John Clark Meets “The SFA”

Avatar ByJohn Clark

John Clark Meets “The SFA”

Regular posters and contributors to the SFM may remember that in October last year I wrote to Mr McRae, President of the SFA.

I posted the text of my letter on 28th October http://www.sfmonitor.org/whose-assets-are-they-anyway/?cid=20786

I had not received a reply or acknowledgement by 12th December, so I sent a reminder. I received a reply to that reminder, dated 16 December 2015, in which Mr McRae apologised for not having responded to my previous letter, and invited me to come and see him. We arranged that I should visit him at Hampden on 19 January 2016 at 2.00 p.m.

Following the meeting, I wrote a summary of the conversation. I emailed that summary to Mr Darryl Broadfoot, Head of Communications, asking him to check whether my recollections were accurate, because I was my intention to post the summary on SFM.

I have not had a reply and I think I have waited a fair enough time, so, here is the summary of an approximately 45 minute conversation.

I should first make it clear that Mr McRae said that he had no recollection of airing any of the views recorded in my letter as attributed to him. I should also say that I made it clear that while I contribute to SFM, I was not there as ‘officially representing’ SFM, although what I would say broadly reflected the view of many.


 

“Note of informal meeting between me, and Alan McRae, President of the SFA, with Darryl Broadfoot, Press Officer, at Hampden park, 2.00 pm Tuesday, 19th January.

Background: I had written to Mr McRae in October 2015, to ask whether Mr McRae had really (as had been reported to me) aired the following opinions:

  1. that Rangers FC were not Liquidated
  2. that Rangers FC were put down to the third Division
  3. that Rangers FC were bought by Charles Green and that the team currently playing out of Ibrox Stadium and calling itself The Rangers Football Club Ltd is one and the same as the club known as Rangers Football Club, which is currently in Liquidation.

Mr McRae, through Mr Broadfoot, went through the points one by one.

On point one, there was no difficulty in agreeing that RFC had been Liquidated. That was accepted as a matter of fact.

On point two, I argued that;

  • Mr Green’s new club had had to apply for league and SFA membership, and were therefore admitted as a new club to Scottish Football and allowed into SFL Third Division.
  • They had as an emergency measure been granted conditional membership, and had had to seek the Administrators’ and Football Authorities’ agreement to the use of certain RFC (IL) players who had decided to sign on with the new club in order to play their first game as a new club.
  • They were ‘put in ‘the Third Division as a new club, not as an existing club being relegated.

Mr McRae, through Mr Broadfoot, argued that ‘put in’ and ‘admitted to’ are pretty much the same thing, and that the legal advice obtained was that Mr Green’s new club was not a new club, and the Authorities were stuck with that.

I referred to the 5-way Agreement, and made the point that two entities other than league or SFA representatives were signatories to that agreement: RFC (IL) and Mr Green’s new club. The two could not be one.

Mr Broadfoot said that was a matter of opinion.

I said that it was rather a matter of fact.

Likewise, on the third point, there was disagreement.

Mr Broadfoot, for Mr McRae, argued that Charles Green bought the club (and Mr McRae personally added ‘and the “goodwill”’).

I pointed out that Mr Green had NOT bought the club out of Administration, as had happened with other clubs, but merely had bought the assets of a former club that was NOT able to bought out of administration and was consequently Liquidated.

Mr Broadfoot said that Celtic and Rangers supporters might continue to disagree but that could only be expected.

I pointed out that this was not at all a Celtic-Rangers supporters’ issue, and that the Scottish Football Monitor, for instance, represented the views of supporters of many clubs. I further made the point that many sports administrative bodies had come under the spotlight in current times and people were naturally concerned that the governance of football should be above suspicion: and that substantial numbers feel that the Football Authorities have been at fault, in permitting a new club to claim to be an old club and pretend to the honours and titles etc etc.

Reference was made in the passing to some allegations that had been made that certain evidence relating to the Discounted Option Scheme had been withheld from the LNS commission, which occasioned Lord Nimmo Smith to be misled; and to the apparent negligent performance of the SFA administration under the previous President, who, both on account of his personal knowledge of the use of the DOS by Sir David Murray, and as a subsequent recipient of an EBT, might reasonably have been expected to ensure a thorough and diligent examination of the information provided by clubs about payments to players.

Mr Broadfoot ruled out discussion of the first of these matters because ‘there was no evidence’, and the second matter was also ruled out because, he asserted, the previous president is a man of the highest integrity.

I replied that work was in hand to provide evidence, and that the question of negligent performance of duties was not a question of ‘personal integrity’.

Mr Broadfoot opined that the future would show whether Scottish Football supporters were really concerned about the old club/new club debate, if huge numbers turned their backs on the game.

I replied that a sport based on a false proposition, on what could be seen as a lie, no matter on what pragmatic reasons, would certainly wither if and when people thought the sport could be rigged.

As the meeting drew to a close, I was asked if, coming from Edinburgh, I was a Hibs or Hearts supporter, or perhaps a Celtic supporter? And whether I was going to tonight’s (Celtic were playing that evening at home) game?

I replied that as my name suggests, I was of Irish extraction and perhaps conclusions could be drawn from that. Also that I would not be going to tonight’s game, and that my interest in the present matter was rather more academic and objective than partisan.

The meeting ended cordially at about 2.45.pm “


 

I think I can say that Mr Broadfoot, opening the meeting, explained that

“for the purposes of this meeting, I am the SFA.”

Mr McRae’s personal contribution to the conversation was therefore very little more than mentioned above, Mr Broadfoot doing most of the talking.

I will say further that I spoke to BP, and consulted one or two other posters before I went to the meeting, in order to make sure that my general understanding both of the principal events of the ‘saga’ and of the thrust of most of SFM’s contributors, who are drawn from supporters of many clubs, was sufficiently sound.

I give it as my opinion that I may have been invited to a personal meeting only because it might have been thought in some quarters that I was in possession of an electronic recording of what I told Mr McRae that he was reported as having said.

And, finally, I declare here that my note of the meeting was written within two hours of the meeting, and reflects the substance of the conversation. It is exactly the note I sent by email to Broadfoot, except that I corrected a typo in the spelling of Darryll (I had ‘Caryll’), have omitted my own surname, and changed references to myself from the third person to the first person.

 

 

About the author

Avatar

John Clark author

1,392 Comments so far

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on6:04 pm - Feb 5, 2016


page 2

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on6:08 pm - Feb 5, 2016


EKloon 5th February 2016 at 3:19 pm #
cuddlybear 5th February 2016 at 11:32 am “At incorporation, there are two constituted bodies – one unincorporated, one a newly-formed corporate body – involved in the transaction. Clearly and unambiguously, two distinct entities.”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,   I am not convinced that at incorporation there were two separate entities.  At incorporation the club took on a new legal status, it did not merge with another entity. To be a club, it will have had a constitution, members and officers.  Where were these when the CVA failed and Liquidation commenced?  I cannot see that any form of UNINCORPORATION took place. The two into one then back into two argument above could surely be applied to any failed ‘club’.  We can remember the dead but they are not with us.

  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Perhaps
 “We can remember the dead but they are not with us.”
Should read
“We`re trying to forget the dead but they are still with us.”

View Comment

Avatar

TrisidiumPosted on6:09 pm - Feb 5, 2016


cuddlybear 

The moral argument was not the cornerstone of mine. Although I absolutely draw a distinction between a CVA (which has broad creditor assent) and a winding up (which doesn’t) whilst still recognising that neither is fair to creditors.

With great respect to you, the rest of what I said remains unchallenged, as do the questions on why TRFC did not participate in European competition in 2012 and why they did not challenge the right of the SPL to award RFC’s share to Dundee?

If they are the same club, they seem remarkably unconvinced themselves of that status given the financial disadvantage they were put to (needlessly if their OC assertions are correct) as a consequence of being treated like a new club.

I do recognise that cherry picking takes place on both sides of this argument, but given the litigious nature of the early-day TRFC, surely somebody must have asked why the SPL’s asses weren’t hauled before a court on that count?

Maybe some cherries are just too hard to pick?

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on6:45 pm - Feb 5, 2016


Trisidium 5th February 2016 at 6:09 pm

Not wanting to scare away the likes of cuddlybear but to be honest we have seen their likes on here before.

Ask my fellow Jambos, the likes of  Ally and Easy about anything related to Hearts and they will give you a response be it on how the proposed new stand will be funded, the dealing with the young Neds to Robbie’s decision to let Billy King go out on loan.

Same goes for the fan on here of any other club.

Ryan (posted missing in action for some time now) has been about the only bear who has been willing to join in a debate and offer his opinions of the goings on down Ibrox way.

CB has, as yet, simply ignored the polite but obvious questions from fellow football fans about how he/she as a fellow fan views footballing matters at this club. That is being previous punishments/consequences and future financial planning.

All we have to date is numerous and torturous oldco/newco gobbledygook.

Given today’s surreal contributions from Mr O’Neill at court I can’t see the ethereal club issue being resolved anytime soon.

Therefore it would be much nicer if bears just came on and talked about how they thought their club was doing and what the issues were, how they were going to overcome them etc.

Whether they were shoved or pushed I have to commend the current board at Ibrox for trying to get their financial ducks in order re paying off Ashley. It makes things so more open and transparent if things are all kept in house as much as possible.

I do honestly and genuinely want to know what real Rangers fans think is the way forward as opposed to the guff you ready in the press or the bravado that may be expressed by pals in the pub.

SFM provides a decent and polite forum for people to open up but as long as we have the impression of obfuscation then it is squirrel alert as far as I’m concerned.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on6:55 pm - Feb 5, 2016


The Rangers Nil 6.07

I’m glad to get confirmation of my understanding as charge 10 is close to my wee heart.?

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on6:55 pm - Feb 5, 2016


Steerpike has been quiet of late.  Just sayin like!

View Comment

RyanGosling

RyanGoslingPosted on7:00 pm - Feb 5, 2016


Wottpi – I’ve been busy but did post a few times last week. Glad to see you remember me though!

ThomtheThim- I think it’s a bit harsh to describe Cuddlybear as “trolling the blog”. He made a couple of points which many people responded to with further questions, and he has a right of reply. I think an accusation of trolling is harsh.

Cuddlybear- it’s nice to see you here. People here are wary of any Rangers fan appearing because there have been so many trolls pop up in the past. I took a fair bit of grilling and interrogation when I began posting, and I think it’s mainly because there are so few Rangers fans here that people are curious to get the views of Rangers fans when we show up. 

View Comment

RyanGosling

RyanGoslingPosted on7:06 pm - Feb 5, 2016


Another thing Wottpi – I think sometimes it turns into almost an initiation for a Rangers fan that appears here, and it’s quite circular. We are all fed up for the most part of old club new club debates, and yet it is often the first thing a new Rangers fan is asked about, therefore it’s one of the first things they comment on, therefore it reignites the whole thing, therefore…..

Previous trolls don’t help the matter either. I for one said my piece on the old club new club thing years ago and try not to be drawn on it these days. Probably why I’ve not posted much lately!

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on7:29 pm - Feb 5, 2016


@ RyanGosling 5th February 2016 at 7:06 pm #
To be fair to wottpi he did point out that CB has been politely asked questions on current TRFC governance and financial stability

wottpi said

CB has, as yet, simply ignored the polite but obvious questions from fellow football fans about how he/she as a fellow fan views footballing matters at this club. That is being previous punishments/consequences and future financial planning.
All we have to date is numerous and torturous oldco/newco gobbledygook.

The fact that CB steadfastly refuses to be removed from OC/NC postings is not this blogs fault it is his choice.  Posters on this blog will quite rightly refute his OC stance when he is clearly using flawed logic but that is all he responds to.   

View Comment

Avatar

GiorgioVasariPosted on7:31 pm - Feb 5, 2016


A wake up call.
For anyone interested in the up and coming case HMA v Whyte, Green et al then this is essential reading to my mind.

Good weekend all 🙂
GV

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/hm-advocate-v-charles-green-craig-whyte.html?m=1

View Comment

ThomTheThim

ThomTheThimPosted on7:32 pm - Feb 5, 2016


Ryan,
I don’t think I was being unfair at all.
I genuinely believe that hanging on to the OC-same club myth is the only thing that concerns the vast majority of your fans, plus the combined forces of the SMSM.
As an obviously intelligent person, as you are yourself, CB, like others, indulges in mental contortions, that though not defying gravity, defy the laws of incorporation and common sense, in trying to justify the concept of immortality after death.
For that reason, I consider it trolling or, if you prefer, the release of another squirrel.
Today of all days, when once again, a court of law has pronounced, unchallenged, on the status of your club.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on7:37 pm - Feb 5, 2016


bfbpuzzled 5th February 2016 at 5:04 pm #
CB The club at incorporation became the company it did not then exist in some twilight zone for over 100 years to suddenly burst into the real world when the company died. At incorporation it became the company there was no continuing amorphous spirit separate from it nor was such a continuing entity in the mind of those who incorporated the company or ran it until it died. The whole preposterous separation myth is continuing belief in the rather fantastic productions of the mind of Mr Green.

=================================

Thank you, you just saved me several minutes writing something that I could not have expressed as well anyway.

Likewise, when the PLC was formed it was simply a continuation of the existing company, in a different form.

In any case, this really is just going over very old ground. If the chap wants to believe it is the same club in spite of administration and liquidation then so be it.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on7:44 pm - Feb 5, 2016


RyanGosling 5th February 2016 at 7:06 pm

Glad to see you are still with us.

For my part I always ask any new bear what their views are about the going on at their club in the here or now?
Either they are like yourself and have a debate pass on a few lines or they end up with excuses for the signing and the likes and getting bogged down in the oldco/newco debate.

IIRC Cuddly erudite, as he/she is, came on re the Spiers issue and then the oldco/newco thing flared up.

As always a well run and sustainable club that has dumped the ‘traditional’ baggage will welcomed by me and maybe, despite the tax dodger as the mouth piece and the unnamed singing director, you are on the right path. 

Anway enough of that. What’s your thoughts on how things are going and what does the future hold? The footballing side of things is looking much better than when the gardeners in charge.

Heading out so may not be able to reply 02

View Comment

RyanGosling

RyanGoslingPosted on7:55 pm - Feb 5, 2016


Have a good night Wottpi.

I’m no fan of Mr King, and don’t welcome his presence. His promises of front loaded investment have been shown up for what they were in the first place. But reluctantly I still think Rangers are in a better position than they were before the current board came in, if only because most of the fans seem to be on board and attendances are way up. Time will tell if we manage to harness the potential or just abuse it as usual.

Football wise things are great, very impressed. I think we will be promoted, and while I doubt we’ll be league challengers for a few years yet I do think we would give a good account of ourselves. Goes back to my previous point about whether we can turn 40,000 season tickets into a self funding capable squad, or ruin the potential with gross mismanagement as we have for too many years already, and I obviously include the Murray years in particular in that. 

View Comment

ThomTheThim

ThomTheThimPosted on7:56 pm - Feb 5, 2016


Even the creator of the continuity myth, Charles Green, has admitted, via his QC, that he formed a new club.
Therefore isn’t it time that this was universally acknowledged and accepted and the real job that awaits in Scottish football can undertaken?
That being the deconstruction of the archaic and totally discredited SFA.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on8:00 pm - Feb 5, 2016


GiorgioVasari 5th February 2016 at 7:31 pm # A wake up call. For anyone interested in the up and coming case HMA v Whyte, Green et al then this is essential reading to my mind.
Good weekend all GV
http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/hm-advocate-v-charles-green-craig-whyte.html?m=1

———————————————————————————————————————-
And to reiterate the final paragraphs and do note that STV tonight via Grant to JD stated they were advised NOT to publish the REMAINING charges (these were on here earlier mods) (presumably because this might change):
So what are the rules? Any conduct – any comment – any commentary – any tweet – which tends “to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings” is a contempt of court, “regardless of intent to do so.” This catches any comments which create “a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.” Your social media reach matters, but if you have any kind of audience, don’t kid yourself. You aren’t a world away from STV or the Daily Record, and you can’t expect the judiciary to treat you as such.
You are protected if you are offering only a “fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith.” Publications “made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest” are also not treated as contempts of court “if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion”. But if you breach that? The maximum penalty under the Act is two years in prison or a hefty fine. 
So don’t kid yourself. Journo or punter, superfan or utterly indifferent to soccer: this isn’t America. This isn’t a free for all. Duly warned.

View Comment

shug

shugPosted on8:04 pm - Feb 5, 2016


When reading the replies to the incorporated unincorporated floating about the ether thingy footy club i’m almost certain some are just seeing la la la la la la la la in front of their eyes.

View Comment

justshatered

justshateredPosted on8:08 pm - Feb 5, 2016


It is always interesting to look in on the old club/new club debate.
We were told in the proceeding months that the CLUB would not go into administration.
No one mentioned a holding company when the CLUB went into administration.
The CLUB was docked 10 points for going into administration. Why if it was the holding company and the club was fine?
We were told the CLUB would achieve a CVA and exit administration. Why was that an issue if the two were separate?
Does this mean that the shareholders of the CLUB were duped when they bought shares?
Does this mean that every annual account for the CLUB that the shareholders received every year were not real?
In the Chairman’s statement in those accounts where he mentions the CLUB on several occasions, was he not telling the truth?
What happened to the shares in the CLUB when the CVA failed?
The debenture holders that had an agreement with CLUB must surely now have the same agreement with the same CLUB. Do they?
When the CVA failed why did every paper declare that the CLUB had died?
No one mentioned a holding company when the CVA failed.
Some shareholders in the CLUB were crying outside Ibrox the day the CVA failed. Were they wrong?
The fans had agreed not to buy season tickets and starve Charles Green of cash but when he said he had bought the history that all changed. Why was that?
Why did Charles Green need to buy the history if the CLUB was the same?
The sad thing in this affair is that there are so many intelligent people claiming to have been duped that it simply defies belief.
There is a governing body who believe they have only one product to sell desperately trying to construct a narrative to justify their corruption and incompetence.
We have a support clinging to an unsupportable thesis which defies logic.
Indeed within this thesis we are supposed to believe that football law trumps the entire legal system.
We have a support that jumps and clings to one saviour only to vilify them and jump to the next one.
Whyte was regaled, Green idolised, Ashley when he was going to spend millions revered, King now he is a real Rangers man.
Logic, for some, went out the window in this farce some time ago but reality is what the rest of us deal in.

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on8:11 pm - Feb 5, 2016


To my mind, for CB’s hypothesis to stand up, the “Club” would have had to have an existence loitering in the shadows
To exist it would still have had a constitution, members, statutory returns etc
The fact that none of these were/are available means that it ceased to exist
In addition, if the “Club” continued, why did the Ltd Co, and the PLC claim all of the history and honours won by the “Club”
In other words OC = NC is an artificial construct, invented purely for commercial gain

View Comment

Avatar

TrisidiumPosted on8:37 pm - Feb 5, 2016


I am wary (as we have historically been at SFM) of the OCNC debate. There is some academic interest of course for nerdy types like myself,  but it all too easily becomes a vehicle for a name calling exercise and bragging rights – and this is the main reason the MSM/TRFC notion that NC=OC will fail.

There is so much ridicule being flung at NC=OC, so much scorn poured on it that the pillars of the myth cannot be maintained. 

Today another straw was added to the camel’s back as Lord Brodie himself poured his own brand of caustic scorn and added a new stinging idiom to the already saturated lexicon: metaphysical.

My guess is that we are bound to hear it over and over again in the coming days, months and years. Soon it will be as reviled in the MSM as ‘integrity’ is now.

All because Bill Barr told David Murray to take a powder. Who knew?

View Comment

Flocculent Apoidea

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on8:53 pm - Feb 5, 2016


“There is no ‘club’ separate from Rangers Football Club limited and no other concept of a club.” 

My guess is that this was allowed to fly because the QC was assured by the SFA that it was legalese for “There’s not a team like the Glasgow Rangers; no, not one and there never shall be one” – I think that’s the SFA strap line but I could be wrong.

I was also amused at the QC’s suggestion that RFC should be waiting for the law to catch up with them, so to speak.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on8:56 pm - Feb 5, 2016


Anybody have any idea what the past couple of days has cost US for the defence of the SFA? 
I’m sure Mr O’Neil is a very intelligent chap, but when the only ammo you are provided with, is that Sevco are not a normal capitalist entity, but a philosophical idea that the law hasn’t caught up with in the metaphysical ether, so we fined him 7 thousand football jurisprudence pounds…..WTF chance does he have?
   It’s enough to make a Nomad run away !  

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:34 pm - Feb 5, 2016


A bit OT from todays events but if i read this right?
RANGERS fans will picket the club’s Ibrox superstore on Saturday in protest at Mike Ashley and Sports Direct.
Supporters also plan to display banners in the 18th minute around the stadium.
Fans will also congregate outside the club’s megastore at the Copland and Sandy Jardine stands.
—————————-
Does anyone know what this latest boycot is about? Do even the rangers fans know?
I know it is a protest at Mike Ashley and Sports Direct. but a protest about what?

View Comment

normanbatesmumfc

normanbatesmumfcPosted on10:16 pm - Feb 5, 2016


Thank you Woodstein for posting the Rangers Incorporation Articles of Association, if I have seen these documents before it certainly was some time ago.

Cuddlybear, I hope you read them as well as you appeared to be selectively quoting from them earlier. However may I draw you attention to the Preliminary point 4. This clearly states each member of Rangers Football Club, became a shareholder of RFC Ltd. The club ceased to be a club and became a company.

Right up to the decision to liquidate, this remained the case. At that time there were no club members or office bearers as the “club” did not exist separately from the business. The business/club RFC PLC was run by the company Board of Directors and they alone were responsible for the demise.

No amount of Charles Green nonsense, SFA/SPFL skulduggery, or Govan faithful strawclutchery can change those cast in stone FACTS.

View Comment

Avatar

James DolemanPosted on10:21 pm - Feb 5, 2016


Thought I’d try my  hand at a parable

https://lefthooked.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/rangers-a-parable/

View Comment

Prohibby

ProhibbyPosted on10:50 pm - Feb 5, 2016


JD your parable is an interesting one. It seems to me that the cafe is the same but its a new business. Having said that, I think the puzzle you set is insufficiently metaphysical. 21 
Thanks for your tweetings today, it was much appreciated.  By the way, I would be interested in the Judge’s demeanor when he made the ‘metaphysical’ comment – was he giving anything away?  For what its worth, I thought the SFA side was engaging more in sophistry than metaphysics.  

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on11:17 pm - Feb 5, 2016


James Doleman 5th February 2016 at 10:21 pm #Thought I’d try my  hand at a parable
https://lefthooked.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/rangers-a-parable/  
   ——————————————————————————–
  Nice one James. Thanks for all your hard work. 
  Same cafe, different pie and chips, but garnished with the same own brand beans. 
#54metaphysicalsandcounting    21

View Comment

4424me

4424mePosted on11:29 pm - Feb 5, 2016


James what about the part where Charlie the new owner doesn’t actually own it but has tricked Craig but gets each customer to buy a share of the cafe , and he keeps the loot, meanwhile it turns out Craig the former owner actually still owns it but has sold it to a finance house along with the film rights 

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:30 pm - Feb 5, 2016


JD, I’ve left the following comment on your parable site.

Can the new cafe owner/company claim culinary prizes won under the previous company’s stewardship?Do the existing food safety certificates apply to the new company?Is the lease for the property transferable?
Whilst the customers may not see much difference, the bodies than oversee the business’s operation – council, landlord, etc – and anyone that has issued awards to the previous regime, would doubtless see it as a new restaurant.

Certainly, in the eyes of a portion of the customers, some sort of metaphysical entity continues uninterrupted by the previous business’ demise.
On the other hand, no-one who deals with the restaurant at a business level would, I think, see it as the same entity. Unless misled into believing it to be so.

View Comment

Avatar

cuddlybearPosted on11:35 pm - Feb 5, 2016


James Doleman 5th February 2016 at 10:21 pm,
A good analogy re. your “Govan Cafe”, certainly more appropriate than receiving Grandpa’s golf membership or whatever  🙂  Nobody in real life would claim the Govan Cafe had “died”, nobody would claim it had ceased to exist. Except perhaps local media for a day or two in search of a juicy soundbyte, or customers of rival cafes who bear some grudge against it for whatever reason… 😉 Unlike in your example, Rangers FC never did close its doors. The business remained operating through out the administration prior to the transfer of ownership, the staff were not told to go home, the gates were not padlocked. I would draw Auldheid to this point given his earlier posts.

View Comment

RyanGosling

RyanGoslingPosted on11:44 pm - Feb 5, 2016


Cuddlybear,

Please drop the same club stuff. If it means a lot to you, compose your thoughts and write one considered piece, let people digest it as they wish and let it go. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with you, only that there is nothing to be gained by your approach at present. 

If you continue to harp on about this issue, you’re going to give yourself, me and Rangers a bad name. Rangers and their fans get slated for enough things here, if you want to defend the club there are many more battles to pick! This one has been done to here over a period of many years. 

Please PM me if you wish to discuss further, or incredibleadamspark, the other resident bear. 

View Comment

Avatar

Bogs DolloxPosted on11:46 pm - Feb 5, 2016


wottpi 5th February 2016 at 6:45 pm #Trisidium 5th February 2016 at 6:09 pm
Not wanting to scare away the likes of cuddlybear but to be honest we have seen their likes on here before.
Ask my fellow Jambos, the likes of  Ally and Easy about anything related to Hearts and they will give you a response be it on how the proposed new stand will be funded, the dealing with the young Neds to Robbie’s decision to let Billy King go out on loan.
Same goes for the fan on here of any other club.
Ryan (posted missing in action for some time now) has been about the only bear who has been willing to join in a debate and offer his opinions of the goings on down Ibrox way.
CB has, as yet, simply ignored the polite but obvious questions from fellow football fans about how he/she as a fellow fan views footballing matters at this club. That is being previous punishments/consequences and future financial planning.
All we have to date is numerous and torturous oldco/newco gobbledygook.
Given today’s surreal contributions from Mr O’Neill at court I can’t see the ethereal club issue being resolved anytime soon.
Therefore it would be much nicer if bears just came on and talked about how they thought their club was doing and what the issues were, how they were going to overcome them etc.
Whether they were shoved or pushed I have to commend the current board at Ibrox for trying to get their financial ducks in order re paying off Ashley. It makes things so more open and transparent if things are all kept in house as much as possible.
I do honestly and genuinely want to know what real Rangers fans think is the way forward as opposed to the guff you ready in the press or the bravado that may be expressed by pals in the pub.
SFM provides a decent and polite forum for people to open up but as long as we have the impression of obfuscation then it is squirrel alert as far as I’m concerned.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Agreed. Been watching it for a few days now. Strange why it all happened BEFORE the metaphysics of the Court appearance. Nevertheless it drags everyone in on a factual, legal or emotional level and serves a rodentential purpose.
Smugas has got it right. TRFC/Rangers exists in the hearts of the supporters of the former club. Continuing to rub it in that their club is in liquidation/deid every 5 minutes isn’t helping.
The target, I thought of this blog/movement, was/is to remove the hierarchy of the SFA/SPFL and put the fans and fair play at the top of the Agenda.

View Comment

Avatar

Bogs DolloxPosted on11:55 pm - Feb 5, 2016


RyanGosling 5th February 2016 at 7:55 pm #
I’m no fan of Mr King, and don’t welcome his presence. His promises of front loaded investment have been shown up for what they were in the first place. But reluctantly I still think Rangers are in a better position than they were before the current board came in, if only because most of the fans seem to be on board and attendances are way up. Time will tell if we manage to harness the potential or just abuse it as usual.
Football wise things are great, very impressed. I think we will be promoted, and while I doubt we’ll be league challengers for a few years yet I do think we would give a good account of ourselves. Goes back to my previous point about whether we can turn 40,000 season tickets into a self funding capable squad, or ruin the potential with gross mismanagement as we have for too many years already, and I obviously include the Murray years in particular in that. 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
40,000 season tickets at Premier League prices adds about £8m plus other Revenue to turnover. Then its break even time for TRFC.

Only the multitude of criminal cases and commercial litigation to worry about after that.

View Comment

Avatar

cuddlybearPosted on12:00 am - Feb 6, 2016


wottpi 5th February 2016 at 6:45 pm,
My opinions on the way the club is being run are (almost) all positive at the current juncture.

I am content that we finally have people in the boardroom that want the best for the club, rather than parasites whom are interested only in their own personal gain. There seems to be a determination to bring the club to a self-sustaining level, cutting costs, and managing expenditure. The approach to the playing staff of buying young players who are likely to raise in value and may turn us a profit is also long overdue. Warburton is impressive, has introduced an entertaining style of football that has delighted the fans. Our bedrock is our support base, and with crowds between 42-50000 for the second tier, I am confident we will have a full and rocking Ibrox if we can gain promotion for next season. 2016-17 could be a mouth-watering prospect, but after the outrageous collapse against Motherwell in the play-offs, I’m refusing to take anything for granted at this stage.

My one doubt is Dave King. I am not 100% convinced about him and probably have a healthy paranoia given the recent past, but so far, so good. It is certainly night and day from a little over a year ago, when the parasites were in full control and the team a disastrous rudderless ship. The 1st of January 2015 will stick long in the memory, King’s purchase of the shares and a certain interview given by Mr. Doncaster that put the cat among the pigeons 🙂 

View Comment

Avatar

Bogs DolloxPosted on12:18 am - Feb 6, 2016


cuddlybear 6th February 2016 at 12:00 am #wottpi 5th February 2016 at 6:45 pm, My opinions on the way the club is being run are (almost) all positive at the current juncture.
I am content that we finally have people in the boardroom that want the best for the club, rather than parasites whom are interested only in their own personal gain. There seems to be a determination to bring the club to a self-sustaining level, cutting costs, and managing expenditure. The approach to the playing staff of buying young players who are likely to raise in value and may turn us a profit is also long overdue.
=======================
A club that lives within its means is good. It must be a humbling experience for many of your fellow fans.
My question is this. If it cost only £5.5M to buy the “club” why did no real Rangers men step in before Whyte/Green et al?
=====================================================
 Warburton is impressive, has introduced an entertaining style of football that has delighted the fans. Our bedrock is our support base, and with crowds between 42-50000 for the second tier, I am confident we will have a full and rocking Ibrox if we can gain promotion for next season. 2016-17 could be a mouth-watering prospect, but after the outrageous collapse against Motherwell in the play-offs, I’m refusing to take anything for granted at this stage.
++++++++++++++++++++++
It wasnt a “collapse” against Motherwell. You were PUMPED by the worst Motherwell team in 10 years or more (I say this as a Well fan BTW). You weren’t good enough on the football field. Simple as that. RRMan McCoist fixed that for youse by working hand in glove with Green to fill his pockets off the backs of the fans hard earned.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My one doubt is Dave King. I am not 100% convinced about him and probably have a healthy paranoia given the recent past, but so far, so good. It is certainly night and day from a little over a year ago, when the parasites were in full control and the team a disastrous rudderless ship. The 1st of January 2015 will stick long in the memory, King’s purchase of the shares and a certain interview given by Mr. Doncaster that put the cat among the pigeons
++++++++++++++++++++++
King is a convicted criminal. I would not be happy to place my trust in similar if it was my club.

View Comment

Bawsman

BawsmanPosted on12:32 am - Feb 6, 2016


“My one doubt is Dave King. I am not 100% convinced about him and probably have a healthy paranoia given the recent past, but so far, so good”

Seriously?????

How crooked and bent do you need to be for ‘the peepul’ to have concerns ffs?????
King is a, bona fide convicted tax evader and fraudster, it doesn’t come much more blatant than that (unless you run the SFA) 
At what point do the SFA/SPFL/SMSM say………….well I never?……..we were all duped?…….never saw that coming?…………..Phew, Oh look, Rangers 3 have no debts and 40k idiots following them, can’t loose that, it’d be armageddon.

View Comment

RyanGosling

RyanGoslingPosted on12:47 am - Feb 6, 2016


Not to ignore the comments that have been made in the last few hours, which I have read with interest, but I must point something out. It is often mentioned that more Rangers fans would be welcomed here. That view has been stated repeatedly over the last 24 hours, and I applaud it.

However, please cut the likes of Cuddlybear, and to a lesser extent myself since I have been here for a while!, some slack. I draw attention to a post by Zilch, made on the 1st of February, stating that “Rangers are a cancer on our society, a blight that must be eradicated entirely”. At my last look that post attracted 182 thumbs up. If the tables were turned and your club, and by extension their fans, I.e. you, were being called a cancer, would you feel welcome?

Big Pink I was going to privately message you on this point but I think it has merit in being discussed on the wider forum as to why this post was not pulled. I look forward to your response, as I trust that you considered this carefully. 

Ryan
Yes we did look at that comment, which was a very emotional one closely.
Zilch did make his position perfectly clear in that he was NOT generalising nor attributing negative characteristics to the Rangers support as a whole, so I am surprised that would draw the opposite inference.
His conclusion about the club was arrived at with some sadness and reluctantly too.
Given the context of his comments, they were ironically not too far removed from the late herald columnist Ian Archer’s.
Tris

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:47 am - Feb 6, 2016


If, in the summer of 2012, St Mirren had purchased the assets of rfc from D&P, moved to Ibrox and renamed its trading name to “Rangers FC”, would it be the same club as had played in Paisley, or would it be the same club that had just finished second in the SPL?
Is Airdrionians FC the same club as the club that was liquidated in 2004, or is it the same club that had, at one time, played at Kilbowie Park?
One would imagine that a supporter is unlikely to give the same answer as a football administrator. 
We can see that the stadium, colours, crest, etc. have their parts to play in defining a club to its supporters; but technically, the club is recognised by the authorities through its existing membership of whichever league it belongs.
When Clydebank FC moved to Airdrie and changed its name, it did not need to apply for a new membership. As an existing member club, its participation in the league continued as normal.
If St Mirren had “become” Rangers FC in 2012, it would appear to me that the dubious LNS definition would still apply and the relocated club could have been claiming to have won 54 titles et al.
This scenario is obviously ridiculous; but is technically not much different to the facts of 2012. Remember Sevco Scotland was admitted as a member of the SFL on 13th July 2012. Rangers remained a member of the SPL until 3rd August 2012. 
For those three weeks both clubs held separate memberships of their respective leagues and thus held separate memberships of the SFA.
Instead of St Mirren “becoming” Rangers FC, we had Sevco Scotland “becoming” Rangers FC.
I still don’t get the method by which a club can simply rename itself and, by doing so, claim the history and honours of the club that had previously used that name.
I do get that supporters simply want to have a team to support.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on2:00 am - Feb 6, 2016


cuddlybear 5th February 2016 at 11:35 pm
‘…The business remained operating through out the administration prior to the transfer of ownership,..’
__________
No! there was no ‘transfer of ownership’ of RFC 18 oatcake. To assert that is  to foster and propagate ( innocently, but wrongly)    the Big Lie.
The Green consortium did not buy the Rangers club of our fathers and grandfathers. They could not, because it had died the death of Liquidation. Like scavengers, or asset strippers, they bought bits of property, and housed their new creation in them.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on2:32 am - Feb 6, 2016


I can’t believe it’s that time of night (or early morning). A long skype family session with the granweans in Oz knocked the timetable out quite considerably!
Just to say that I had hoped to finish writing up my jottings( such as they are) of the two-day Ashley Judicial Review proceedings earlier this evening.
I’ll finish tomorrow, and ask BP if there’s a way I can send them to him to put them  somewhere where  those who might want to read them can do so, rather than for me to try to post them as a ‘comment’.
It might bring a smile to some if I say that the Judge at one point observed, with humour, that there were people present in the public benches  who perhaps knew a lot more of the history of events than ..
I would love to have had one o’ they big pointing finger glove things you used to see on the  ‘another one bites the dust’ TV thingy. It would have pointed straight to eJ!02

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on2:52 am - Feb 6, 2016


I heard stories about Glasgow before the first World War when Rangers supporters would go and watch Celtic when their own team were away.  And vice versa.  How good a world would that be ?

Just get rid of the sectarianism and the IRA stuff from football.  I believe in a united Ireland but football pitches are not the place for a campaign.  On the other hand what happened in 1690 has no place in football.  It is time to move on.  We can dislike each other but on a different level.  Like in Dundee. 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:46 am - Feb 6, 2016


I think at a time when metaphysics and ethereal bodies are discussed in a court of law we can indulge ourselves in a little, ‘what if?’ So…

What if Rangers Football Club had never been incorporated and remained, in 2012, a football club, pure and simple? Would it, owing close to £100m, have died as a result of it’s bankruptcy, or would it still live on?

I sense we would still be reading claims that it was the committee to blame, not the club, which is separate from those who do all the nasty stuff. like running a football club, as opposed to those who do the kicking of the ball, coz they win things ‘on the field of play’. So, only the committee died, the club carried on… 

Football clubs incorporated in the late 19th century, en-masse, to be able to raise money without the fear of the personal liability of the club’s members. There was never any suggestion that it would remove the liability of debt from the club itself. In fact, it ensured the liability remained with the club, and no one else. It really is that simple.

Oh, and on the subject of a ‘club’ itself; I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that a ‘club’ must have two or more members. Will the members of Rangers Football Club please stand up? Sorry, no see-through filmy things, hovering above the ground, allowed! I’m sure the last registered member of the unincorporated Rangers Football Club will have died some time ago, and any notion, no matter how ridiculous, of a continuance of that ‘club’ died along with him (well, with the second last member to die, actually)!

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on9:58 am - Feb 6, 2016


Allyjambo 6th February 2016 at 9:46 am

AJ, The equalities act has quite a good bit on defining what is meant by an association or club

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85018/private-clubs.pdf

What is an association covered by the Act?
The Act defines an association as an organisation that:
• has 25 or more members, and
• has rules (not necessarily formal or written) regulating who can be a member and there is a genuine selection process for members.
Examples of associations include private clubs such as golf and other sports clubs, ex-forces clubs, alumni clubs, social clubs, working men’s clubs, gaming clubs and drinking clubs.

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on9:59 am - Feb 6, 2016


The extent to which the space-time continuum needs to be stretched to accommodate the SPL/SPFL reality –
http://spfl.co.uk/clubs/airdrieonians/

Airdrieonians FC 
.
Nickname
The Diamonds
.
Founded2002
.
ManagerEddie Wolecki Black
.
StadiumExcelsior Stadium
.
Capacity10,101
.
Honours
League Champions: Second Division 1975/76, 2003/04
SFL Challenge Cup: 2008/09 (ALBA Challenge Cup)

That a club can win a championship 26 years before it was founded is frankly…
Impessive 10

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:02 am - Feb 6, 2016


Ryan gosling @ 11.47

i am ashamed to say I had exactly the same reaction to the cancer post you mention which was wrong on so many levels.  I got pathetically caught between a post and a PM and in the end forgot to do either .  I can only apologise on my own behalf for that.

View Comment

Avatar

The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty?Posted on10:10 am - Feb 6, 2016


Allyjambo 6th February 2016 at 9:46 am #I think at a time when metaphysics and ethereal bodies are discussed in a court of law we can indulge ourselves in a little, ‘what if?’
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
The following publication by EtherealPar may be helpful.
https://twitter.com/doelcmila/status/695655183485956096

View Comment

Avatar

TrisidiumPosted on10:13 am - Feb 6, 2016


HirsutePursuit,

The Airdrie site was amended after they obtained rights to use the old name. The 1975 title was asterisked “as Airdrieonians”

At least the correct date of incorporation is still being displayed on the site, so I don’t think there is any attempted sophistry going on.

Indeed, I am sure BP will ask for clarification next week when he interviews the Chief Exec of that very club 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:15 am - Feb 6, 2016


 HP,

i have long thought that one of the problems in the conundrum you mention is the reference to Rangers’ membership, st mirren’s membership etc.  is it not the case that there are a bunch of memberships one of which is Held by Rangers, one by St Mirren etc. I’m happy to accept there are differences in membership that relate to who holds them – euro entry and ranking being the obvious one but to prolong the golf metaphor, if I take over old sandy’s membership because old sandy has gone off to the bunker in the sky I am neither sandy nor am I entitled to any of sandy’s benefits, be it senior discount, car park space or whatever.

in your example if st mirren bought the assets I.e. Controlled the deal then it would surely be up to them which membership they intended to continue with.  You suggest they would become the ’11 men in blue?’ And I could understand why they would want to do that.  I would question why the st mirren board and ultimately the fans would want to do that since in the absence of a metaphysical parallel universe it would mean the discontinuation of their own ‘club.’  Alternatively you would have to question an authority that would sanction st mirren wanting ‘the good stuff’ from one entity but wished it registered to their own entity with the very intention of obliterating it.

View Comment

4424me

4424mePosted on10:57 am - Feb 6, 2016


To supplement an impecunious retirement I occasionally buy and resell liquidated stock. Last year a well known clothing retailer Went into liquidation. I purchased from the liquidator a quantity of their stock. It came with The retailer labels attached. I now resell it but that doesn’t make me that well know retailer

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:18 am - Feb 6, 2016


Trisidium 6th February 2016 at 10:13 am #HirsutePursuit,
The Airdrie site was amended after they obtained rights to use the old name. The 1975 title was asterisked “as Airdrieonians”
At least the correct date of incorporation is still being displayed on the site, so I don’t think there is any attempted sophistry going on.
Indeed, I am sure BP will ask for clarification next week when he interviews the Chief Exec of that very club
……………………………
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC042250
The 1975/76 title was won as Clydebank and the incorporation date was 2nd June 1965.
None of the honours won by the previous Airdrionians club are listed.
What the SPFL show on its page is nothing but sophistry.
…unfortunately.

View Comment

Avatar

parttimearabPosted on11:18 am - Feb 6, 2016


jimbo 6th February 2016 at 2:52 am #I heard stories about Glasgow before the first World War when Rangers supporters would go and watch Celtic when their own team were away.  And vice versa.  How good a world would that be ?
Just get rid of the sectarianism and the IRA stuff from football.  I believe in a united Ireland but football pitches are not the place for a campaign.  On the other hand what happened in 1690 has no place in football.  It is time to move on.  We can dislike each other but on a different level.  Like in Dundee. 

I can recall watching an OF game in a pub in the south of Glasgow (technically East Renfrewshire, but we Eastcoasters tend not to distinguish 03 ), in the early nineties where there were Celtic and Rangers supporters watching in each other’s company without any bother -a small sample but it just goes to show.
On the subject of rivalries in Dundee I’ve often wondered if one of the reasons for the lack of bitterness and bile (on the whole) is the proximity of the two grounds.
As a consequence the pubs nearby are mostly shared spaces, I drink with Dundee fans before and after and if you get beat you take the pelters and get on with it, and knowing that your in a shared space you behave accordingly and it’s something that gets ingrained in you from an early age (better not say how early in my case 21 –  a more relaxed time for licensees when I started going to the games  22 )

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:27 am - Feb 6, 2016


The question is really when was the club currently playing in Airdrie founded?
From a supporters standpoint it may well be 2002 – as that is when the club arrived at the town,
From a SPFL/SFA perspective, the club has had a continuous membership from 1965. Why do they pretend otherwise?
The SFL got it right! With Airdrie at least.

View Comment

incredibleadamspark

incredibleadamsparkPosted on11:34 am - Feb 6, 2016


RyanGosling 5th February 2016 at 11:44 pm
 
Resident bear? Suppose I am in a way but have been in hibernation for a good few years. A few things have happened recently that have got me thinking I’d like to go back to Ibrox. Maybe I will.
 
My view on the OC/NC debate that Cuddlybear is currently engaged in is that they play at Ibrox, in a blue strip, are called Rangers but are only a few years old. And everyone should be fine with that. They are the same but different and it really in no big deal.   
 
That should provide an excellent opportunity to do things in a better way. To create a new history, one that has a link to the past, but remains separate. I have my doubts if that will be allowed to happen but live in hope.         
 

View Comment

Avatar

West Ham FanPosted on11:35 am - Feb 6, 2016


Slightly of Topic so apologies but R.I.P “The Busby Babes” Munich. Feb 6th 1958 05

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on11:36 am - Feb 6, 2016


Just noticed a humorous event on Twitter. Graham Spiers was promoting his column in ‘the Times’ today and the esteemed @bearsfightback 06 account started ranting about him being allowed to write for the ‘Evening Times’ as it is a Newsquest publication. ‘Don’t buy the paper bears’ was the order given. Utter loonballs!

View Comment

Avatar

TrisidiumPosted on12:09 pm - Feb 6, 2016


HP,

Sorry we are at cross purposes. I was referring to the Aidrie site and not the SPFL one. You are correct of course in that the SPFL lists Clydebank’s honours (my mistake on that) but fails to refer correctly to the founding of that club (which I believe was 1965).

The Airdionians site is rather more honest. And in fact whilst they were Airdire United the website asterisked the Scottish Cup win 1924 and other honours.

To be fair, I think stupidity and not sophistry is responsible for the anomaly.

http://www.airdriefc.com/history

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:23 pm - Feb 6, 2016


Smugas 6th February 2016 at 10:15 am #
…………………………………
I think the nature of ‘membership’ as it applies to football clubs is largely misunderstood.
A club applies to join a league which itself is a member of the SFA. If the club is accepted by the league it automatically becomes a member of the SFA (registered member).
The club needs to apply to take part in SFA business by applying for full SFA member status. In previous years new members would be given associate member status for 5 years before full membership status was granted – unless full membership status could be transferred from another member club. Which is what happened in 2012 between Rangers and Sevco Scotland.
Associate membership status was discontinued a couple of years ago, and so all new registered members are afforded the level of full membership.
My assumption with the St Mirren scenario, was that the Rangers SFA registered membership would have lapsed (as it should have done when the SPL members voted against a transfer of the SPL membership) – which, of course means no full sfa membership.
The only SPL and SFA memberships that would have remained were those held by St Mirren.
So although, in this alternative world, a team would still be wearing blue, playing at Ibrox and calling itself Rangers, would it not (in the eyes of the law and footballing authorities) still be the same club as had previously played at Paisley.
Which brings us to the real world, where a team is wearing blue, playing at Ibrox and calling itself Rangers, and is (in the eyes of the law if not footballing authorities) still the same club as had previously been called Sevco Scotland.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:41 pm - Feb 6, 2016


Bogs Dollox 5th February 2016 at 11:55 pm #

40,000 season tickets at Premier League prices adds about £8m

==================================

How much do you think season tickets will increase by, bearing in mind that any increase will be inclusive of VAT.

Your calculations seems to suggest £200, net of VAT or £240 inclusive. If I remember correctly the average price is currently around £230 (including concessions etc).

I suspect your £8m increase may be a tad … optimistic.

However if the fans are willing to pay it then good on them.

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on12:47 pm - Feb 6, 2016


JJ’s latest 
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/the-rangers-metaphysical-society/

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:55 pm - Feb 6, 2016


Tris, yes the club site is better.
However, at the time of the name change there were some statements made that alluded to a belief that the new Airdrionians had some sort of claim to the history and honours of the old club.
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/227892-fan-reaction-to-airdrie-united-changing-name-to-airdrieonians-news/

When the old company went into liquidation, it was in a different football environment and the use of the name was not possible at that time.
With all the recent changes, however, and subsequent rulings, it paved the way for us to make the move and therefore we set the wheels in motion.

‘Old company’ – not club
‘Recent changes’, ‘subsequent rulings’, ‘paved the way’
As far as I am aware the only impediment to the club using the Airdrionians moniker was that the IP was still held by the liquidator. Once that was over, it simply had to be registered.
What changed in the football environment that created something more than a simple change of name??
It looked like dropping the Clydebank history was a precursor to picking up the history of the old club.’cos you can do that now!

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on3:32 pm - Feb 6, 2016


HP,

Thanks.  But you highlight my key point in all of this.  You argue that the membership lapsed as the SPL ‘registration’ was denied.  I personally and me alone and not imposing said view on anyone else04, could understand why the SFA would want to make that the case.  A/ they have no particular issue in creating a new membership (assuming said 11 men in insert-colour-as-approporiate want to carry on) members agree and B/ crucially, it retains a sense that perhaps liquidation isn’t a thing to be playing about with, or if you do, there are consequences!

It avoids precisely the real world problem you describe in your final paragraph.  In fact the current real world positively encourages it!

View Comment

Avatar

cuddlybearPosted on3:46 pm - Feb 6, 2016


HirsutePursuit 6th February 2016 at 12:23 pm
You keep making the suggestion that there was ever a football club called “Sevco Scotland”. You must know, this is ridiculous.

Yes, that company was admitted through an associate membership to the SFL, but this was after buying the business and assets that comprise Rangers Football Club. There was never the hint of a suggestion from the authorities that the football club, the football entity, would not remain Rangers FC, even though the legal entity that would be holding the membership had changed.

This was demonstrated in the vote taken by The Scottish Football League, the wording of which exhibits the distinction between legal and football entity:
“…the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, approving the following proposals:-
(i) That the Scottish Football League Members agree to admit Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member and agrees to permit Rangers F.C. to play in the League during Season 2012/13.
(ii) That the Scottish Football League Members direct the Board of Management of The Scottish Football League (the “Board”) to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the Third Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13 unless the Board shall have to its satisfaction negotiated and reached agreement with The Scottish Premier League and The Scottish Football Association on a series of measures which the Board shall consider to be in the best interests of the game, how it is structured, how it is governed and how it is financed, whereupon the Board shall be authorised to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the First Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13….”

Even when timescales forced the authorities into arranged a fudged “conditional membership” of the SFA to allow the Brechin tie to proceed, the wording within the Five Way Agreement was for it to permit “Rangers FC” to play over that period.

The fact a certain legal entity holding the membership/league share etc, does not make it the football club, there is a distinction. If there was not, then Otium Entertainment Group Limited would be a Football League football club playing in the West Midlands. Number of people who would accept that statement? Zero. Which I would say proves my point entirely.

View Comment

Avatar

cuddlybearPosted on4:08 pm - Feb 6, 2016


With regards the much-talked about Clydebank/Airdrie example, I’d say lets apply our theories of what defines a football club and see which rings true. Is it one football club, or two?

For club=company folk, there is only one football club. It used to play in clydebank, it now plays in Airdrie. The name has changed, the kits have changed, the staff have changed, the fans have changed, the badges have changed, the location has changed, everything tangible has changed. Yet, we are to believe, because the legal entity (and SFA membership, incidentally) remains the same…. same club. Ethereal, anyone? 🙂

For club/company distinct folk, the Football Club must be defined by the people and property that are organised to carry the undertaking on. The tangible parts. As I said previously, from the tea lady to the star player, from the bricks and mortar to the club emblems/the name. Through this prism, the conclusion can only be different club. Referencing the tangible evidence, as opposed to the ethereal “entity” that exists on the Companies House headed paper, entails it.

So which of these two contrasting answers rings true? To Clydebank fans? To Airdrie fans? I think we know which way they would go.  

To the ordinary neutral supporters, perhaps of opposing fans following their teams away, would they think they were visiting the same football club from one season in Clydebank, to the next season travelling to a place 25 miles distant? Again, I would venture the answer would be the same: another blow for the world of the ethereal 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

Cygnus X-1Posted on4:11 pm - Feb 6, 2016


Let me ask a question please?
As we stand, is there any impediment to Celtic going out & blowing the guts of £200m on players & if and when they were unable to service the debt that this spending splurge would create, and they went into administration firstly, before liquidating, I( as a leading Glasgow business person) could buy the assets such as Celtic Park, Lennoxtown etc, apply to the SFA for conditional membership, remaining the same club, but called The Celtic……………………does it mean that I’d get to keep the European Cup & nine in a row league titles?
Just asking for a friend like??

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on4:18 pm - Feb 6, 2016


Cygnus X-1 6th February 2016 at 4:11
———————————————-

In your scenario Celtic FC would still exist, albeit that club would be in the process of being liquidated.

The European Cup, nine in a row, and everything else were won by that club. No-one else could claim them it would just be silly.

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on4:20 pm - Feb 6, 2016


No disrespect to EK and with a nod to the romance of the cup, but I think that Celtic should score at least double figures tomorrow and could be eying up the record score .

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:24 pm - Feb 6, 2016


You would think that with all the ‘history’ at Ibrox of careful PR management in the SMSM over the years…
that TRFC would now manipulate the media to portray the club as honest, cuddly and all that is great about Scottish football.  09

They could try and ‘soften’ the club’s image before its introduction to the top league.

But it seems, IMO, that ‘revenge’ might be the overriding motivation rather than amicable integration with
the SPL clubs.

View Comment

Matty Roth

Matty RothPosted on4:24 pm - Feb 6, 2016


I was under the impression that the OC/NC having been discussed utterly to death a few years ago had been expelled to a separate thread to prevent the main discussion and interest of the forum from being drawn into endless and pointless debate such as seems to be clogging the site now?
Or have we decided to re-open the debate and re-run all the same arguments as were heard, debated, expanded, dismantled and so on a long long time ago?
My understanding is that the purpose of the forum was to discuss important issues within our game; principally the administration and reporting thereof. Issues that are not often discussed elsewhere.
The original post here concerns a meeting with the SFA and some very worrying statements made and attitudes displayed by their representatives.
That’s worth some focus, much more so than trying to persuade a fan that their club isn’t really their club.
No offence to Cuddlybear but I don’t really care what he thinks about OC/NC and I see no point whatsoever in wasting a great deal of time debating opinions of fans.
Sure its worth fans of all clubs exchanging their views, but its only worth so much discussion as ultimately the opinions of me or cuddlybear or any one other fan won’t prove or achieve anything.
What I care about is what the SFA and SPFL, at the bidding of all Scottish Clubs including my own, have done and are doing in the name of our clubs.
And why they have been motivated and able to do so.
That’s the real issue.
Not some silly list of reasons why Rangers must be the same club because “gates weren’t closed and staff sent home” or whatever nonsense grenade is being flung aimlessly into the fray about 10 times a day.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on4:31 pm - Feb 6, 2016


Cuddlybear 6th February 2016 at 3:46 pm #                 
There was never the hint of a suggestion from the authorities that the football club, the football entity, would not remain Rangers FC, even though the legal entity that would be holding the membership had changed.

And yet prior to May 2012 there was never the hint of a suggestion from the authorities that a football club could go into liquidation as distinct to administration, and retain the same identity and membership.  Enquiries on this should be sent Mr V Romanov in the first instance.

Which view do you suggest I believe?  Which carries legal support, common sense and a deliberate strategy of forward planning (warning against future liquidations)?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on4:33 pm - Feb 6, 2016


Paddy Malarkey

At least double figures?  10

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:33 pm - Feb 6, 2016


Cygnus X-1 6th February 2016 at 4:11 pm #

does it mean that I’d get to keep the European Cup & nine in a row league titles?
Just asking for a friend like??

========================
No!
You need to tell your ‘friend’ that a mandatory slap up meal at a top notch restaurant with the SFA President and CEO is required to get the ball rolling on his scheme.  😉

View Comment

Avatar

TrisidiumPosted on4:34 pm - Feb 6, 2016


cuddlybear;

This was demonstrated in the vote taken by The Scottish Football League, the wording of which exhibits the distinction between legal and football entity:

No it doesn’t. It says absolutely nothing. It exhibits a cowardice, lack of leadership and doublespeak designed to keep everyone happy at the same time. Also, all of these points have been gone over time and time again over the course of the last three years.

It definitely seems to me at least that you are now trolling. As Ryan suggested, you diminish your contribution to the blog by flogging a dead horse. Even if you believe what you say (and of course you don’t) you can’t sell black=white to people who believe the opposite. If I went on a Rangers site and made a point of advocating my New Club thesis, I would correctly be chucked out as a wind-up merchant. 

The Airdrie situation is unequivocal. The club bear Clydebank’s history, and they lay no claim to honours won by Airdrieonians (1878).

If you are prepared to answer the following question in a meaningful way (which may potentially add to the debate and head off the tedium you have sparked) then by all means do do, but the sidetracking of the blog has to stop. 

  • If there is a distinction between ‘legal and football entities’ why was the football entity not playing in the SPL in 2102-13?

Plenty of places to go and argue the black = white position – just not here. I don’t know if you came here in good faith – but just at the wrong time given yesterday’s comedy in the High Court – but if you do have something to contribute to the blog, I hope you will accept that there is no resolution available to your satisfaction on this issue at least.

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on4:46 pm - Feb 6, 2016


cuddlybear 6th February 2016 at 3:46 pmYou keep making the suggestion that there was ever a football club called “Sevco Scotland”. You must know, this is ridiculous.

Er what club played against Brechin in the Challenge cup then given that special dispensation had to be given for the players of RFC to play for the new club against Brechin on temporary contracts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9432583/Rangers-in-crisis-Sevco-given-given-conditional-membership-of-SFA-as-stand-off-continues.html

You will also note that RFC(IA) and soon at that stage to be (IL) still held full FA membership when Sevco Scotland were  granted a membership of the SFA that was of a type not even in existence until granted to Sevco Scotland

View Comment

4424me

4424mePosted on4:50 pm - Feb 6, 2016


Without a certificate of unincorporation anything else that follows is a tribute act.
doesnt matter what you call them, sevco, Rangers sevco 5088, holding companies etc etc etc
they are a Charles Greene invention ably assisted by the sfa but that is what they are. If tribute act rangers want to be Rangers , the way to do it was by paying debts as they fell due, Anything else now is Bobby Ewing esque

View Comment

Avatar

TrisidiumPosted on4:55 pm - Feb 6, 2016


Thank God I’m outta here tonight. BP will be modding and I will be spared the likes of this – the latest attempt at imposing (on SFM) intellectual parity with the Record Online.

Ach,its all a lot of whataboutery.Rangers are still Rangers,despite being called “sevco”.Celtic are still Celtic,despite being called”pacific shelf”.Both sides of the “Old Firm” still survive.

You will be spared the presence of this new poster meantime 05

Could I ask for an immediate cessation of OCNC old ground- with exceptions on free comment about yesterday’s three ring circus in court.

View Comment

Comments are closed.