiny cutting through the fog which had begun to be induced by the MSM merely weeks after they had unanimously heralded the death of the old club.
Secondly because it was written as a response to the (at the time very unpopular) decision we made on SFM to close down the debate on the subject (for the reason stated above.
And lastly because the course of the truth – even if it is only shifted by a few degrees – can get completely lost as time goes by. Consequently, there are possibly many who take sides because of a leap of faith. This is a course-correction that demonstrates the absence of any need to do so.
So here then is a reprise of stevensanph’s remarks from 2013, on his own blog.
The Newco/Oldco debate has been ended over on TSFM, with the deletion of the excellent post from HirsutePursuit marking the end. While some think we need to keep reinforcing the message that its a totally new club, others are bored of the subject, so I can’t blame TSFM for wanting to move on.
Personally – I have read all the arguments – I am yet to be shown any factual proof that Green’s Gers are the old club. People will, and can believe whatever they want. For Rangers fans who want to believe its the same club, then, as long as they are happy, then fine. However, on paper, and in law, its a new club, and thats all that I care about!
TSFM posters wanting to continue the debate can do so below following on from HP’s excellent deleted post!
TSFM
This blog, as far as I have been concerned, is widely regarded as a forum for people who wish to highlight the inequalities and skewed reporting of the issues within the Scottish football arena. If it is not, perhaps you can make it clear what you see as its purpose.
Perhaps the biggest ever story within the Scottish game has been the circumstances surrounding the demise of Rangers Football Club. It is a multi-layered story and one that that is still moving. In many ways, it may be a story that is only just beginning.
Central to the debate (that should be completely on-topic) for this blog, is whether or not the authorities (at all levels) have acted in an equitable manner and whether or not the “free press” have given life to events in a truthful and balanced way.
With absolute regard to these matters, there is a fundamental issue surrounding the status of the club incorporated in 2012 and currently playing in the 3rd division of the Scottish Football League.
If you genuinely believe that the club incorporated in 2012 are the same club as was founded in 1872/1873 then you have every right to be outraged at the behaviour of the footballing authorities. You will probably accept that UEFA were right to “ban” the club from European competitions because of its holding company’s insolvency event; but feel completely persecuted by your fellow Scottish clubs who demoted your team to the arse-end of the game. You will see this “demotion” as a punishment far too severe for the actions of the rogue ex-owner of the club’s former “holding company”. To compound matters, you will see the LNS enquiry as just another opportunity for the clubs who have already revelled in meting out a severe punishment, to have another fly-kick. You would, no doubt, believe that whatever the previous owner of the club’s “holding company” did in terms of player payments, the trophies were won fairly by the club on the field of play and can never be taken away. You will be – in the main – satisfied with the narrative of the “free press” in referring to your club as the same entity as played in the SPL.
All of the attitudes and beliefs rely 100% on the tenet of a “club” existing as a separate entity from the legal entity (“company”) responsible for a football team.
If you genuinely believe that the club incorporated in 2012 are a different club as was founded in 1872/1873 then you will still have every right to be outraged at the behaviour of the footballing authorities. UEFA would rightly refuse European Club Licence for the new club – if one was applied for – as the new club do not meet the criteria; but you will feel completely let down by the self-serving nature of the SPL and the weakness shown by the SFA in attempting to place the new club in the top tier of Scottish football. You will see the new club’s fast-track acceptance into the SFL as without precedent and their award of full member status (of the SFA) as against existing rules. You will wonder how – when the members of the SFL voted to give them associate membership as new club – the SFL executive list them on their website as the old club. As the old club had ceased footballing activities in June, there should have been no SFA membership or SPL share to transfer in August. Since the old club is no more, you will not recognise any punishment for the actions of the rogue ex-owner of the club. You will see the LNS enquiry as an opportunity for some sort of justice in relation to years of outrageous cheating by the now dead club. You will think that trophies and prize-money were stolen from clubs who played by the rules. You will think that a correction of results is simply a consequence of the old club being found guilty of cheating. You will probably think that the LNS enquiry has nothing to do with the new club; but may wonder if the enquiry orders the repayment of the old club’s prize-money, would this create a new “football debt” that has to be repaid by the new club to continue using the old club’s SFA membership? You will be aghast at the apparent repeated mis-reporting of the situation by the “free press”.
All of the attitudes and beliefs rely 100% on the tenet of a “club” being the legal entity (“company”) responsible for a football team.
You may feel that these positions are “just a matter of opinion” and do not ultimately matter.
I disagree. The indeterminate status of the club incorporated in 2012 is a huge sore in the Scottish football landscape. This is the biggest story that just cannot go away. If the schism created by this sense of injustice is not resolved, Scottish football will implode. Attitudes may already be too entrenched; but that should not stop us trying to find a way forward.
The principal difficulty (again totally on topic) is that it appears – from both sides of the debate) -that people in positions of power within the game have made decisions that cannot be justified by their rules and articles of association.
We can – as you wish us to – stop talking about the status of the club incorporated in 2012, or we can continue to argue our respective positions as a crucial factor in this controversy.
In my view we can only hold the SFA, SPL and SFL to account if we insist that a definitive answer to all of the important questions are given.
The status of the club incorporated in 2012 is – in my view – a simple matter of fact. It is only because it is being considered to be a matter of opinion that we are where we are.
The Origins of the concept of a football club having an owner from whom it can be separated and its subsequent misuse by the SPL/SFA in 2012.
The following are taken from a well informed contributor to SFM who points out that pre 2005 no such concept existed in SPL rules and the meaning subsequently applied by LNS and The 5 Way Agreement is a danger to the fundamental integrity of the Scottish football industry and its member clubs.
The very short version of what follows is this:
The SPL articles state that its definitions and expressions need to be given the meanings as described in the Companies Act 2006.
The Companies Act 2006 says that an “undertaking” is “a body corporate” i.e. a company.
Lord Nimmo Smith has ignored this definition and instead accepted (or created) an alternative meaning for “undertaking” (as used in Article 2) which is fundamental to the concept of being able to separate Club from Company.
The principle of Club and company being distinct entities was expressly stated in the commissions terms of reference.
Lord Nimmo Smith has accepted the terms of reference as “facts”.
The SPL articles and rules apply to Clubs and to their “owners & operators”.
LNS asserts that the Club “Rangers FC” was owned & operated by Rangers Football Club plc.
He asserts that the Club “Rangers FC” transferred from Rangers Football Club plc to Sevco Scotland Ltd.
The Club (if found guilty) is still liable for the alleged breaches of SPL rules, even though the Club is no longer a member of the SPL.
He asserts that Sevco Scotland Ltd – as the new owner & operator of the Club – have a material interest in his commissions findings.
However…
Instead of his accepting LNS logic that allows the ethereal Club to be transferred between companies, the truth is – read in conjunction with the Companies Act 2006 – Article 2 really says that the Club is the “body corporate”. The Club is the Company.
The Club is Rangers Football Club plc. That Club is in liquidation.
Since Sevco Scotland Ltd did not purchase Rangers Football Club plc, Sevco Scotland did not buy the Club.
*On the simple basis of Sevco Scotland’s purchase of Rangers FC’s assets, the Commission cannot legally apply sanctions that would fall to Sevco Scotland for remedy.
This issue should have been fairly straightforward. We need to understand why it is not.
It is surprising to me that an experienced high court judge accepted the commission’s terms of reference without first checking its validity. It would be interesting to understand if the statement of reasons was really his own thoughts or a re-hash of the SPL legal advice that framed the commissions work.
It does not surprise me that the SPL have framed the commission in the way that they have. The “transferable Club” logic was first used to unsuccessfully argue that Newco should have Oldco’s share in the SPL. They are acting in their own commercial interest. Sporting Integrity has never been high on their agenda. We know what they are about.
It is hugely disappointing – but perhaps not surprising – that the SFA have not stepped in to clarify matters. Conflicted and/or incompetent probably best sums up its contribution.
Longer version.
The SPL – essentially as a trade association – will correctly do what they can to maximise revenue for their members. It falls to the SFA – as the game’s regulators – to ensure that the SPL’s existing procedures, articles and rules are adhered to.
It is almost without dispute that the SPL have not functioned well in following protocol. The SFA have been incredibly weak in insisting that they do so. In fact the SFA – by being party to the 5-way agreement – are themselves seemingly complicit in going off-plan. Again, regardless of your own beliefs and agenda, the SPL (by their actions) and the SFA (by their inactions) are not TRUSTED to act as fair brokers.
Lord Nimmo Smith is due to reconvene his enquiry in just over a week’s time. When writing my previous (and quickly deleted) post earlier in the week, my mind was already moving towards (what I consider to be) the insurmountable difficulty the retired High Court judge will face in steering his commission to a logical conclusion.
In football parlance, I fear that the SPL have given him a “hospital pass” that will eventually leave him just as damaged as the game. I had already prepared an outline of why I think his enquiry will ultimately flounder; but, wonder if this topic too will fall foul of the new censorship policy on this blog.
As I think Lord Nimmo Smith’s remit is an important point that needs discussion – and out of respect to those people who have supported this blog as the spiritual successor of RTC – I will attempt to post my thoughts here first. If this post gets removed or doesn’t get past moderation, I’ll do as TSFM (Big Pink?) suggested earlier and find another, more open, forum to engage in.
I apologise in advance for the length of this post; but the points, I think, are fairly straightforward. Please do bear with me.
We should probably start at the SPL Press Release of 12th September 2012:
Independent Commission Preliminary Hearing
The Commission has considered all the preliminary issues raised in the list submitted by Newco and points raised in letters from solicitors acting for Newco and for Oldco. It has decided:
1. The Commission will proceed with its inquiry in the terms of the Notice of Commission and will now set a date for a hearing and give directions.
2. Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules, will continue to have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the Commission and to make such submissions as they think fit.
3. Newco, as the current owner and operator of Rangers FC, although not alleged by the SPL to have committed any breach of SPL Rules, will also have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the Commission and to make such submissions as it thinks fit.
4. Written reasons for this decision will be made available in due course.
Further to the decision made today the Commission make the following procedural orders:
1. We set a date for a hearing to commence on Tuesday 13 November 2012 with continuations from day to day as may be required until Friday 16 November 2012. We will also allocate Tuesday 20 and Wednesday 21 November 2012 as additional dates should any further continuation be required.
2. We direct that the solicitors for The Scottish Premier League Limited lodge any documents, additional to those already lodged, together with an outline argument and a list of witnesses by 4 pm on Friday 19 October 2012.
3. We direct that Oldco, Newco or any other person claiming an interest and wishing to appear and be represented at the hearing give intimation to that effect and lodge any documents together with an outline argument and a list of witnesses, all by 4 pm on Thursday 1 November 2012.
4. We direct that intimation of the aforesaid decision and of these directions be made to the solicitors for Oldco and Newco.
No further comment will be made.
Couple of points worth noting:
1. The Commission will proceed with its inquiry in the terms of the Notice of Commission and will now set a date for a hearing and give directions.
2. Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules
So it is clear here that Oldco and Rangers FC have, in the terms of the Notice of Commission, been described as separate entities. It is important to realise that this distinction is made before the commission has had any opportunity to consider the circumstances.
This is a non-negotiable “fact” – as supplied by the SPL – that LNS either accepts or stands aside. He has chosen to accept it.
This “fact” was later given reasoning by way of the Commission’s Statement of Reasons and carried the names of the Commission members:
History
[3] Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872 as an association football club. It was incorporated in 1899 as The Rangers Football Club Limited. In recent years the company’s name was changed to The Rangers Football Club Plc, and it is now called RFC 2012 Plc (in administration). In line with the terminology used in the correspondence between the parties, we shall refer to this company as “Oldco”.
[4] The SPL was incorporated in 1998. Its share capital consists of sixteen shares of £1 each, of which twelve have been issued. Oldco was one of the founding members of the SPL, and remained a member until 3 August 2012 when the members of the SPL approved the registration of a transfer of its share in the SPL to The Dundee Football Club Limited. Each of the twelve members owns and operates an association football club which plays in the Scottish Premier League (“the League”). The club owned and operated by Oldco played in the League from 1998 until 2012 under the name of Rangers Football Club (“Rangers FC”).
…
[33] It is now necessary to quote some of the provisions of the Articles of the SPL. Article 2 contains definitions which, so far as relevant are:
“Club means the undertaking of an association football club which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League
…
Company means The Scottish Premier League Limited
…
League means the combination of Clubs known as the Scottish Premier League operated by the Company in accordance with the Rules
…
Rules mean the Rules for the time being of the League
…
Share means a share of the Company and Share Capital and Shareholding”.
…
[37] It is also necessary to quote certain of the Rules. Rule I1 provides definitions of various terms in the Rules. Of these, we refer to the following:
Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club
…
[46] It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule I1 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club. Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated. While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise. So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League. Under Rule A7.1.1 the Club is bound to comply with all relevant rules. The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator. While there can be no question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it. For these reasons we reject the arguments advanced in paragraphs 2 and 6 of the list of preliminary issues.
Here we were introduced to a few new ideas:
1. That SPL members “own and operate” association football clubs
2. That “Rangers Football Club” was “owned and operated” by Oldco (Rangers Football Club plc).
3. Club means the undertaking of an association football club
4. An “undertaking” is “a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. “
5. “A Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. “
6. “A Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.”
So, the principle, by which Lord Nimmo Smith, purports to connect Oldco and Newco is by the alleged transference of a non-corporate entity between the two owners and operators of the “Club”. The Club is the non-corporate entity he identified as the “undertaking” referred to in Article 2.
However, this is where he gets into some very serious difficulty. It is very strange that – when quoting the relevant articles – the retired High Court Judge did not notice or think the following did not have a part to play.
2. In these Articles:-
2006 Act means the Companies Act 2006 including any statutory modification or re-enactments thereof for the time being in force;
…
4. Unless the context otherwise requires, words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act but excluding any statutory modification thereof not in force when these Articles or the relevant parts thereof are adopted.
The SPL articles make specific reference to the Companies Act 2006. Specifically “words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act”
So when the articles refer to “undertaking” we must refer to the 2006 Act to check what meaning we should apply. If we do so, we find:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/1161
1161Meaning of “undertaking” and related expressions
(1)In the Companies Acts “undertaking” means—
__(a)a body corporate or partnership, or
__(b)an unincorporated association carrying on a trade or business, with or without a view to profit.
(2)In the Companies Acts references to shares—
__(a)in relation to an undertaking with capital but no share capital, are to rights to share in the capital of the undertaking; and
__(b)in relation to an undertaking without capital, are to interests—
____(i)conferring any right to share in the profits or liability to contribute to the losses of the undertaking, or
____(ii)giving rise to an obligation to contribute to the debts or expenses of the undertaking in the event of a winding up.
(3)Other expressions appropriate to companies shall be construed, in relation to an undertaking which is not a company, as references to the corresponding persons, officers, documents or organs, as the case may be, appropriate to undertakings of that description.
This is subject to provision in any specific context providing for the translation of such expressions.
(4)References in the Companies Acts to “fellow subsidiary undertakings” are to undertakings which are subsidiary undertakings of the same parent undertaking but are not parent undertakings or subsidiary undertakings of each other.
(5)In the Companies Acts “group undertaking”, in relation to an undertaking, means an undertaking which is—
__(a)a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of that undertaking, or
__(b)a subsidiary undertaking of any parent undertaking of that undertaking.
Everything that LNS uses to connect Newco to Oldco relies on a Club being a non-corporate entity. Without that interpretation, his original acceptance of the commissions remit would look very foolish. In my opinion, the commission’s statement of Reasons were always poorly framed
Using the 2006 Act – as it appears it is bound to do – I cannot see how any interpretation of “undertaking” can be used in the context of the SPL articles, other than “a body corporate”.
If I am correct and the correct interpretation of an undertaking in this context is “body corporate”, SPL Article 2, specifically (and quite clearly) states that a Club is the company. Since the Club that played in the SPL is in liquidation and the current version of Rangers has never been a member of the SPL, any attempt to sanction the new club for the sins of the old will be laughed out of court.
The real question – for me at least – is why has this ridiculous proposition has been put forward in the first place? Perhaps we can assume that the SPL chose to frame the commission’s remit in this way for purely commercial reasons; but, more worryingly, why have the SFA allowed it to progress?
Big Pink 30th July 2021 At 16:08
1 0 Rate This
HP
The Celtic Football & Athletic Co Ltd, formerly Pacific Shelf, IS the football club. The plc created a subsidiary in 1995 and transferred the SFA & SPL memberships to it. Process was to prepare Plc for listing on AIM.
###############
BP
The entity with membership of the SPFL is definitely still Celtic plc
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC175364/filing-history/MzI2NTM2NDAxN2FkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0
You can check the membership listing as far back as the SPL/SPFL has existed. It has always been Celtic plc listed as the member.
The SPL/SPFL articles state that its members must also be members of the SFA.
As far as I am aware the Celtic Football and Athletic Club Ltd company was created only to protect the intellectual property of the club’s historic name. Its last accounts say that it is a dormant company.
A dormant company cannot be the legal entity responsible for the operation of the club.
Although it is certainly allowable, I am not aware of any recent application to either the SPFL nor the SFA to transfer membership from the plc to a subsidiary. Indeed, I don’t think it would be practical to do so as I believe the Club License is non-transferable.
@ Big Pink – agree with you here. However I think the point remains around PL as he is not a director of that entity, only of the dormant subsidiary of that entity. I think I probably cut PL more slack than others on here (he didn’t get everything right, but he didn’t get everything wrong either) but a point of governance remains for ECA as to what position he occupies to allow him to continue to represent Celtic.
@Nawlite – I couldn’t agree more. Simple test for me – would BBC post anything like that in relation to the EPL? Says it all.
Wokingcelt 30th July 2021 At 19:23
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58032324
@HP – there are 3 companies to take account of here. Celtic PLC is the original founder company (becoming a Plc to go public). Celtic FC Limited (Co. no. SC223604), a wholly owned subsidiary of Celtic Plc, operates the football club. I believe this is the company BP refers to. The Celtic Football and Athletic Coy Limited (SC153534) is a dormant subsidiary of Celtic FC Limited.
PL is still a director of this dormant subsidiary- this may be an oversight or perhaps a fig leaf to allow him to do the ECA role (if it is I can’t believe that the Plc would have gone down this route without a prior approval from the ECA).
Big Pink 30th July 2021 At 16:08
” The Celtic Football & Athletic Co Ltd, formerly Pacific Shelf, IS the football club…”
%%%%%%%%%
BP, with the greatest respect, of course, that does not seem to square with the Companies House records!
I have copied this from the filing entry of 15 December 1994 relating to Celtic plc, company number SC003487 ,
” This document contains a print of the memorandum and New Articles of Association of Celtic plc as amended by Special resolution passed on 15th December 1994 signed …[Fergus McCann ??)Director
MEMORANDUMand
NEW
ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION
of
CELTIC plc
( Incorporated 12th April 1897)
McGrigor Donald
Pacific House
70 Wellington Street
Glasgow, G2 6SB
NEXT Page:
THE COMPANIES ACTS 1862 TO 1890
THE COMPANIES ACTS 1985 AND 1989
PUBLIC COMPANYLIMITED BY SHARES
MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION
of
CELTIC plc (1} [ indicating ‘footnote]
1 The name of the Company is ‘Celtic plc'( 1)
2 The Company is to be a public company
3. The Registered Office of the Company is situated in Scotland
4. The Company’s objects are :-
4.1 (a)(i) to carry on the business of a football club and to promote the practice nd play of football, cricket, lacrosse, lawn tennis , ………….and exercises of every description…. ”
__________________-
Footnote 1. A Certificate of Incorporation on Change of Name and Re-registration as a Public Limited Company was issued on 15 December 1994 to certify that the Company had by special resolution changed its name from The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Limited and had that day been re-registered under the Companies Act 1985 as a public limited company incorporated under the name of Celtic plc .
That would seem to suggest that the plc is the football club that holds the share in the SPFL and membership of the SFA, so an entity of that that name was incorporated as a subsidiary of the plc.
As ever, I’m open to correction!
JC you are correct.
I think what is causing confusion is the other subsidiary” Celtic FC Ltd” as noted by WokingCelt.
Reading the latest plc accounts, it explains that for accounting purposes, the operation of the football operation is nominally through this subsidiary. However Celtic FC Ltd has just one ex officio director – Dominic McKay. This subsidiary operates only through the direct hand of the plc board. Operationally, the plc and Ltd company operate as a single entity and are collectively referred to in the accounts as Group.
Rangers have a similar set-up – but there, the Ltd company holds the relevant memberships. The Ltd company is therefore recognised by the footballing authorities as the Club.
At Celtic the plc remains the member club of the SPL/SPFL and SFA. The Ltd company is merely ancillary to the Club.
@JC – the line to follow here is not the name but the company number. Celtic Plc is the original founding company – there can be no debate about this. It changed its name and status to become a Plc rather than a Limited company but the lineage is the company number that gives the continuity. I don’t know when but a subsidiary was then created to presumably protect/secure the historic name that appears on the crest. The immediate trading company below the Plc is a common vehicle to allow flow of dividends, finance and such like (heaven forbid any dodgy tax structures!).
My take is that Celtic Plc is the club (look at the history), the immediate subsidiary manages operations (on an outsourced type arrangement) and the dormant company holds the historic name for IPT protection.
Wokingcelt 30th July 2021 At 20:41
0 0 Rate This
##########
Completely agree with your summary.
What the hell has gone wrong at Sellik?
Not seeing a lot about it on here.
Bogs Dollox
Maybe posters are respectfully waiting to see how the next couple of weeks unfolds, but meantime why don’t you ask the impartial and open minded Martin Watt (Daily Record} for an expert opinion?
Before a ball is kicked in the 21/22 season, and well before the transfer window closes, he has declared the situation as ‘Celtic in crisis’.
Jesusjoany! Nothing like an anti Celtic narrative eh?
Bect67 31st July 2021 At 12:41
The Daily Record had Celtic in crisis in 2004 after they lost two pre-season games in USA to Man Utd and Chelsea. It’s what the media do, although such wording is rarely applied to any other club. The same Martin Watt on the BBC website said the first day of the season is when hope springs eternal, ‘unless you’re a Celtic fan’. How utterly pathetic.
Bect67 31st July 2021 At 12:41
The Daily Record had Celtic in crisis in 2004 after they lost two pre-season games in USA to Man Utd and Chelsea. It’s what the media do, although such wording is rarely applied to any other club. The same Martin Watt on the BBC website said the first day of the season is when hope springs eternal, ‘unless you’re a Celtic fan’. How utterly pathetic.
Stewart Robertson barely has his seat on the board and already he’s firing bullets at the SPFL .. This from the team that has racked up horrendous debt in the last few years, had embarrassing scenes of celebrations during covid, displayed a complete lack of respect for Manchester, and, left hundreds of people high and dry with debt, and millions owed to the tax man. Some cheek on his part. The season barely underway and SG is looking for rule changes. Is this an indication of a bloated squad and rumblings of discontent from within the dressing room, or, a lack of man management skills. Is he becoming another cheque book manager.
Vernallen, always remember the current Ibrox team didn’t do some of those things. The dead one did. I know what you mean, but try not to write things that read like you’re acknowledging the same club lie. Too many people doing that already,
Nawlite 31st July 2021 At 21:03
‘…always remember the current Ibrox team didn’t do some of those things. The dead one did.’
%%%%%%%%%%%%%
A useful wee reminder, Nawlite.
The dearest wish of the RIFC plc and TRFC boards and the SFA and the SFPL and ( I suppose) the general run of TRFC fans is that we would all shut up about the Big Lie that they wish us all to swallow.
The ‘Summary’ of the RIFC plc IPO Prospectus told the Market and potential investors that the new plc would be the holding company of ‘the most successful football club in the world’ and had been founded in 1872.’
The remotest suggestion that that ‘summary’ might have been misleading gives them the jelliwobbles.
They know that SevcoScotland was not and is not the Rangers football club that was founded in 1872. They know that SevcoScotland//TRFC were admitted into Scottish Football , thus becoming a recognised league team , in 2012, and no earlier.
The public record is clear: the club known and registered as Rangers Football plc had to surrender its share in the SPL in 2012 and lost thereby its membership of the SFA .
A new club had to apply, NOT re-apply, for ‘conditional’ membership in order to play its first game, and thereafter apply for a share in the SPFL ( it is meaningless to talk of ‘inheriting’ the dead club’s share, or of that share being ‘transferred’ to TRFC, or of that newly-applied for share magically transforming the new football club into the dead club. The RIFC plc Board has to do that, of course.
WE don’t.
We can acknowledge the baseness of a Board that claims the honours of a dead club but disclaims any liability for that dead club’s dishonourable behaviour and deceit and huge debts.
But we can’t hold them responsible for those debts. The club that incurred those debts was not in existence at the time of the cheating any more than they were in 1872!
We can just be glad that the public record shows that RFC of 1872 did not ‘exit’ Administration and stay in existence via the hoped-for CVA, but went into Liquidation – no matter what the fundamentally dishonest ,twisted language (as I believe) the BBC and the SMS use to try to disguise that fact!
My post of 21.46 this evening. Amendment ( to make sense}
Penultimate para: Delete ‘ The club that incurred those debts” and replace with ” the club newly formed in 2012’
[Mrs C interrupted me as I was writing!]
Nawlite — 31st July 21:03 —- See what you mean by being all inclusive, maybe some sports editor will pick up on it and offer a job .. Fresh face and name to feed the continuation saga..
HP
Will check further. You are most probably correct though. Apologies if my reply was misleading.
J
Vernallen 31st July 22.18
Regarding SG “becoming a cheque book manager”
Rangers starting team v Livingston £13.73 million. Subs £3.0.
Celtic starting team v Hearts £ 28.20 million. Subs £5.0
Totals Rangers £16.73 million. Celtic £ 33.20 million.
Always eager to broaden my general knowledge and understanding of things about which I had no knowledge or interest in until fairly recent times, I was fiddling about on the internet idly looking for legal stuff relating to IPOs and share offers and such like.
By pure chance I came across a law firm called Deacons and this caught my eye.
” Unprecedented order by the Court against Hontex International Holdings Company Ltd for a HK$1.03 billion buy-back offer for false and misleading information in prospectus
22 June 2012, Regulatory, Legal Alert By Joseph Kwan
On 20 June 2012, the Court of First Instance (in proceedings brought by the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”)) ordered Hontex International Holdings Company Ltd (“Hontex”) to make a repurchase offer to about 7,700 investors who had subscribed for Hontex shares in the initial public offering in December 2009 or purchased them in the secondary market during the 3 months after its shares were listed (by then the present action was taken by the SFC).
The orders were the first of their kind made under section 213 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (“SFO”). The orders were made by agreement between the SFC and Hontex 12 days into the trial. Essentially, Hontex acknowledged, for the purpose of the civil proceedings, that the following information in the prospectus was materially false and misleading:
the amounts stated in the IPO prospectus in respect of its turnover for the three years before its listing from 2006 to 2008; and
the value of its cash and cash equivalents for the years ended 31 December 2007, 2008 and 30 June 2009.
The SFC alleged that the overstatements in the turnover and cash positions were as much as RMB 974 million and RMB 204 million respectively. Although Hontex did not agree to the extent of overstatements alleged by the SFC, their acknowledgement amounted to an admission of the contravention of section 298 of the SFO. This, in itself, enabled the SFC to seek the present order through the power given under section 213 of the SFO, to compensate the investors.
Section 298 imposes criminal liability on any person who intentionally or recklessly discloses, circulates or disseminates information that is false or misleading as to a material fact and the information is likely to induce another person to subscribe for securities, to sell or purchase securities or to maintain, increase, reduce or stabilise the price of securities.
The Court ordered Hontex to pay a total sum of HK$1.03 billion (HK$832,244,497 of which had previously been frozen by the Court upon the SFC’s application). Hontex is required to convene a shareholders’ meeting to decide whether to approve the repurchase and, upon approval, take steps to repurchase the shares allotted or purchased. The repurchase price will be at HK$2.06 per share, which was the closing price of the shares on 30 March 2010, when the SFC directed that trading on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong be suspended. The price is about 4 % less than the offer price of HK$2.15 in Hontex’s listing. The repurchase will be managed by Court-appointed administrators under a protocol to be agreed by the SFC.
In addition, the Court ordered Hontex to pay SFC’s costs at HK$7,000,000, which is quite a large bill….”
I fell about laughing at the ” which is quite a large bill”- the writer has a fine sense of humour.
The link to the whole piece is
https://www.deacons.com/news-and-insights/publications/unprecedented-order-by-the-court-against-hontex-international-holdings-company-ltd.html
Yesterday in ‘The Scotsman’ John McLellan [ a director of the Scottish Newspaper Society and blah blah blah former editor ] quoted Boris Johnson: ” What we want to do is to make sure that we don’t do anything to interrupt the operation of good journalism.. the searchlight by the British press will continue to shine on every crevice”
[This was in the context of Pritti Patel’s proposed changes to the Official Secrets Act 1989 and fears about freedom of the press]
I am minded to write to Boris to quietly let him know that in relation to matters to do with the integrity of Scottish football ( and perhaps ‘integrity’ in other areas of life] he is mistaken if he thinks there is anything like ‘good journalism’ , or ‘searchlights on every crevice’ in Scottish journalism.
If sports writers and sports editors can sell their souls for the sake of a football club, what would they not do or say , or not say, to avoid going to jail?
One cannot be selective when it comes to truth. If you’re a liar over a relatively unthreatening matter, you’re as sure as hell likely to lie to avoid a prison sentence!
And therefore be in no mood to challenge even a corrupt government.
In my opinion.
After all the complaints of the authorities underselling the Scottish football product , we have a club refusing to wear a new sponsoprship logo on it’s shirt as it clashes with the personal business of it’s chairman . Hopw’s that going to look to any potential investor . And it must be open to all other SPFL clubs ( and their players )to take the same stance .
Paddy Malarkey 2nd August 2021 At 12:18
‘..new sponsoprship logo on it’s shirt as it clashes with the personal business of it’s chairman .’
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Douglas Park had a car dealership business [Robert Wyper (Motors) ltd but that was dissolved nearly two years ago.
Has he got another one?
or is there another RIFC plc/TRFC director who has a car dealership?
Is it another bolloks-up by the SPFL board negotiators , not checking out whether the members were all happy with ‘cinch’?
Or is their a clause in the sponsorship contract allowing TRFC not to advertise the sponsor?
If there is such a clause, then there’s no story, really.
John Clark 2nd August 2021 At 13:42
I got the info here , JC .
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/7487280/rangers-spfl-8-million-sponsorship-cinch/
Paddy Malarkey 2nd August 2021 At 15:10
‘..I got the info here.’
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Thanks for the link,PM
If “cinch are understood to be furious about this latest controversy” they would seem not to have been too clever when it came to reading the fine print of the contract, if TRFC felt that it didn’t apply to them!
John Clark 2nd August 2021 At 16:41
TRFC saying that it’s nothing to do with them , contact SPFL . I would imagine that this will have a negative effect when trying to source future sponsorship/investment .
As JC suggests (hope I’m not doing a disservice here ?) this should be an open and shut case. Either SPL are within their rights (conferred through some sort of collective bargaining arrangement) or they have gone beyond their authority. It wouldn’t surprise me if they have gone beyond authority but it all just points to rank amateurism across the Scottish game. Assuming an error – where was the SPL oversight and diligence? Why didn’t TRFC raise this earlier? Surely the nature of what was being pursued (and thankfully not a betting or alcohol business) was known? Have the people governing our football and our clubs EVER heard of stakeholder communications??!
‘Rangers’ shirt sponsors are 32 Red, but they never objected to Ladbrokes being on their shirts. However, no-one will have the guts to try and punish them, so they might as well do as they please. They always have anyway. LNS showed that even when the authorities do issue a punishment, it will be one which suits ‘Rangers’. Same with the so called transfer embargo that ‘Rangers’ were allowed to dictate the terms of.
As we have seen many times since 2012, the Scottish Football authorities via their BIG LIE and Secret 5-Way Agreement, have created a monster, over which they have no control.
Cinch-gate is merely the latest episode in the “Wearrapeepul” supremacist journey, where one “infant” club continues to stick two fingers up to the rest of Scottish football.
The easy way to deal with this, (and what would have happened had it been any other club) would be to say, “That’s your one warning. Further failures to adhere to the stipulated sponsor promotion requirements will result in a forfeit of the match concerned”.
Should be easy, but of course we know the pandering cowards will fail to take on the delinquent club again. Rules are only for the other clubs, who should be threatening to expel The Rangers from the league for jeopardizing this much needed sponsorship income.
Governance my bahookie!!!
Re Douglas Park, chairman of RIFC:
Park holds several listed motor-trading directorships. See https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/KkbmWrkE52eT-FVAQWYZ0QGoH_w/appointments
He’s also part of the privately-run, family-owned Parks Motor Group. He therefore has considerable skin in the motor-trade. I don’t think he’s a director of TRFC, which holds the SPFL membership (and is the body affected by the cinch sponsorship), though.
The SPFL Handbook for 2021/22 contains the following in Section B –
‘Agreement on Compliance with Applicable Rules, Statutes and Regulations
B4 Membership of the League shall constitute an agreement between the Company and
each Club, and between each of the Clubs, to be bound by and to comply with:
B4.1 these Rules and the Articles;
B4.2 Regulations made from time to time by the Board as authorised by the
Articles.’
…and in Section G –
‘Shirts to Bear Logo(s)
G46 If so determined by the Board, the shirts of all Players in League Matches and PlayOff Matches shall carry the League logo and/or, the name/logo(s) of the title or other
sponsor of the League, on one or both sleeves, as specified from time to time by the Board.’
…and in Section I –
‘Commercial Contracts, Broadcasting and Transmission
I4 The Company shall in accordance with the Articles and these Rules enter into
Commercial Contracts for the purpose of generating Commercial Revenues.
I5 Subject to these Rules, the Company shall seek to maximise Commercial Revenues.
I6 The Clubs and each of them agree to centrally pool and market their rights, facilities
and properties relating to and concerning, Radio Transmission and Transmission of
League Matches and Play-Off Matches for exclusive exploitation by the Company of
Radio Transmission and Transmission of League Matches and Play-Off Matches.
I7 Subject:-
I7.1 that a Club shall not, other than in respect of a Commercial Contract relating
to Radio Transmission or Transmission, be obliged to comply with this Rule
I7 if to do so would result in that Club being in breach of a contractual
obligation entered into prior to the Commercial Contract concerned being
approved to be entered into by the Company; and
I7.2 these Rules including Rule I21’
https://spfl.co.uk/admin/filemanager/images/shares/pdfs/SPFL%20Rules%20and%20Regulations%2001-Jul-21%20(MASTER%20COPY)%20CLEAN.pdf
Are we to assume that TRFC (the member club) has a pre-existing, pre-cinch sponsorship, commercial contract with one (or several) of the chairman of RIFC’s companies which specifically excludes the advertising of a competing used-car company logo on their shirts & supersedes the requirements of the SPFL board?
I haven’t looked into the stadium & pitchside advertising angles, I’m afraid.
Has there been any confirmation as to the nature of Rangers refusal to comply in this case?.
A conflict between Cinch and the Park Motor Group has been mentioned without any official confirmation so it may be wise to await a statement from either side before demanding punishments be handed down.
Aplogies, having re-read my last post, I’m not sure that Section I actually applies directly in this instance…
So Rangers are in a snit because of potential sponsorship conflicts. How is the other teams are not concerned. Isn’t the idea of the league to work towards what best for everyone. (oops got a little carried away there). Perhaps it would be best for Rangers to write a new rule book, negotiate sponsorship deals for the league, negotiate tv contracts, negotiate with the government on fan attendance, is there not an area that appear to be expert in. However if any of this was to occur I would have any funds delivered to a top notch legal firm to be handled in trust for all concerned. We have history of how Rangers handle funds.
Thanks JJ – that all appears quite clear cut to me and onus should be on TRFC to explain their behaviour.
Will the scottish media be as quick off the mark now that Rangers CL ambitions have hit a slippery spot. Will the story line involve the potential of EL play, how will the potential loss of CL money affect them, will Morelos finally be sold to offset the potential loss of CL money. It didn’t take long to put a black cloud over Celtic’s Europena misfortunes.
@Vernallen – I think we might learn how many ways there are to say “it’s only halftime…”
On a wider point it always surprises me the arrogance we have in Scotland that we should be beating teams from Sweden, Denmark, Romania, etc. All countries with bigger populations and better national records in Euros and WCs. Yes there may be bigger wages to be had in Glasgow but some of that is a premium to get a player to come in the first place (so not a true reflection of their ability per se). History, yes but it can’t score you a goal or defend.
And yet we continue to be surprised when we lose to such teams. I think Celtic have learned not to bank on CL money – whether other clubs have is another issue.
Albertz11 3rd August 2021 At 11:19
‘Has there been any confirmation as to the nature of Rangers refusal to comply in this case?’
%%%%%
I agree with you in so far as that you and I and everybody else simply don’t know.
The PR people of both RIFC/TRFC and the SPFL must be among the most feckin useless in the business!
They seem to be incapable of simply telling the truth .
What was the sponsorship deal?
What was required of the clubs?
Did all the clubs sign up?
Were there exceptions, exemptions?
These would be matters of fact.
How the hell is the SPFL being run as a business?
As in 2012, I venture to suggest, very, very badly and without any moral authority.
They fu.ked themselves by the 5-Way Agreement which gave carte blanche to any club that wishes to thumb its nose to ‘rules’ and ‘articles’.
Hell mend them.
In relation to the current spat between the SPFL and one of its member clubs, it seems to me that the question is whether or not the club in question is acting within the SPFL rules.
Theoretically, the SPFL board have it within its power to formally make that determination. In practice, it would seem more likely that it would form a commission to look at the matter and make a ruling. The club can then appeal through a judicial panel if an adverse decision is reached.
It’s fairly straightforward to resolve the issue. The procedures are there.
Why do I have little faith that the standard procedures will apply in this case?
There’s a piece by Murdo Fraser MSP in the Scotsman this morning –
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/does-the-snp-have-a-rangers-problem-murdo-fraser-3333330
It’s really quite an extraordinary column, riddled with factual errors & slights.
Murdo Fraser MSP- at it again, propagating Scottish football’s biggest sporting untruth, trotting out the nonsense of ” the liquidation of the holding company”, ” the team’s consequent descent into the lower leagues” ” last season’s historic 55th league title for the Ibrox club”.
He comes out with this nonsense in the context of an attack on the SNP Government, clearly aimed at demonising the SNP government and party as Rangers haters , and observing that “it is not difficult for conspiracy theorists to question the motivations behind these prosecutions [ what he calls the ‘ malicious prosecution of the former administrators of Rangers’]. ” In due course” ,Fraser continues , ” the then Lord Advocate, now a high court judge, will have serious questions to answer about his and his office’s conduct in relation to these matters”
What a disgusting specimen of a politician he reveals himself to be when he says ” Perhaps it suits the SNP to demonise an institution which is culturally identified with British unionism and support for the monarchy. If working-class unionists can all be caricatured as red-faced anti-Catholic bigots, then won’t that help build support for Scottish independence?”
The ‘Rangers saga’ is saga of venal cheating in sport and in sports governance, and of the efforts of politicians and the SMSM to avoid the consequences of facing up to the Truth: that Rangers Football Club of 1872 foundation died as a football club in 2012 and its sporting history died with it, and that RIFC plc/TRFC are living a sporting lie, falsely claiming sporting honours and titles that they did not exist even to participate in let alone win.
You can read Fraser’s poisonous bile on page 26 of today’s issue of ‘The Scotsman’, and then sanitise your hands.
Jingso.Jimsie 4th August 2021 At 10:40
John Clark 4th August 2021 At 10:50
Thanks guys.Chuckled my way all the way through to the belly laugh punchline at the end.
“..If you haven’t already, please consider supporting our trusted, fact-checked journalism”
JC HP
RANGERS have today hit back at the SPFL in a stinging letter sent to Scotland’s clubs.
The Ibrox club are at war with league chiefs over their £8million sponsorship with online car sales firm cinch.
Stewart Robertson has written to clubs
2
Stewart Robertson has written to clubs
Gers claim the £1.6m-a-year agreement clashes with the deal they have in place with chairman Douglas Park’s motor company.
And their lawyers argue rule I7 of the SPFL’s own rulebook allows them to snub the agreement.
That saw SPFL chairman Murdoch MacLennan email clubs earlier this week expressing ‘disappointment’ in Rangers over their stance.
He urged clubs to back under-fire SPFL CEO Neil Doncaster as he fights for his job.
But there is a growing fear that cinch could now walk away from the five-year deal.
And now Gers Managing Director Stewart Robertson has hit back in a letter penned to clubs.
Crucially he claims Rangers made it clear to the SPFL there was an issue BEFORE the deal was signed.
Robertson has written: “We have been in private dialogue with the SPFL Executive since 8 June on this topic but, given that they have sought to make the issue public, it is appropriate for you to be aware of the circumstances involved.
“For the avoidance of doubt, Rangers continues to comply with the rules of the SPFL.
“One of the key rules that protects the commercial interests of all members is Rule I7.
“When the SPFL Executive put forward the written resolution with regards to the new sponsorship contract, Rangers immediately notified Neil Doncaster that, in line with Rule I7, we would be unable to provide the new sponsor with many of their rights due to a pre-existing contractual obligation.
“We cannot breach an existing contract. This is a legal principle which is founded in Scots Law and is the reason that the SPFL has Rule I7 within its rules.
“Rangers has complied with and will continue to comply with the SPFL rules and fulfil all sponsorship obligations which do not conflict with our pre-existing contractual obligations.
“However, this situation has raised some questions which the members may well wish to ask of the SPFL Executive:
Given the possibility of Rule I7 being relied upon by members, did the SPFL Executive/legal advisors include a clause in the contract with cinch, which allows the SPFL not to provide rights to cinch where members rely upon Rule I7? If not, why not?
Given that the issue was raised by Rangers (when there is no need under the rules for Rangers to do so) immediately after the written resolution was raised, why did the SPFL Executive proceed to sign the contract when they knew there was an issue and without further checking with Rangers as to its extent?
Did the SPFL Executive inform cinch prior to the contract being signed that it could not provide all of the rights it was contracting to provide due to SPFL Rule I7?
It was interesting that the Chairman provided the Chief Executive with the credit for closing the deal when it was introduced to the SPFL by an agency that will receive c.£100,000 pa in fees for each of the 5 years of the deal. That is c.£500,000 of cash that will be leaving the Scottish game. Is this the best use of Scottish Football’s limited resources? Could this money have been better spent by employing a full time Commercial Director?
“I trust that this clarifies the position. Best regards. Stewart Robertson
Managing Director.”
Commercial Contracts, Broadcasting and Transmission
I4 The Company shall in accordance with the Articles and these Rules enter into
Commercial Contracts for the purpose of generating Commercial Revenues.
I5 Subject to these Rules, the Company shall seek to maximise Commercial Revenues.
I6 The Clubs and each of them agree to centrally pool and market their rights, facilities
and properties relating to and concerning, Radio Transmission and Transmission of
League Matches and Play-Off Matches for exclusive exploitation by the Company of
Radio Transmission and Transmission of League Matches and Play-Off Matches.
I7 Subject:-
I7.1 that a Club shall not, other than in respect of a Commercial Contract relating
to Radio Transmission or Transmission, be obliged to comply with this Rule
I7 if to do so would result in that Club being in breach of a contractual
obligation entered into prior to the Commercial Contract concerned being
approved to be entered into by the Company; and
I7.2 these Rules including Rule I21
the Clubs and each of them shall license and otherwise provide to the Company the
use of such of their other rights, facilities and properties as may be required by the
Company to enable the Company to enter into and/or fulfil its obligations under and
in terms of Commercial Contracts entered or to be entered into by the Company.
Shirley it would be easy to show a (redacted) version of the contract with Parks , if Parks it is ,that precludes TRFC putting cinch advertising on the shirt sleeve . Parks don’t appear on their sponsor page – Seko is listed as Logistics Partner and Tomket Tires as sleeve sponsor – so it may be quid pro quo arrangement eg use of busses /free advertising . Pure conjecture !
I’m a little confused.
Stewart Robertson says that the Club cannot be made to breach an existing contract. He is 100% correct.
This should be a black and white issue. Theoretically, all he has to do is provide the evidence that such a contract was in existence prior to the SPFL arrangement.
But, if it so simple, why would the SPFL move ahead with the sponsorship if it was known one of the top-tier clubs was unable to take part in the promotional activities?
Perhaps the contract (if it even exists in written form) between the chairman and the club is so scant that it has no explicit exclusivity provision? Is it possible that it is only “custom and practice” that dictates Rangers will not seek sponsorship from competitors of its chairman.
Maybe it is arguable that such an arrangement is legally binding; but it is not entirely certain that conforming with the requirements of the SPFL sponsorship deal could constitute a breach of an unwritten (or poorly written) contract.
I am only speculating; but, if Rangers’ position causes the SPFL contract to flounder, the club could be held liable for the losses if it was unable to prove that its position is on a solid legal footing.
On the other hand, if the situation is as clear as Stewart Robertson describes, the entire SPFL hierarchy should fall on their respective swords.
It will be interesting to see how things play out.
HirsutePursuit 4th August 2021 At 20:43
“..Maybe it is arguable that such an arrangement is legally binding; but it is not entirely certain that conforming with the requirements of the SPFL sponsorship deal could constitute a breach of an unwritten (or poorly written) contract”
%%%%%%%%%%%%%
HP, for fun and in no way trying to be a lawyer( which I am not) I turn immediately to the Contract (Scotland)Act 1997, and note Section 1(1) especially 1 (2) thereof:
” 1. Extrinsic evidence of additional contract term etc.
(1)Where a document appears (or two or more documents appear) to comprise all the express terms of a contract or unilateral voluntary obligation, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the document does (or the documents do) comprise all the express terms of the contract or unilateral voluntary obligation.
(2)Extrinsic ORAL or documentary evidence shall be admissible to prove, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, that the contract or unilateral voluntary obligation includes additional express terms (WHETHER OR NOT WRITTEN TERMS]. [my capitals]
That suggests perhaps that TRFC are arguing that ,however lacking in precision may be any written contract it may have with Park , oral evidence or other extrinsic evidence (i.e. not in the contract document itself) TODAY about the terms of the agreement is admissible?
Is Robertson arguing that the parties to the contract agreed and agree what were the terms and will now be prepared to swear to that agreement in the absence of or as supplement to, any written evidence in any document they may each have signed?
As I read it, TRFC might well have the right of it!
And Doncaster/the SPFL might well have brought about something of a disaster, rather than a ‘sponsorship coup’
As I say, I’m no lawyer.
If, however, that is what TRFC is relying on, they may very well bring about that which the SPFL and others, by abandoning Truth and Sporting Integrity in the 5-Way Agreement , claimed to be trying to avoid: Armageddon’ for Scottish football.
That would be the supreme irony!
I expect there will be some dirty wee compromise , in secret, as the SPFL backs down having made another balls of things.
Let’s see how things pan out , but whatever happens, my withers are unwrung!
Charlie Adams, a former Ranger, says the best way to solve the cinch problem is to give Rangers and Celtic a bigger slice of the pie. I follow things quite closely from afar and my understanding is the only team that has spoken out against the deal is Rangers. I stand to be corrected but have yet to hear anything from Celtic in regards to the contract with cinch. Is the media putting words into Charlie’s mouth so as to lump the two teams together and ease some of the pressure on Rangers. Also if Stewart Robertson wants Doncaster gone, have him all for an EGM and put forward a motion for his dismissal. This year’s battle of words seems to be a carry over from his last term on the board. Strange he had little to say when he was at Motherwell.
My post of 22.21 refers.
And from our Keef [remember him?] of the ‘Daily Record’ at 22.33 tonight, we have :
“Now we understand his [Robertson’s]outburst will be discussed at an urgent SPFL board meeting on Thursday – while league chiefs are still waiting for Robertson to provide contractual proof to back up his claims that Rangers are legally obliged not to promote the partnership with cinch.”
Vernallen 4th August 2021 At 23:03
‘.. I follow things quite closely from afar.’
%%%%%%%%%
That’s a brilliantly clever oxymoron, by the way.
“Is the media putting words into Charlie’s mouth so as to lump the two teams together and ease some of the pressure on Rangers”, you ask.
As a matter of course the SMSM will always , always, always bring the other cheek of the once ‘old firm’ arse into involvement/participation in anything that is potentially discreditable to TRFC.
The regrettable thing is that that other cheek goes along with the nonsense, and has gone along with the nonsense of the 5-Way Agreement and the award of the UEFA competition licence to CW’s club that was the real Rangers of 1872.
Just re: the £500k “finders fee” mentioned in the interview. Does that not constitute a breach of the commercial confidentiality of the deal?
It sounds as though all of the clubs were given a chance to input to the deal (i.e. TRFC Ltd say they raised concerns about non-fulfilment of the sponsor display prior to it signing) so presumably the rest of Scottish football were fine with that going out of the game on the basis they were getting more out of the deal than previous – that’s not to say its a great deal; compared to a Belgium we are sold well short IMHO.
To the contractual conflict re Parks Motor Group – lets just hope that the sponsorship agreement isn’t a means to bypass FFP……I mean if you’re a sponsor you want that sponsorship visible like on a strip, dont you?……
‘OttoKaiser 5th August 2021 At 10:06
…To the contractual conflict re Parks Motor Group – lets just hope that the sponsorship agreement isn’t a means to bypass FFP……I mean if you’re a sponsor you want that sponsorship visible like on a strip, dont you?……’
::
::
I suspect (but don’t know) that one or several of the RIFC’s chairman’s many businesses supplies ‘company’ cars to some staff & players within RIFC & TRFC. If so, it’s strange that such an arrangement isn’t even featured on the list of sponsors on the TRFC website.
Jingso.Jimsie 5th August 2021 At 10:36
Let us hope that the company car is given the appropriate tax treatment for that kind of benefit!
Meanwhile
“LORD TYRE – S Alexander, Clerk
Tuesday 10th August
Proof Before Answer (8 days)
A54/19 Charles Green v The Chief Constable of Police Scotland &c Jones Whyte Law Ledingham Chalmers LLP ”
%%%%%%
I hope I can tune in to at least an occasional session over the 8 days.
Stewart Robertson says that the Club cannot be made to breach an existing contract. He is 100% correct.
Are we to assume now clubs can enter into contracts with companies making them businesses or even companies themselves, changed days indeed from separate entity claims, were one entity goes into liquidation whilst the other continues, as if it were all a dream.
“I7.2 these Rules including Rule I21
the Clubs and each of them shall license and otherwise provide to the Company the
use of such of their other rights, facilities and properties as may be required by the
Company to enable the Company to enter into and/or fulfil its obligations under and
in terms of Commercial Contracts entered or to be entered into by the Company.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58104430
Did Celtic refuse the Scot Gov loan offer because they didn’t need the money, or was it because of the conditions attached, especially to executives pay??
Also, I hope The Rangers read the small print;
“Quarterly financial reports are also being issued to ministers by the clubs.”
I wonder if these will be made public and will these “reports” be properly scrutinised or more likely, given a cursory glance. Let’s hope they are made public.
Surely the Scot Gov would not lend tax-payers money to a club that had stiffed tax-payers out of tens of millions of pounds less than ten years ago?? Unless of course they know fine well this is a new club.
Incontrovertible evidence????
Normanbatesmumfc 6th August 2021 At 11:20
‘
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58104430‘
%%%%%%%%
Thanks for posting that link, Nbmfc.
I note this “and in the event of any club with a loan going into administration, the unpaid money is expected to be paid back with interest.”
What football club would these days fear to go into Administration?
Wouldn’t the RFC of 1872 model be followed? -Stiff the creditors, go into Liquidation, find some chap to fund a purchase of some of the assets including a few players (with their agreement] , call those chaps a football club, and then order the SFPFL and SFA to admit the new club into a League and into the SFA, and carry on debt free, name and sporting history intact, cocking a snoot at HM treasury and the rest of us?
Wouldn’t that work?
Nah, you’re right: such a disgraceful abandonment of all notion of sporting integrity as was demonstrated in the Rangers’ saga couldn’t happen again, could it?
Certainly not when there are politicians around who see nothing wrong in what happened as a result of the cheating by SDM/CW and the cowardly abdication of duty by the governance bodies of our game.
TRFC has been paying debts .Company number SC425159
Company Results (links open in a new window)
Date(document was filed at Companies House) Description(of the document filed at Companies House) View / Download(PDF file, link opens in new window)
05 Aug 2021 All of the property or undertaking has been released from charge SC4251590015
View PDF All of the property or undertaking has been released from charge SC4251590015 – link opens in a new window – 1 page(1 page)
05 Aug 2021 Satisfaction of charge SC4251590013 in full
View PDF Satisfaction of charge SC4251590013 in full – link opens in a new window – 1 page(1 page)
05 Aug 2021 Satisfaction of charge SC4251590014 in full
View PDF Satisfaction of charge SC4251590014 in full – link opens in a new window – 1 page(1 page)
09 Jun 2021 Satisfaction of charge 1 in full
View PDF Satisfaction of charge 1 in full – link opens in a new window – 1 page(1 page)
09 Jun 2021 Satisfaction of charge SC4251590011 in full
View PDF Satisfaction of charge SC4251590011 in full – link opens in a new window – 1 page(1 page)
Better like this
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC425159/filing-history
Paddy Malarkey 6th August 2021 At 14:40
It looks as though they have paid off Close Bros. They have done the same in the past only to go back to the well quite sharpish.
Gunnerb 6th August 2021 At 16:14
‘..It looks as though they have paid off Close Bros…’
%%%%%%%%%
B.gger Close Bros [ and, by geez, when you read the details of what is involved in borrowing from them [ or, perhaps, from other loan sh .. companies] you’d want to have a pretty sharp lawyer acting for you, and make sure you paid them off as soon as you could!
The good thing is that in June , Sportscotland were repaid the money they [ i.e. we , the public] loaned to arch-cheat in respect of Murray Park .
What I don’t know is whether the present footballing successes of TRFC , with some UEFA monies coming their way ( and that last-second goal v Malmo might well be worth a good few bob] may have enabled them to return to ‘ordinary’ sources of borrowing from regular banks, and to acquire a generally recognised ‘safe borrower’ status, without any FCA black marks/cold shouldering ‘King ‘ effect?
[ and , private rant,mentioning Malmo can I be permitted to excoriate our football commentators on BBC Sportsound [with the honourable exception of Liam McCloud] for their bloody annoying insistence on not finding out how to pronounce the names of foreign clubs or players? It takes two minutes on the internet to find out how to pronounce any foreign names or words
The worst offender in this respect is Pat Bonner: how the f.ck he can keep saying ‘Rojic’ when all about him are saying ‘Roggitch’ . He , as an Irishman, must know that even though European languages use the same alphabet( mainly] as English does, some of the letters are sounded completely differently.
Pat will have no difficulty in pronouncing ‘taoseach’ as ‘teeshoch’ , for crying out loud.
And to hear the guys and gals ( hon exception Liam] talking about ‘jab[ as in vaccination] lonetch ‘ or some other variant is as infuriating and unforgiveable as to to hear any talk about ‘reel Madrid’.
Admittedly, in our earlier days before the Internet there was no quick way to learn how foreign names were pronounced.
But surely people employed now by the BBC must be young enough to have been on the internet for a substantial part of their adult lives?
There’s no excuse for not making the little effort to try to get it approximately right and the BBC producers who do not insist on their programme fronters trying to do so deserve a kick in the goolies [in so far as they have any]
I see from Twitter that Rangers player Kemar Roofe’s young child is in hospital, and the club are asking that his privacy be respected. Here’s hoping the wee one gets well soon.
Uth 7th August 20.55.
Well said uth.
Puts football and everything that surrounds it into perspective.
Interesting if true .
://videocelts.com/2021/08/blogs/latest-news/ibrox-ace-lundstram-admits-to-positive-cvid-cases-inside-the-club/
How diligent will the government be in reviewing Rangers accounts in lieu of the money borrowed/lent. It looks like old times in Rangers world, borrow money or have money lent with long term generous payments. Would the sale of one player not cover this and expedite re-payment to the government. How will the accountants/auditors dress up the financials to give the appearance of robust financial health. Will the government get nervous if a large egg is laid at Ibrox this week and the anticipated/hoped for CL millions go out the window. Will an early exit provide impetus to sell a certain player who like someone at Celtic has his bags packed and is eying the door.
Upthehoops 7th August 2021 At 20:55
‘… Kemar Roofe……….. Here’s hoping the wee one gets well soon’
%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Of course.
The sins of the fathers are not to be visited upon the children.
I’ve lived long enough to have seen football as it was played in the early 1950s. I have NEVER seen such a recklessly flying boot head-height tackle on a standing goalkeeper as Roofe’s was.
It was outrageously , almost murderously, ‘reckless’ and a 4 match ban was nowhere near severe enough a penalty.
But perhaps Roofe , with a child in hospital, will reflect on the fact that the goalkeeper he recklessly boot-slammed in the head might have died on the pitch if he had fractionally moved just before impact:
and realise that Ondrej Kolar’s family would have been every bit as worried about Ondrej as Roofe himself now may be about his own child.
I do hope that the child will be well and restored to the parents hale and hearty in due course.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting the situation regarding pay-back of loans granted by the Scottish government, but by stipulating that the loans be paid back in the event of administration, seems at odds with an administrators duties. Surely such a decision would lie with them ?.
The only mechanism I can think of to permit such a stipulation would be the archaic “Fitba’ debts” loophole whereby the loans are elevated to that status. Otherwise the govt. is merely an unsecured creditor
If “Fitba’ debt”, is the case, then I assume agreement must have been achieved between the government and football authorities to have it recognised in some way as such.
Or a meringue?
Perhaps the longer term and zero interest of the ScotGov loan gave Rangers* an opportunity to borrow to the max and pay off the less favourable terms of the Clise Bros loan? Don’t know about the amounts involved in the latter, but it would be smart to take that opportunity.
John Clark 8th August 00.00
Sorry John but to describe the challenge in the terms you have done is arrant nonsense. At no time does KR take his eye off the ball and as a result has no idea where the GK is.
1.20 in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iihIR2Mklw
Now this is reckless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUyQxNfASPc
Big Pink 8th August 2021 At 08:37
………………………………….
https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100213841/
………………
tackle lost ticket revenue during the pandemic. Not to pay off loans
Big Pink 8th August 2021 At 08:37
………………………….
https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100213841/
…………………..
tackle lost ticket revenue during the pandemic. Not to pay off loans
oops sorry i posted that twice
SPFL asks SFA to intervene in sponsorship row with Rangers.
In an email breaking the news chairman Murdoch MacLennan told member clubs: ‘The one SPFL club that has failed to deliver club inventory for cinch is also hampering the SPFL from promoting the SPFL’s relationship with cinch by, for example, refusing to permit cinch-branded interview backboards to be delivered to, or used at, its home ground and to be used for broadcast partner interviews with club representatives at away matches.
‘At their opening league match, none of that club’s players wore the cinch branded sleeve patch; there were no LED advertising or static advertising boards with cinch branding allowed in the stadium; and the club concerned also refused to allow the use of the standard SPFL broadcast partner interview backdrop board displaying cinch branding.
‘Over several weeks now, your board has sought to engage with the club concerned to find a way through this very serious impasse.
‘However, we have been met with a refusal to give the board sight of any pre-existing third-party contract that would prevent the club from providing inventory for cinch.
‘The refusal by one of our clubs to provide inventory for cinch presents a real and substantial commercial risk to the SPFL – and one which materially threatens the SPFL’s fee payments to all 42 SPFL clubs.
‘This is the first time in the history of the SPFL, or the SPL before that, where a club has not provided agreed inventory to the League for use in fulfilling a commercial Contract.
‘Your board considers it has been left with no realistic option, in compliance with Scottish FA articles, other than to refer this dispute to Scottish FA arbitration. Your Board has reached this conclusion with great reluctance.
‘However, your board believes that it has a clear obligation to embark upon this course of action to protect and advance the interests of the SPFL and all of its member clubs.’
A couple of questions.
Have the SPFL signed a deal knowing that a member club had a conflict of interest that could affect the deal?
Have the “one club” adhered to the SPFL rules or not?
Shouldn’t be too difficult for them to answer.
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/08/09/spfl-call-in-sfa-in-rangers-cinch-row-as-8million-deal-hangs-in-the-balance/
Keith Jackson raises a valid point in today’s column in regards to covid impacting Rangers pre season training. Where was the media when John Lundstram raised this issue earlier. Did they not want to spend the $25,000 Rangers are apparently looking for in line with media access. Is there a much deeper issue with covid they want to hide. Wasn’t it just last year they played fast and loose in regards to results from covid test prior to a pre-season game.
Are the rumors of earth tremors in certain areas of Glasgow or is it just a case of Rangers fans falling off the bandwagon. Could be full blown earthquake if they lose tomorrow night.