A guest blog by former Celtic & Scotland defender, Jim Craig
“What time is this to come back?”
Dolores McCann (her Mother had been a great fan of foreign films) stood in that classic pose of the wounded woman – up to her full height and chin forward – as she glared at her husband who had just come in the front door. Before he could say a word, she gave him another volley;
“you left the house at half-past-two for a three o’clock kick-off, it only takes you 20 minutes to get to the ground, a match lasts only one-and-a-half hours plus ten minutes for the break and you’ve just walked back in the door at half-past-seven! So where the hell were you?”.
Wayne McCann (his father liked Westerns) tried to calm her down.
“Dolores, you don’t know what it’s like at football matches nowadays ; it has changed out of all recognition; a match goes on for much longer”.
“In what way?” Dolores asked.
“Well, for a start, the players and even the managers can complain about any decision that is given against them. If that happens, the referee then goes and has a word with firstly, the two assistant referees, then the fourth official and gets their comments before he reflects on the situation. If he is still in any doubt that he made the wrong decision then he can ask the guy upstairs sitting in front of a television screen what he thinks. And, of course, all through this, the managers and players of both teams can chip in with their comments. That all adds a fair bit of time to the match”.
“Aye…but turning up at half-past-seven is still a bit over the top…is it no’?”
“Well, no’ really……you see, nowadays you are not allowed to have a drawn game, so if the match is level at the full-time whistle, there is extra time, which takes a minimum of half-an-hour”.
“The time is still no’ matching up!”
“Aye, mibbe so, if that was the end of the match. But if the match is still level at the end of extra-time, then it goes to a penalty shoot-out. I told you…you are not allowed a drawn game”.
“ A penalty shoot-out disnae take long”.
“That might have been the case at one time but because so many keepers were being accused of moving before the ball was kicked, nowadays they are strapped in to a harness which anchors them in the middle of the goal. They can only move when the foot of the guy who is taking the penalty actually touches the ball. So, after each kick, the keeper has to be put back into the harness and it all starts again. And, of course, you get the complaints from the managers and players that the harness wasnae working properly or that the officials who put the harness on didnae put it on right. That all adds up to the time factor”.
“Did you go to the pub?”
“As God is my judge, Dolores, after the match finished, I came straight here”.
“Who won anyway?”
“That’s a difficult question… there was so much noise and kerfuffle both on the pitch and in the stands, nobody was quite sure what the final score was. And the guy who usually does the announcing had gone home. Somebody said that he had a date. Anyway, if you let me turn on the radio, I’ll hear the score there. And Dolores?”
“Yes”
Wayne walked over to the drinks cabinet and took out a couple of glasses. “I don’t suppose you would fancy a wee drink”
We will leave the smooth-talking Wayne to his attempts to mollify Dolores and reflect on the situation. What you have just read is probably the ultimate scenario for those who wish to tamper with the current rules of football. Do I think that the game needs radical changes like that? No but I do think that some change is necessary and in one specific circumstance.
Now, I was a professional footballer for 9 years and in all that time, I can put my hand on my heart and state with complete conviction that I never pulled any other player’s jersey. Did I try to half him in two with a tackle, yes! But no jersey-pulling. And, of course, I was penalised for the challenge.
Today, though, I feel that there is a lot of body-checking and jersey-pulling going on in every match. Very often the referee lets it go and then you get the ridiculous scenario at a corner kick when all those waiting for the ball to come in are pulling and pushing, with the referee watching it and ignoring it. It is a foul, ref!
When the referee decides that an offence has been committed, then the player will be spoken to first. If he does it again, he will be given a yellow-card. The problem is, though, that the offence might possibly have affected the play in the match, whereas the yellow card does not affect the player’s participation.
If the player is daft enough to do it again, then of course he gets another yellow and will be off. Most, however, are sensible and keep the head, so they go unpunished as far as the current match is concerned. What we have to find is a punishment that affects the match in which the transgression occurred. Which means that we have to consider the sin bin.
This works very well in rugby and gives the referee a means to punish an offence a little more harshly – yet more efficiently – than a yellow card but without having to go for the ultimate, drastic – and for many unpalatable – option of the red card. I hope it comes in soon.
HELPUMOOTMARCH 6, 2018 at 00:37
I remember being angry at the time with that HMRC remark. It came across as, ‘I’ve got mine and to hell with everybody else.” Are creditors who got royally screwed happy to look on as the whole operation at Ibrox carries on as if nothing happened?
===============================
Personally I was angrier that HMRC allowed them to go from October 2011 to February 2012 without paying tax before taking action. Only when Whyte himself pressed the Admin button did HMRC step up a gear. If Whyte had somehow found £5m to keep the lights on how long would HMRC have sat on their hands? Why were other organisations including football clubs (e.g Hearts) hit with Winding up Orders while Rangers were spared that ignominy? I guess the answer lies in the then Scottish First Minister excusing the non tax payment and lobbying for it to be overlooked. He was not alone in the political world with several other Holyrood and Westminster figures pushing the same line. Perhaps it’s not so easy for HMRC to press the button when some people whose democratic society is underpinned by taxes take such a soft line with one single defaulting organisation. Likewise we had newspapers at the time screaming about tax evasion on the front pages, while demanding it be overlooked on the back pages. Even now we have a media ridiculing people who say it’s a new club, but pretending that all the tax evasion by what they insist is the same club never happened. There are people on the current board at Ibrox who were part of David Murray’s and Craig Whyte’s board, when millions were withheld from the public purse. Still the media say nothing, in fact in some cases those board members are held in the highest regard.
Don’t worry Jimbo, I have thick skin (haha I wouldn’t be on a site like this making my points unless I did!). I know it doesn’t go with the general consensus but I like to think I at least try and come across balanced and willing to listen to others. I’m certainly never on the wind up. The thumbs up and thumbs down option always comes across as bizarre on a blog anyway (I’ve even seen likes start to be used on forums!!). There’s no way of knowing whether it’s someone disagreeing with the opinion, criticising the way it’s worded, a personal reason or just to go with the flow.
With regards to legalities there can be no arguing with company law. But in terms of sporting – if (and I don’t think they ever will one way or another) UEFA were to state categorically that the transfer of assets would constitute the same club, then would that be confirmation for sporting reasons? And if not, what body’s confirmation would?
DARKBEFOREDAWNMARCH 5, 2018 at 23:28
JC, I won’t argue over whether he should or should not have said that. But as a rare (only?) ‘same club’ voice on this site, I will say that single statement eased an awful lot of my fears at the time when Rangers went under. The previous two weeks were torture with talk of dying a death, but after that statement the SMSM completely changed track and then with further statements by the ASA and (I honestly admit flawed) LSN I genuinely believed the OC/NC argument had been out to bed.
For me personally (I work in a predominantly Celtic work, and am out numbered by my friends who are Celtic fans) I hadn’t heard it mentioned for 5 or so years. Celtic fans I know and knew still thought of us as the same. It was only when I came on here a year or so ago I realised it was still debated. I’m not in any way justifying any views on this, merely stating my observations of the argument in every day life. I don’t believe it is this hugely debated topic outside of some fan forums. I have struggled to get folk to come out at work some weekends because it’s the ‘old form game’ and as I said previously that’s a predominantly Celtic based workforce. I watch lots of games in the main pub in my town which is usually a 50/50 split and the NC/OC debate is never raised. I look at tickets for the “old firm games” like gold dust to get. I’m not debating the legalities or moralities of it as I don’t know enough about it – you guys could rip me to shreads in that area – I’m just pointing out my observations.
________________
Pretty poor argument, that.
In the same way Rangers didn’t die just because someone said they did, they don’t survive just because someone didn’t say they did either. They also dont live on just because someone, now universally recognised, on both sides of the argument, as a liar and a charlatan, comes up with the idea that history can be bought, or that, for the first time ever, it is said that a football club, incorporated over a century ago, is separate from the incorporated entity. And they do this without any evidence to support their very flimsy case – a flimsy case that is only allowed to fly because those who should question it choose not to, and, in fact, do their best to give it wings.
If you genuinely believe Rangers didn’t die because the club is separate from the company, can you provide one example of this ever being mentioned before their liquidation, about them or any other club not being one and the same as the separate limited thingy? If you can’t find anything, can you tell us why that might be?
PS I know you don’t like research, but if there has been such an example, it would have been found by someone who does do research, and trumpeted loudly in every possible area of the media, so will be easy for you to find.
AJ, Fiorentina and Derry are the only two examples I can think off. I don’t think there will be precedent before, as football has only in the last twenty years moved from being a sport/hobby into a business. I certainly don’t believe we will be the last club that this happens too, which is possibly why the authorities will now recognise that a club can exist separately from the company.
Its not the first example of sporting integrity taking a backseat where money is concerned (Qatar probably being the best example). Sadly we are in a world where sport is for the money and not for the masses. I know this site is for football and particularly Scottish football, but I think football fans are in a better place than Boxing or Formula One fans who are treated with far more contempt when money talks.
UTH, there was one event at the beginning of this mess which made myself, and many others, believe that the ‘fix’ was in. It was to do with the appointment of a judge to investigate what happened. The judge was appointed then we were told that unfortunately the judge was going to be on holiday and wouldn’t be able to begin his investigation for a few months yet. The timing was crucial and instead of Rangers being held to account and punished, the whole thing was kicked down the road which meant that those involved had plenty of time to subvert what should have happened. (The delay in the present SFA enquiry stinks of the same.)
Does this ring a bell with anyone?
DarkbeforedawnMarch 6, 2018 at 08:15
“if (and I don’t think they ever will one way or another) UEFA were to state categorically that the transfer of assets would constitute the same club, then would that be confirmation for sporting reasons? ”
________
Perhaps: but only if the transfer of debts and the obligation to pay those debts was included! (As it is when a club simply changes owners, and doesn’t go into Liquidation!)
DARKBEFOREDAWNMARCH 6, 2018 at 09:22
AJ, Fiorentina and Derry are the only two examples I can think off. I don’t think there will be precedent before, as football has only in the last twenty years moved from being a sport/hobby into a business. I certainly don’t believe we will be the last club that this happens too, which is possibly why the authorities will now recognise that a club can exist separately from the company.
Its not the first example of sporting integrity taking a backseat where money is concerned (Qatar probably being the best example). Sadly we are in a world where sport is for the money and not for the masses. I know this site is for football and particularly Scottish football, but I think football fans are in a better place than Boxing or Formula One fans who are treated with far more contempt when money talks.
_____________
Sorry, it looks like you’ve completely misunderstood the question, or you are playing the politician and answering a different one that you have a practiced, but very flawed, answer to.
The question was not ‘can you give examples of other clubs fooling the public with the assistance of untrustworthy bodies?” It was, and I’ll try to make it clearer – can you give an example of anyone, at any time prior to Rangers liquidation, stating that the club is separate from the limited company thingy?
Maybe you don’t get it, but for over 100 years of incorporated football clubs, no one has ever mentioned that the ‘club’ is a separate entity from the ‘ Club Limited’. Then, as soon as a lying charlatan like Charles Green (later retracted in a court of law) sets the idea in motion, it’s taken as fact by those with a vested interest in trying to convince us all that it is a fact, without one single attempt to explain their shift in position.
Why might it be, do you think, that in the millions of words spouted by the media, in over a full century, about the ‘mighty’ Rangers, not one word has ever been spoken about this separate, but unseen, ‘club’, or of any other club? Do you think it’s at all possible that, if such a ‘club’ existed, it could possibly escape mention in all that time?
Here’s a little thought for you. Something that exists for over 100 years, even if only in the minds of a large group of people, does not go for all that time without a mention, and if it does, then it doesn’t exist, even in the minds of those people.
Can you find a flaw in that thought, or do you agree that something, as close to the heart of thousands and thousands of people, would not only be mentioned from time to time, but would, in fact, be mentioned repeatedly?
Here’s another wee thought for you to try to conjure up a reposte to. If there was, indeed, a separate ‘club’ at Ibrox in all those years, how would you explain it never being mentioned in one of the many (I’m sure there will be many) club history books written during the period?
Strange, isn’t it, how this ‘separate club’ only popped up after Charles Green’s purchase of a basket of assets!
I don’t think it’s ever been necessary before. With both Fiorentina and Derry, it was just accepted they were the same club without the level of scrutiny the Rangers example has had. I personally feel if you took the West of Scotland problem out of it, it wouldn’t even have been a debate.
And one possible option why this was seen as acceptable may have been in the HMRC statement that mentioned “Rangers could make a fresh start”. It could have been that until then, clubs and authorities thought that to liquidate a company as a means of dumping debt would have been rejected outright by the revenue, and as such could not continue to use the same name and treat the club as the same. This seismic shift in thinking by HMRC effectively gave the green light to the continuity argument.
Sometimes people like to read what suits their point of view or to reflect their feelings or loss, however, maybe if we move forward now that the whole associated and incorporated club/company is liquidated and now in the hands of the myth maker, and when challenged for money, lets see what narrative cahnges to, the truth always wins when the fear of money been taken is presented.
Take it awayCharles Greens lawyers.
”
When Lord Doherty stated that the “articles of association show Rangers started as a club”, Mr Brown responded that this changed when Rangers incorporated in 1899 and clarified the position on behalf of his client, Charles Green.
Mr. Brown told the Court of Session: “Sevco Scotland did not buy the club they bought the business and assets of the club. There is a difference between the company and the business assets, but not between a club and a company. A club is an undertaking of it’s owners. As it has neither capacity of personality, no-one can be CEO of a club. The idea that someone can be CEO of an undertaking is just nonsense.”
Realising the significance of what he was telling Lord Doherty, Brown continued: “I realise that Rangers being the same club is a matter of life and death to some, but it wouldn’t be a proper legal case without the elephant in the room getting mentioned. The team are paid by Sevco, play at a ground owned by Sevco, trained by a manager who is employed by Sevco, fans buy tickets from Sevco. Rangers was a basket of assets that could be sold, but these were not indivisible.The players went one way and the ground another, where is the “club” then?”
Here is what Rangers Director David Hope had to say:
“The Rangers Football Club is a limited company. You’ve got to buy shares to be a shareholder. Any member of the public can buy shares in the Rangers Football Club. You can buy the shares at the Stock Exchange through a stockbroker.” David Hope, Rangers Director 1974.
This is a remarkable film, that was banned from broadcasting in the UK at the time. It tells you a great deal about Glasgow in the 1970s, the Rangers bigotry that festered in that club and also a little about Celtic.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=19j95pGNzI8
DBD, You know I respect you but there is no gentle way of saying this. Liquidation means Liquidation. The End.
DarkbeforedawnMarch 6, 2018 at 11:05
‘…This seismic shift in thinking by HMRC ‘
_______________________
There has been no ‘seismic shift’ in HMRC thinking.
Do yourself a favour and read up about HMRC and ‘phoenix’ companies.
By no stretch of interpretation of Company law and tax legislation can what happened on the Liquidation of Rangers Football Club of 1872 in 2012 be even remotely considered as falling into the category of legitimate phoenix creation.
The business was not ‘restructured’ out of Administration. It died. It ceased operating. Rangers Football Club ceased to operate as football club. It lost its existence as a football club.
The new creation was not even a football club until it had applied for membership of a league. Extraordinary measures were adopted to allow a fixture that could not be fulfilled by the defunct club to go ahead.
Use your common sense DbD, really.
Like all the Liquidation deniers you are quite simply wrong.
It was one of the reasons why I liked Johnjames. He at least had the honesty to admit that the team playing out of Ibrox was a new entity but emotionally they were still the ‘Gers’. Truth be told, its the same with us Celtic supporters. They – whoever they are – are still our enemy, so to speak. But facts cannot be ignored.
DBD @ 11:05
Now your just being silly: this isn’t about ‘making a fresh start’. Only apologists for The Big Lie use such and argument.
If it was simply about making a fresh start, then the game (of professional football) is – literally and metaphorically – a-bogey. Every team would have an excuse for doing what Rangers did; indeed, NOT to do so would be foolish, since there would be no consequences for financial wrong-doing and all one’s rivals would be tempted to do the same – until professional football was closed down, due to the recklessness of its participant clubs.
Any professional sport that purports to rely on fairness (backed up by and based on rules), relies on there being (proportionate) consequences for those who defy the rules of the sport: the rules of professional football in Scotland require clubs to run their affairs (including their finances) in a manner that both legal (in the widest sense) and available to all.
If a club fails to abide by the rules, then there are consequences: the most drastic and final of which is the demise of the club.
This is exactly what happened to the Rangers FC: quite simply it amassed debts it could no longer afford to service, ran out of money and died.
The club’s registration became void and it lost its place in Scottish Football.
From the smoldering ashes of the old club in liquidation, a new venture was begun, gaining special dispensation to play a cup tie while the sports governing body cobbled together a method of shoe-horning the new club into the league structure.
I think it really is as simple as that.
Folks, I’m not sure why I am being subject to this abuse. I started yesterday by stating that UEFA awarded Rangers/Sevco/Newco the points of Rangers Oldco in the latest published co-efficients and what peoples views were on that. Was this a shift in UEFA’s interpretation of a club (in anticipation of more big names going the same way), and overseight or something else. This seems to have led to a two day OC/NC debate where I have never at any point tried to state facts or call anyone out as being wrong. I have merely stated my opinions on certain matters. An opinion cannot be correct or wrong as it is just that – someone’s view of a matter.
And I didn’t mention ‘fresh start’. I quoted a statement from HMRC after the liquidation where they stated Rangers could be free to make a fresh start – these were not my words.
BigBoab, Thanks for the link to the documentary. It was a good watch.
Darkbeforethedawn; my two brother-in-laws are died in the wool Gers’ as well as their/my good lady’s kith and kin in Australia.
All beelin that the club had been liquidated in February 2012, but adamant that they survived liquidation because they “unicorporated” before it happened.
This was what they were told by the local Rangers Supporters Club in Melbourne.
Complete nonsense from a corporate law and business set up, and easily rebuffed.
This was about a commercial imperative, which in the eyes of the SFA/SPFL/SPL was more important that sporting integrity and doing and saying what is right.
In their eyes “The Old Firm” was and is Scottish Football and therefore had to be protected.
Put it this way, and look at this from what is widely perceived as the wronged Gers supporters:
1. Why has there been no court action brought by “Rangers” against the SFA/SPL/SPFL for relegating a club down to the lowest professional level when there is no rule that allows them to do so??
2. Why has there been no action brought by “Rangers” against the SFA/SPL/SPFL for denying them access to winnings and Europa league participation when finishing 2nd in the league??
3. Why has there been no action brought by “Rangers” against the SFA/SPL/SPFL for playing in the early rounds of the cup competitions??
4. Why has there been NO CONVICTIONS in the handover of the club by various spivs, charlatans and carpet baggers??
Don’t forget that Charles Green successfully overturned the decision to award a 12 month transfer embargo because the SFA/SPFL/SPL went beyond their own rules.
Who do the 256 creditors have recourse against – the club or company that ran the club??
Think before you answer the last one because I’m of one of the 256!!
I see the attempt to re-open the new club debate has worked.
I though it was decided to keep that on a seperate thread and not to discuss it here, where all it does is serve as a distraction.
The actions of the football authorities and the clubs in Scotland made the point years ago. Rangers applied to enter the SPL as was, and were rejected. They then applied to join the SFL and were accepted into it at the bottom level, the same as any other new club would be.
Can those who are trying to convince us that these things didn’t happen not simply “move on”.
HelpumootMarch 6, 2018 at 10:18
‘… there was one event at the beginning of this mess which made myself, and many others, believe that the ‘fix’ was in. It was to do with the appointment of a judge to investigate what happened. The judge was appointed then we were told that unfortunately the judge was going to be on holiday and wouldn’t be able to begin his investigation for a few months yet….’
________________________________
Does this ring a bell, Huo?
From the “Herald”
“22nd June 2012
Judge orders probe into Rangers administrators
A judge today ordered an investigation into Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps. Lord Hodge, sitting at the Court of Session today, said he wanted to examine allegations the company had a conflict of interest before it took over the role. The judge referred to a BBC television programme shown last month in which investigative reporter Mark Daly examined links beetween senior Duff and Phelps employees and disgraced former Rangers owner Craig Whyte………”
https://www.unlockthelaw.co.uk/corporate-insolvency-and-football-clubs.html
Rangers FC
The administration of Rangers FC is arguably the most famous in Scottish football insolvency history. As a result of the clubs failure to pay the necessary taxes to HMRC, the club entered administration in February 2012, with financial advisers Duff & Phelps acting as administrators. Duff & Phelps went about the business of analysing the clubs financial position, with a view to setting out options to save the business, which was found to have a total outstanding debt of £134 million. Administrators hoped to save the club by way of a Creditors Voluntary Agreement, and a sale to an interested party. However creditors, notably HMRC, rejected this option. This forced administrators to investigate the liquidation of the club, ending its existence. Duff & Phelps ended their administration of Rangers FC in late 2012, and BDO took up its post as liquidator of the club in October 2012.
Rangers FCs liquidation allowed for the clubs ‘business, history and assets’ to be sold off. This is precisely what happened, and was sold to Sevo Scotland Ltd. The historic football club, Rangers Football Club plc, formally ceased to exist when liquidation was completed and the assets of the club sold to Sevco Scotland Ltd. A new body has been formed which uses a similar name as its historic predecessor, but whether this new firm is a continuation of it is subject to debate.
The experience of Scottish football clubs of insolvency laws has been largely positive, with many clubs having exited Administration and now actively participating in Scottish football. However, there have been some casualties. While the administration process will look to preserve viable business, circumstances may prevent this from being possible and may result in clubs ceasing to operate and being permanently removed from the playing field.
Key Points
The financial affairs of football clubs are treated no differently to that of normal companies by the law.
The administrator of a football club has the same role(s) as the administrator of any other business,
The administrators role is to rescue the club ‘as a going concern’
The role of the administrator is set out very strictly in law – they must abide by very rigid rules.
Most clubs have benefitted from the appointment of an administrator and gone on to financial viability.
HomunculusMarch 6, 2018 at 13:02
‘..Can those who are trying to convince us that these things didn’t happen not simply “move on”.
_____________
Although this blog knows the truth of things, I think we have to keep constantly in mind that there can be no ‘moving on’ until the ‘deniers’ admit the truth, and Scottish Football gets back on an honest track by :
ensuring that sporting triumphs earned by one club are not transferred to a new club,
stripping such honours that were not honestly won by aa now defunct club from that club’s ‘sporting’ record
and getting thoroughly into an investigation into the serious allegations made in relation to the award of a UEFA competitions licence to an unentitled club.
I often wonder about the flip-side of the whole Old Club/ New Club thing. If Hearts had suffered the same fate as Rangers, then i’m not sure that I would want ‘my’ Club to suffer the ignominy of having to start all over again in the bottom division and working my way back up – with the end result of six(?) years later having achieved/ won nothing of consequence.
If Rangers are the massive Club that we are led to believe, then why are no questions being asked about the horrific mismanagement (at a Board level) which has led them to their current mediocrity?
You can’t have it both ways, you’re either;
– The same Club in which case you should be held to the same standards as you always have been
– A new Club in which case all of that previous baggage is cast off
Just a thought…
DARKBEFOREDAWNMARCH 6, 2018 at 10:56
I don’t think it’s ever been necessary before. With both Fiorentina and Derry, it was just accepted they were the same club without the level of scrutiny the Rangers example has had. I personally feel if you took the West of Scotland problem out of it, it wouldn’t even have been a debate.
______________
So you are playing the politician, and not answering the question asked. I am not talking about Derry or Fiorentina, or any liquidated club. I am talking about this never before mentioned football club that is mysteriously separate from It’s corporeal self.
Do you agree that if such a thing had ever existed, even in the minds of the supporters, of whatever club you care to mention, that it would have been spoken about, in the pub, in the home and in the media, many times before Charles Green came on the scene? It wasn’t even spoken about during Rangers’ administration.
For something to exist, even in the minds of a number of people, it has to be spoken of. In fact, this is particularly the case of something that only exists in the minds of people, such as an entity with no corporeal existence. Have you seen, or heard, of this never before known to exist separate football club? Does it exist anywhere other than in one side of the OC/NC debate?
DARKBEFOREDAWNMARCH 6, 2018 at 11:05
And one possible option why this was seen as acceptable may have been in the HMRC statement that mentioned “Rangers could make a fresh start”. It could have been that until then, clubs and authorities thought that to liquidate a company as a means of dumping debt would have been rejected outright by the revenue, and as such could not continue to use the same name and treat the club as the same. This seismic shift in thinking by HMRC effectively gave the green light to the continuity argument.
_________
Apart from the total nonsense of that post, if Rangers truly continued, there would be no argument about it, for the documentary evidence would be there for all to see.
Worse. It only popped up when the season tickets were intially failing to sell
DARKBEFOREDAWNMARCH 6, 2018 at 12:19
Folks, I’m not sure why I am being subject to this abuse. I started yesterday by stating that UEFA awarded Rangers/Sevco/Newco the points of Rangers Oldco in the latest published co-efficients and what peoples views were on that. Was this a shift in UEFA’s interpretation of a club (in anticipation of more big names going the same way), and overseight or something else. This seems to have led to a two day OC/NC debate where I have never at any point tried to state facts or call anyone out as being wrong. I have merely stated my opinions on certain matters. An opinion cannot be correct or wrong as it is just that – someone’s view of a matter.
And I didn’t mention ‘fresh start’. I quoted a statement from HMRC after the liquidation where they stated Rangers could be free to make a fresh start – these were not my words.
_____________
You trully are a politician. You don’t answer the questions then make out you shouldn’t be asked them. Regardless of how it came about, you made the point about HMRC suggesting liquidation didn’t end Rangers. You have been asked questions that if you could answer would help you make your case, but have avoided answering them. That’s because you can’t, but you still want us to accept your point of view.
DARKBEFOREDAWNMARCH 6, 2018 at 12:19
I’m not lining up to have a go , but a couple of things interested me in your posts .
This is not a West of Scotland thing , nor is it up to CFC and TRFC supporters to determine things between them . There are 40 other professional clubs in Scotland who are just as affected by this farce – it brings all of Scottish football into disrepute .
I also don’t see what succour you derive from Andrea Traverso’s response . He wrote – “To sum up , as a consequence of decisions taken in 2012 as well as the administration of the club and the events/measures that followed (including the new club/company being ineligible to apply for a licence to participate in UEFA competitions for three seasons) there is clearly no need for UEFA to investigate this matter any further since the club was not given a licence to participate in 2012/13 UEFA club competitions ,the new club/company entered the fourth tier of Scottish Football and it was not able to play in UEFA competitions for the next three years in any event.”.
I see him making a distinction between the club , RFC(IL) , and the new club/company , TRFC/RIFC .
Well, three things !
You said “And one possible option why this was seen as acceptable may have been in the HMRC statement that mentioned “Rangers could make a fresh start”. You don’t say a fresh start as what ,a security group that guards parks ?. No disrespect intended but it looks like straw clutching .
DBD @ 12:19 said: ‘… I didn’t mention ‘fresh start’. I quoted a statement from HMRC …’
DND @ 11:05 said: ‘And one possible option why this was seen as acceptable may have been in the HMRC statement that mentioned “Rangers could make a fresh start” … This seismic shift in thinking by HMRC effectively gave the green light to the continuity argument.’
So, you did mention ‘fresh start’: you introduced the expression (attributing it to HMRC) then tried to use it to suggest that there is an argument for a different interpretation of insolvency law for football clubs.
Quite amusing reading Darkbeforedawn’s feeble strawclutchery versus the heavy hitters on here, ramming incontrovertible facts down his throat.
Kind of reminded me of something……
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl4zXroojwM
Enjoy!
Re the UEFA 10-Year Co-Efficient List:
Look at no.214 in the list, Unirea Urziceni.
They’ve gone out of business twice in that ten-year period, once between 2011 & 2015 & wrapped it again in 2017. They don’t currently exist. Yet there they are with a c/e of 12.500.
It would be churlish not to point out that the majority of their co-efficient comes from their performances in 2009/10 season’s Champs League, winning 4-1 at Ibrox, drawing with Stuttgart & RFC & beating Sevilla 1-0 at home.
There may be others on the list that no longer currently exist.
So…about those referees…
Long time lurker first time poster here so go easy on me…
I noted with interest the UEFA co-efficient update and I do think there is some merit to the idea they are setting a precedent of sporting continuity in case a Real Madrid or similar huge name suffered insolvency and re-emerged via the newco route.
I do however wonder if there is another angle to this. From recollection Derry City tried to argue that they were indeed a new club so shouldn’t be sanctioned for the old club’s deeds, they lost this argument and UEFA from memory told them they would be treated as the same club and banned from Europe appropriately.
Is it possible UEFA recognise sporting continuity in order to allow them to punish Newcos where appropriate? Following on from that is it possible that if the compliance officer found Rangers guilty of skullduggery re the European licence that a ban from European competition could follow?
Interested to hear your thoughts.
My apologies if it has seemed like I have been avoiding questions, that certainly has not been my intention. I will try and answer all of the previous questions on here, but with the caveat these are my interpretations or opinions and not in any way me trying to pass them off as fact.
With regards Steph, I believe the reasons that no action was taken after the way Rangers were perceived to be treated was part of the 5 way agreement. The reason for not being accepted into UEFA can be answered as a fact in the sense there were not 3 years worth of accounts. The company (for the purpose of this point) that owned Rangers did not have any accounts. With regards to your final point on creditors, in my opinion it is the Company (Rangers PLC) who owe the debt. Had a CVA been accepted of, say, 5p in the £ then sadly the creditors would have still lost out badly. It’s not right, it’s not fair (in fact it’s downright disgusting) but sadly that is the corporate world we live in.
Homunculus – what happened in 2012 was completely unprecedented and there were no laws or rules which governed such a situation. Yes Rangers were not allowed into the SPL, but they were allowed into the 3rd division without having to make a case like any other non league club or new club would have had to. It is widely stated on here that there was no mechanism to allow Rangers into the SPL, but likewise there was no mechanism to allow them into the 3rd division ahead of the other clubs, but the authorities found away. Again, the flawed 5 way agreement was created in order to deal with an unprecedented event.
The Steed – I fully agree that there needs to be more challenge to the ‘horrific mismanagement’ and I am a huge critic of both our board, the crook at the top, and the wider media for not asking the pressing questions. So yes, your first point – The same Club in which case you should be held to the same standards as you always have been” is my opinion, and we should be held to the same standards and serious questions asked. This is the same reason I won’t get excited if we win our first game in 6 years against Celtic on Sunday as we should have been doing that before especially considering the money spent.
Ally – I thought I had answered that point, but if I didn’t come across clearly I will try and address it direct here. The reason it was not mentioned before is the situation had never arisen before. All rules, laws and precedents have to start out from somewhere. Many of the laws of the game are based in simpler times when clubs were not seen as a business. The commercialisation of the game has created countless situations in the last decade or so that could never have been foreseen when the laws were set (joint ownership of players ala Tevez as another). So no I wouldn’t have discussed something that at that time did not exist. The events of 2012 required a back to the drawing board approach of what the definition of a club and company was. No-one discussed 4G networks in the 1970’s but it doesn’t mean it they do not exist now.
I take your point about documentary evidence, but I can turn that around and say there is no documentary evidence on the contrary. For every Traverso letter, someone can point to the ECA statement on ‘new entity, old entity and goodwill’. For every picture of an ‘in liquidation’ document with Rangers name on, someone can point to the LNS definition of member clubs and distinction from holding companies. For every picture of the front page of a newspaper stating we are dead someone can produce the ASA findings. For every mention of Green’s comments in court (whom none of you took any notice off until he started to say something you agreed on), someone can produce the SPFL accounts filed in Companies House with ‘…Rangers who finished 3rd in their first season back in the top flight.
Paddy – I mentioned yesterday the Traverso letter is always open to ambiguity in my personal opinion. The use of the forward slash between club/company leaves this open to interpretation. The / can be used in English as either AND or OR. And depending on which word you insert there gives a completely different meaning to the statement. I honestly believe this was deliberate on their part as it can effectively be taken either way and avoids them having to state unequivocally either way. If UEFA were so adamant that this was a new club, why have they given points form 2009/2010/2011 and a point for our European trophy to the club? And if it is an oversight then why have both Fiorentina and Derry been given the same?
With regards to your comment on ‘Rangers could make a fresh start’, I respectfully suggest your comment is clutching at straws. If they did not mean the club playing out of Ibrox they would have stated an Asset sale allows a new company to operate out of Ibrox and make a fresh start. This statement was deliberately worded the way it was, and I am sure with a bit of input from the Scottish Government, to ensure it allowed a Rangers (any Rangers) to play and not cause mass riots. Again I am not saying that this was right, or acceptable. Just that that is what I think happened.
Well hopefully I’ve addressed everyone’s points here. I appreciate most will not agree with me whatsoever but I like to think I have taken the time to respectfully address each question, and offer my opinion or interpretation of each. Phew – I need a lie down!!
Jingo – I think the difference with Unerea and Rangers is that Rangers points for 2017/2018 have been added to our points won by Oldco in 2009/10/11. If you open the page up on a laptop you can see what points were awarded each year.
DarkbeforedawnMarch 6, 2018 at 15:49
Ally – I thought I had answered that point, but if I didn’t come across clearly I will try and address it direct here. The reason it was not mentioned before is the situation had never arisen before. All rules, laws and precedents have to start out from somewhere. Many of the laws of the game are based in simpler times when clubs were not seen as a business. The commercialisation of the game has created countless situations in the last decade or so that could never have been foreseen when the laws were set (joint ownership of players ala Tevez as another). So no I wouldn’t have discussed something that at that time did not exist. The events of 2012 required a back to the drawing board approach of what the definition of a club and company was. No-one discussed 4G networks in the 1970’s but it doesn’t mean it they do not exist now. I take your point about documentary evidence, but I can turn that around and say there is no documentary evidence on the contrary. For every Traverso letter, someone can point to the ECA statement on ‘new entity, old entity and goodwill’. For every picture of an ‘in liquidation’ document with Rangers name on, someone can point to the LNS definition of member clubs and distinction from holding companies. For every picture of the front page of a newspaper stating we are dead someone can produce the ASA findings. For every mention of Green’s comments in court (whom none of you took any notice off until he started to say something you agreed on), someone can produce the SPFL accounts filed in Companies House with ‘…Rangers who finished 3rd in their first season back in the top flight.
____________
DBD, quite a Herculean effort – at flimflammery.
I will leave the other points you make for others to address, but on your response to my questions.
No, you didn’t answer my point, and still haven’t. I asked:
‘…can you give an example of anyone, at any time prior to Rangers liquidation, stating that the club is separate from the limited company thingy?’
But what you’ve come back with is another piece of revisionist nonsense. My question did not relate to things that ‘had arisen before’, but to the specific idea that a separate club could possibly exist, regardless of it’s state, without ever being spoken of. That is the suggestion that liquidation deniers make when saying that ‘the club’ didn’t die as a result of liquidation, and it would be impossible to believe that a club doesn’t die at liquidation unless you buy into the ‘separate club’ idea. For if you believe that the club and company are the same (as the law states, and had always previously been accepted without question within football), then you have to believe that Rangers Football Club is currently languishing in liquidation.
Your response seems to be based on the idea that Rangers are/were a special case, and that the laws and rules should change with the varying travails of one particular club. Can you explain why this never happened with any other club’s liquidation, in the whole history of Scottish football’s insolvency events? Further, why is it that – ‘The events of 2012 required a back to the drawing board approach of what the definition of a club and company was’? Why is it that year? Oh, and 4G was never discussed in the 1970s because it didn’t exist, and wasn’t even in the minds of those who now worship IT! You have actually made my point with that rather ill thought out point.
On documentary evidence! Wow, what a nonsense you write (but I appreciate your desperation as a Rangers supporter). There is a whole raft of documentary evidence that Rangers FC is now in liquidation, starting with their Certificate of Incorporation, right up to date with all the documents involved in the current liquidation process. There are also court documents – records of court cases involving RFC – stating, quite categorically, that TRFC is not RFC. These statements went unchallenged by the other side, whose own assertions to the contrary were literally laughed out of court when described by one judge as ‘metaphysics’! That is documented.
You will note that none of my arguments include anything that someone said, not even Andrea Traverso. Andrea Traverso’s letter did not liquidate, or kill, Rangers Football Club, but it did make it clear that, as far as those involved in the realities of law and sport are concerned, Rangers FC no longer exists as a football club.
What lends credence to the argument of those who say ‘Rangers died’ is the very fact that they were an incorporated football club, overspent to a gargantuan level, and ended up in liquidation. There is documentary evidence to support that, and no revisionist argument will change that.
While I hate trolls on here, and there have been many, I don’t object to DBD at all. He/she is trying to make an unsupportable argument for his/club as others have tried before. The difference is that DBD is polite and pleasant about it and deserves some respect although most on here don’t agree with the viewpoints. I admire his/her bravery in coming back on after all the put-downs given.
Maybe this post will earn me as many thumbs down as Jimbo
JC, no it wasn’t that particular court case. (There have been so many…) However, as I was searching through dozens of articles trying to locate the case with the holidaying judge, I found this article from around that time by the old BBC Scotland (as opposed to the new corporation which is exactly the same as OldCo except that the new one lost its integrity.)
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/18929983
Quite amazing the Damascene type conversion it has undergone.
On the recurring OCNC debate. I’m happy it surfaces from time to time. We all become more informed. For example, I was unaware that Hearts were provided with an Administration Exit document. I read it on Jambos Kickback where a copy of it was posted. It appeared on here a page back. It really is a bit of a daisy cutter. As others have pointed out, if that document existed for Rangers, it would be on display at Kelvin Grove Gallery.
I know it’s an image that’s been in the news and it’s not Kelvingrove Art Gallery but it certainly illustrates the indivisible nature of Club and Company.
Remember them (creditors) ?
BDO
RFC-2012-Plc-report-dated-5-December-2017
No appeals were received and a first interim dividend of 3.91p in the £ was declared on 8 November 2017 (after the end of the period covered by this report). To date, the amount distributed is £1,355,086.66.
Lazarus
King told several national newspapers: “We have a vision going forward where I would like to see us taking Oldco out of liquidation and putting assets back into Oldco – putting Rangers back into the old company. We can’t do it while all this stuff is being sorted out.
“It would be a good thing to do. It would be back to the traditional Rangers. I think the supporters would like it. It is not economically important but it is something I would like to do. It would provide a sense of closure.
“You can never rewind what has happened but in 100 years’ time you might look back and say there was a blip of four or five years in Rangers’ history when this all happened and it was resolved to the norm again.
“It is practically feasible and legally feasible. We just have to get in the position where the liquidators have done everything they can. The club can then be rehabilitated.”
DARKBEFOREDAWNMARCH 6, 2018 at 15:49
what happened in 2012 was completely unprecedented
————–
I keep on reading that phrase…Completely unprecedented
What happened in 2012 that was completely unprecedented?
Was it that a club had gone into liquidation?
Can’t be that,as that happens from time to time.
Was the completely unprecedented,
The secret 5 way?
well that could be in the category of completely unprecedented.But what was completely unprecedented in 2012 that made the phrase completely unprecedented used so much by the coverning bodies the ibrox folk and the media?
WOODSTEINMARCH 6, 2018 at 18:07
3
0 Rate This
LazarusKing told several national newspapers: “We have a vision going forward where I would like to see us taking Oldco out of liquidation and putting assets back into Oldco – putting Rangers back into the old company. We can’t do it while all this stuff is being sorted out.
Ps before i go, a bit OT
To SCOTTCMARCH 6, 2018 at 13:34
I have a catalogue of these pictures from Newspapers as above. I did mean to ask if you wanted them for your timeline.Or if you (or anyone requires) a headline from a specific date in the ibrox saga from the last 6 years let me know
they must’ve really loved that company
CLUSTER ONE
MARCH 6, 2018 at 18:36
I keep on reading that phrase…Completely unprecedented
What happened in 2012 that was completely unprecedented?
——————————————–
Allowing the equivalent of Chick Young’s Dukla Pumpherston to compete against Brechin in the Ramsden’s Cup?
DARKBEFOREDAWN
MARCH 6, 2018 at 15:49
Homunculus – what happened in 2012 was completely unprecedented and there were no laws or rules which governed such a situation. Yes Rangers were not allowed into the SPL, but they were allowed into the 3rd division without having to make a case like any other non league club or new club would have had to. It is widely stated on here that there was no mechanism to allow Rangers into the SPL, but likewise there was no mechanism to allow them into the 3rd division ahead of the other clubs, but the authorities found away. Again, the flawed 5 way agreement was created in order to deal with an unprecedented event.
====================================
The only thing unprecedented about it was that the team going into administration then liquidation was Rangers this time.
Teams have gone into administration and liquidation before. Teams have failed and died.
There was nothing special or unprecedented when it happened to Rangers.
Though I know it’s difficult for your support to accept that. You really aren’t a special case. To suggest it is rather arrogant, don’t you think.
If the timeline ever really becomes a go-er. then yes
Oh my
Are we back to the club never died fairytale again
Sevco 2012 fans can and will believe what they want and no amount of proof will ever change their view .
They knew the truth and the consequence of a failed CVA ,until CG and the peepil fed them mushroom food to keep the blue £ flowing .
If it,s UEFA now ,then ,if they are the same club ,how did they get a UEFA license this season as ragers 1872 have over £90m outstanding to HMRC
Also IIRC it is not 3 years accounts needed it,s one years accounts and a minimum of 3 yrs as a member of an association .
But then I assume you knew that already
FAN OF FOOTBALLMARCH 6, 2018 at 20:09
0
0 Rate This
Oh my Are we back to the club never died fairytale again
————-
That reminded me Re the UEFA 10-Year Co-Efficient List:thing
If same club and they finished second in 2012 why then did they not take part in european football the following season and add to this Co-Efficient.
should put the points thing to bed i hope
SCOTTCMARCH 6, 2018 at 19:42
If the timeline ever really becomes a go-er. then yes
then i better get scanning
Delusion: · certainty (held with absolute conviction)
Incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
Sorry, can’t help myself…
Instead of looking at Rangers before liquidation, it might be more instructive to look at Sevco Scotland when they became members of the Scottish Football League.
CLUSTER ONEMARCH 6, 2018 at 20:25
I must have been on holiday at that time as I simply can’t recall them shouting about it from the rooftops and banging on Uefas door
Same as the time Setanta went into admin and paid the final divvy (£600,000) between ALL spl clubs except Ragers 1872 as they had died and no longer existed as a football club
You will note that the SFL Members were football clubs and that the Members could not transfer their membership except when changing legal form (from unincorporated association to corporate body).
You will also note that the members (football clubs – being either unincorporated association or company) also had to apply or hold SFA full or associate membership.
No owner and operator nonsense.
Sevco Scotland Ltd (trading as Rangers FC) was – as far as the SFL and SFA regulations were concerned was a new football club in 2012.
Just catching a wee bit of BBC Sportsound while driving home tonight proves that T’Rangers are a new club.
A good five minutes or so talking to legendary T’Rangers defender Clint Hill (24 games) about his famous goal that (hold your breath) got a 87th minute 1-1 draw with Celtic and his deep and extensive knowledge of Graeme Murty who managed the team in 2017 for all of four weeks (with Hill only playing 210 minutes in total).
The Oldco is surely turning in its grave if that is deemed to be the required level of success at Ibrox to get a mention on Radio Shortbread these days.
Jean, Chris.
My pal died this morning. But he’s in Heaven.
DBD, You have a heart of gold. Never leave here.
Paddy, Are you on? Send me a song.
HirsutePursuitMarch 6, 2018 at 20:50
.]
‘…and submit same to the Chief Executive accompanied by payment of an application fee of £1,000 plus Value Added Tax at the standard rate applicable at the relevant time (or such application fee as shall be specified from time to time by a general meeting). For the avoidance of doubt, the application fee shall not be refundable in any circumstances…’
____________________
I wonder whether CG paid the fee?
If there ever was a receipt for it I suspect that it would not now be found among the paperwork at Ibrox, nor would any copy of the application form or letter of acknowledgement of receipt of the application form!
[There’s a kind of ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ question in there somewhere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CiyKeSnSxk
This for Phil Mac, JJ, Joe, James F, Ralph,
jimboMarch 6, 2018 at 22:19
‘…My pal died this morning. But he’s in Heaven.’
___________________
My condolences, jimbo.
Jimbo, take care and sorry to hear of the sad news you have shared.
Thanks John.
And Boab.
I’ve only got one more post to my two thousandth. So it has got to be good. My heart is breaking tonight so not the one. Ill speak to you all tomorrow with love and thanks.
Earlier today I had some fun looking up the ‘court of session judgments’ page.
The page shows (apparently) only those cases where the judgment is of public interest, and does not show all judgments made, never mind the number of fiddling about involvement of judges in the routine stuff like getting agreement about dates and notes of argument and expenses etc etc.
By my reckoning, 13 judges in the court of session have been involved in making significant, reported, decisions in the civil sphere in relation to the ‘saga’. ( The ‘criminal’ stuff is quite separate)
Go to this link
1&refig=196a138b55954e9deb460771bc787620&sp=1&qs=HS&pq=court&sc=8-5&cvid=196a138b55954e9deb460771bc787620&cc=GB&setlang=en-US
look for ’46 more rows’ and click on that
and in the ‘search’ box type in rangers
and you’ll see there are 32 references.
( not all of them to do with Rangers the football club: there are three or four to do with park rangers and such!)
——
This evening, on the radio, I heard the story of that piece of nonsense in New York, where the owner of buildings on which graffiti artists had done their stuff has to pay millions in compensation to the people who vandalised his property when he demolished, with permission, his own property.
But then we heard that some law had been passed about ‘art’ works having to be preserved!
And that because the owner of the buildings had destroyed ‘art’ he had to compensate the ‘artists’.
See America? See the feckin stoopid laws they have!
Geronimo, I cry!
But the law is the law!
I see that the 10 Year UEFA coefficient table has raised the same club issue. I got involved on Twitter in the discussion and the following is my starting point which was elaborated on in further Tweets.
https://twitter.com/Auldheid/status/971100818194812928
” the same club claim is based on a description in a cell, on a row, in a spreadsheet set by a UEFA database geek who probably doesn’t know who Glasgow Rangers are or who CGAFF. Compare this with the following documented evidence some of which is based on the same UEFA authority.
Item 1. A share Certificate from 1899 for shares in The Rangers Football Club ltd that would be traded up to 2012.
https://twitter.com/MarcasOg135/status/901118982115254272
Item 2. An application from Rangers Football Club for a UEFA Licence in 2012 where the name of the applicant ” Rangers Football Club” is shown in top left hand corner..
https://twitter.com/jduffin24/status/971021863387324416
This kills the idea that anything but a club as UEFA define one under called Rangers Football Club applied for a UEFA Licence in 2012 and earlier. No owner distinction was made because prior to 2012 there was no owner, all there was, was Rangers Football Club who were an applicant under UEFA FFP Art 12 1(a)
Item 3. After 2012 according to this share Certificate there would be a new club applying for a UEFA licence
https://twitter.com/jduffin24/status/901197191712309248
that is Rangers International Football Club PLC who owned The Rangers Football Club, with whom a contractual relationship exists, presumably in writing to comply with Article 45 of UEFA FFP and who would be the applicant club as defined under Article 12 1(b) of UEFA FFP.
These two documents suggests that before 2012 there was only Rangers Football Club as defined by UEFA in Art 12 1 (a) and after 2012 RIFC/TRFC as defined in Art 12 1 (b) subject to Art 45 of FFP.
Item 4. Then you have the new club/company statement by Traverso Head of UEFA Club Licensing which was reported accurately by Martin Williams in the Gazette
https://twitter.com/Auldheid/status/971107034274910209
followed by The UEFA Traverso letter itself at
Item 5 https://twitter.com/Auldheid/status/971108253454295041 where only the name of the law firm has been removed to protect the messenger.
So there we have it, one cell in one row in a spreadsheet created by a geek who CGAFF versus all of the foregoing documented evidence.
It is not difficult to see why folk of reason challenge folk of emotion if the latter ignore all the evidence from the same authoritative source because it does not support their stance.
I don’t really blame them I blame the SFA and SPL as parties to the Five Way Agreement for this mess. To repeat & amplify
https://twitter.com/Auldheid/status/971017000649674752
Auldheid @Auldheid 12h12 hours ago More
I’ll bet none of the parties to 5 Way Agreement sought advice from UEFA on what they were trying to do in that Agreement. UEFA would have told the SFA that they do not recognise that the transfer of SFA Membership from RFC to TRFC/RIFC made under the discretionary powers of Art 14 of SFA rules (Prohibition of Transfer Of Membership) provided UEFA with justification to set aside the UEFA Article 12 three year SFA Membership requirement.
It would be healing if UEFA could be brought in to explain their stance on integrity protection and reflect it consistently throughout their organisation.
When the “fixes” of the 5 Way and LNS happened in 2012 and 2013 I did not have the grasp of the rules in certain areas that I now have, but I did have an idea of the ethical principles on which the rules were based.
I knew this construct that trampled integrity into the ground for commercial reasons would not last because it is built on the sand of lies and not foundations of the truth. The fix may endure a bit longer but facts are chiels that winnae ding so Ill end with one more.
The facts are RFC in 2012 were denied a licence for ONE year for not having a set of annual accounts under Art 47 of UEFA FFP. TRFC/RIFC a new club/company were not eligible to apply for licence for 3 years until they had been members of SFA for that period. Two separate issues not to be conflated
https://twitter.com/Auldheid/status/971115409272442880
Jimbo sorry for your loss I pray that you feel the healing touch of your Heavenly Father in your life.
Very sorry to hear of your sad loss Jimbo. I will keep you in my thoughts and prayers.
Auldheid
If your assertion that the 10 year co-efficient score is an error made by a “spreadsheet geek” is correct and I’ve no reason to doubt you then what happens from here?
UEFA can’t allow that error to stand as it potentially financially benefits Rangers over other European clubs by allowing them easier draws? Is there a way to dispute this sort of thing with UEFA, it seems like there should be.
NickMarch 7, 2018 at 09:49
I’d imagine there’s a point on the co-efficient list below which UEFA don’t worry too much about being accurate. At TRFC’s level, the favoured clubs and leagues/associations are not going to be affected, and I suspect UEFA will only investigate any anomalies if called upon by a member association or club.
In TRFC’s case they will be relying on the honesty of the SFA to spot and correct any such anomaly. Enough said. Spot the unconnected word from three in the first sentence of this paragraph between: SFA, TRFC, and honesty.
Old club/new club? Much good work, and bad, has been put into this issue over the last five years or so and positions have become more entrenched than a WW1 battlefield. One thing that is missing is the definitive word from the Scottish Football Authorities.
While they can use “discretion” on a wide range of football related items as has already been extensively covered on this and other sites there are also external legal considerations that they can’t circumvent.
I’m sure this point has come up before but the continuing lack of this ‘definitive word’ speaks volumes.
ROB469 MARCH 7, 2018 at 11:23
I think the SFA and SPFL have been fairly clearly that they view Rangers as the same club throughout but I do agree the debate has become circular and entrenched. Having read both sides for a number of years debate it to death I don’t believe I’ve witnessed a single person change their view from what they thought originally.
That in itself suggests the debate is not a particularly fruitful one and for the many like myself without a dog in the fight it can come across as typically childish Old Firm (or Glasgow Derby if you prefer) fare. In fact it seems quite mean spirited and childish to continually try to prove to a group of people that the football team which for whatever bizarre reason seems to bring them a lot of joy is somehow “dead” due to insolvency law. As a genuine football fan I’ve always felt my club is more than a legal or corporate entity and is defined more by the fans than whatever businessman is heading things up.
Perhaps it would be easier to have a reasonable and informed debate on governance issues and how to prevent our major clubs suffering insolvency events if we parked the tit for tat Old v New club debate and agreed that both sides will always disagree? Certainly it may make the debate more interesting for those turned off by hearing the same old arguments?
Just a thought.
ROB469
March 7, 2018 at 11:23
===================================
The Scottish football authorities have spoken.
If it was the same club it would have been playing in the same league the following season, having not being relegated. There is no circumstance I can think of in which they would not have been in the same league.
It would not have had to apply to join the SPL
It would not have had to apply to join the SFL after having been rejected by the SPL.
It would have been seeded in the Scottish Cup the following year, not starting in the first leg, having been granted some sort of “associate membership”. If it was the same club it was already a member.
The Scottish football authorities have made their stance quite clear. By their actions, not by their words. The SFA, SPL and SFL all took the same position, a new club and treated as such.