Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey

Avatar ByAuldheid

Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey

LAUNCH OF THE FIRST INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF SCOTTISH FOOTBALL GOVERNANCE BY THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL SUPPORTERS ASSOCIATION (SFSA)

 

Representatives from various fan groups, including the Scottish Football Monitor took up the invitation to the above event which is largely self-explanatory. The scene was set with the following agenda

 

 

 

 

Media Briefing.

SURVEY TO SET BENCHMARK FOR FUTURE EVALUATION OF NATIONAL GAME

 WHEN:                             Thursday, 20TH July 2017 at 11AM

WHERE:                           Scottish Parliament – Committee Room 4

WHO                                Simon Barrow (Chair of the SFSA), Henry McLeish (Board member of the SFSA), Richard Leonard MSP (member of Scottish Parliament for Central Scotland and host of event) and Dr Joachim Lammert (The Department of Sports Economics and Sports Management at the University of Leipzig)

 

The first independent evaluation of Scottish football governance will be launched by The Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA).

 

The SFSA’s nationwide survey will assess, for the first time, supporters’ views on the current position of the game, including the performance of the game’s governing bodies in Scotland.  The research will become an annual benchmarking & reporting exercise looking at all aspects of the game.

 

The SFSA’s online survey has been created in partnership with Prof. Dr. Axel Faix and Dr. Joachim Lammert, two experienced German academics who have undertaken similar evaluations on a national level in Germany and on a European level on topics including 50+1 (German football’s rules that a parent club must own at least 50% plus one share of the football company) and Financial Fair Play.  Their research has been backed by Football Supporters Europe and by German fans organisation, Unsere Kurve.

 

Fans will also be able to provide comment on their own club’s performance.

 

The SFSA, whose board includes former First Minister Henry McLeish; former MP and MSP Cathy Jamieson and Maureen McGonigle, Founder of Scottish Women in Sport and first female Scottish FA Council Member, has over 67,000 members supporting clubs across Scotland.

 

The SFSA is Scotland’s fans’ representative in The Football Supporters Europe network (FSE), an independent, representative and democratically organised grass-roots network of football fans’ in Europe with members in currently 48 countries across the continent.

 

The SFSA might be best thought of as movement appearing at a time when Scottish Football supporters are desperately seeking an alternative to the attitudes and events that have seen our game at best stand still and at worst decline, as changes in the way football has grown as a global industry  have left us marooned on our own small patch of God’s earth.

 

If the two maxims that

  • a problem cannot be solved by the mind that created it and
  • if you cannot manage (and therefore improve) what you cannot measure

are true, then the SFSA professional idea to making change happen offers a different approach to the past by introducing new thinking and using tested scientific metrics on a survey model used successfully in Germany, where the game is light years ahead of Scotland’s by any measure.

The arrival of this movement is crucial, and in the words of SFSA Board member Henry McLeish, ex footballer and former First Minister of Scotland; “Scottish Football is at a Watershed”.

Few if any who love our game would argue with that. We love football because it is in our blood, it plays a key part in the social interplay of Scottish society and it is too important not to now say  “Enough!”

It is clear that the medicine of the past, an approach to the game which excludes it’s life blood, (no wonder it is ill) is no longer efficacious – if indeed it ever was.

To continue with that same prescription would fall foul of that other maxim; “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result”.

Thus the SFSA, who are independent of current Scottish football authorities (SFA/SFL), offer an opportunity to break that insane cycle by offering a new approach, which sees it’s first duty as asking the fans what they think, and they are seeking to do exactly that by enacting a comprehensive nationwide survey of fans’ views and attitudes. The survey, created by a team of research academics at Leipzig University will present, in a cohesive way, the views and thoughts of Scottish football fans concerning the health of the game in Scotland through their own own clubs, the SPFL, and the SFA .

The higher the number who complete the survey and articulating their views, the more weight and authority the survey’s outcomes will carry when the SFSA presents them to current authority and government.

 

SFM hopes that as many people as possible will take part in an exercise that offers real hope of change by clicking below

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/sfsa-benchmark-2017

and visit the SFSA page at

http://scottishfsa.org/have-your-say-now/

where the survey is explained and you can join the SFSA individually.

 

This may be our last chance as lovers of Scottish football to restore its integrity and trust in our football authorities who have lost sight of those values in pursuit of commercial concerns.

 

To the cynics whose past experience of calling for change discourages them (and who can blame them for it’s taken lifetimes) one last maxim.

 

If you don’t buy a ticket, you don’t win the lottery.

 

Roll Up, Roll Up https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/sfsa-benchmark-2017

Big Pink Comment:

Like Auldheid, I am encouraged by the birth of the SFSA and its determination to procure the views of supporters. There are enough people involved in the initiative with clear views about the harm that inherent self-interest on the part of the clubs has brought to our game.

I was less encouraged by the conciliatory tone of Henry McLeish, in public at least, towards those in power at Hampden. For example he said that Scottish football folk viewed outside bodies with suspicion, and that was often understandable.

My take is that they only view anyone wishing to become proactive with that suspicion (and fear). They have never viewed my cash with anything other than hungry eyes, far less suspicion.

The feeling in the room, when less formal discussion was taking place, was that the authorities and the clubs have refused to take fans’ views into account for too long.

Governance (particularly the lack of and the ‘making it up as we go’ varieties), FFP and Strict Liability were all subjects of those discussions. These are all nettles that MUST be grasped in public, and the sooner the better, if fans’ views are to be properly reflected.

I am hopeful that the weight of dissatisfaction I expect to see as a result of this ambitious survey will compel a change in tone by McLeish and his colleagues.

One final note of concern is that a group like SFSA, which after all hopes to represent fans at the top table, appears to have a board overly comprised of folk from the political, business and academic spheres. Some grass roots participation is vital moving forward. Hopefully that is also on the agenda.

About the author

Avatar

Auldheid author

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

629 Comments so far

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on4:22 am - Jul 28, 2017


Hirsute Pursute (2nd page)
Easyjambo & I, I think have different views on why the change was made. Both may be equally valid.
You will know that the SPL is constituted in a way that each member club became a shareholder in the SPL. The regulations were written with an assumption that each club is a company that can legally own a share.
You may also remember that back in 2004 there was an attempt to create SPL2. 
However, Brechin City won what was SFL League 2 in 200/05 – so would be a candidate club for the proposed new division of the SPL.
Problem is, Brechin City is an unincorporated body. It has no legal personality to own shares or anything else.http://www.morton-fraser.com/knowledge-hub/unincorporated-associations-facts
The new regulations should have allowed the shares to be registered by a club committee member. Under the original articles the holder of the SPL could only be the club itself.
It is ironic (if somewhat surprising) therefore to note that there are least three (possibly four) current shareholders listed in the SPFL which have no legal personality.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I meant to ask who are they?

View Comment

Avatar

Pat ByrnePosted on6:23 am - Jul 28, 2017


Guys,
No one needs to commit to SFSA or for that matter totally rule them out, why not let things pan out to see exactly where they intend to take things (within a reasonable time span) I for one am not totally convinced their intentions are honourable but will remain open minded. 
If you have a chance have a gander at James Forest’s latest https://thecelticblog.com he has done an outstanding analysis on the SPFL Statement and in particular the 5 way agreement which I must admit to being pretty vague on when it came to the finer details, his take on it certainly opened my eyes and I will be forever in his debt for rekindling my waning interest (through total frustration) after the bollocks that the SPFL served up to justify their position, shame on them all. 
As for the lack of any sort of response from Celtic, I am still pretty confident that they are taking their time to react and are currently drafting up their response which will blow this cover up wide open, they will be aware they have a responsibility to their shareholders and will be taking proper legal advice on their position. I have once again written to them stating that until they act to defend the integrity of the game in Scotland and do all in their power to right this wrong, my considerable yearly input will go to more deserving causes.
Well done to the Dons last night, they have given themselves a real good chance, let’s hope they can finish the job as a wee run in Europe for both teams would help lighten the mood all round.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:21 am - Jul 28, 2017


BLACKSTARJULY 27, 2017 at 22:39       8 Votes 
Mr Goosey Goosey,
I have just mothballed a very successful attempt to bring fans from all clubs together. “Strip The Titles”. I ran it for 3 weeks exactly and built a group of 9,000 supporters from every club in Scotland. (barring one club who’s supporters just spent their time hurling pretty vile abuse).The group was ready to go and challenge the clubs on the handling of the Dos/EBT years. Plans were at an advanced stage. We could have had the titles stripped with in a year. The problem was the game would not have been in better hands and our football teams inc the National team would still be on a downward spiral. So there’s a bigger picture out there rather than a single issue.
We could have had the titles stripped with in a year.
————————-
Are you still confident you could still have achieved this even after the SPFL Board  announced, following legal advice that there will be no titles stripped.
As you have stated stripping titles alone would not have put the game in better hands.I’m happy to wait for the bigger picture and hope the group is ready to go in the near future

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:49 am - Jul 28, 2017


I note a two day Twitter exchange between Tom English and several Rangers fans because Tom used the word ‘unlawful’ to describe Rangers use of EBT’s. They are now claiming they humiliated Tom English simply because an English based tax lawyer said it wasn’t unlawful.  This is the same English based tax lawyer who told anyone willing to listen that BDO would win the appeal in the Supreme Court.  Tom English has said he has asked several tax experts who are perfectly comfortable with the use of ‘unlawful’. 

I am as big a critic of the media as anyone, but when you see the continual hassle they get when they make just one single negative comment about this matter it really makes you wonder.  The concerning thing is many of the Rangers fans who desperately pursued Tom English are apparently some of the more reasonable ones to debate with.  I imagine the BBC complaints dept will be busy again.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:56 am - Jul 28, 2017


What Rangers did was unlawful, it’s really not that complicated.

Tax fraud is illegal, because there is a specific piece of legislation which makes it so. Section 106A of the taxes management act.

Use of an EBT was neither illegal or unlawful at the time, provided that it was used properly and was not abused. Rangers did not do it properly, they deliberately abused the system in order to pay football players (and others) more money, by avoiding the tax on it. That is not allowed within the law and is therefore unlawful. 

On the whole “tax evasion” thing. Section 106A requires that someone is knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion. That is not a moral judgement that you might think you are doing something wrong, it is actual knowledge that you are breaking a law. If you don’t know that then you are not committing the fraud. The really difficult bit is proving that to a jury. It is not up to the defence to prove that they did not know it was an offence, it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:07 am - Jul 28, 2017


In discussing the Scottish Football Supporters Association and Supporters Direct (Scotland) it is important ,I think, to bear in mind that respective ‘raisons d’etre’ are quite, quite different.
They have quite different aims and objectives and quite different processes.
SD(Scotland) is was set up to help fans of individual clubs obtain more of a say in the governance of their clubs ( including fan representation on the Board, and in some cases,the possibiity of ‘ownership’ or majority control of their clubs)
These  aims may be laudable enough in themselves, and certainly, Government provided some dosh to fund what it accepted might be good for individual communities, and, in that way, good for the sport as a whole.
As ever, though, where an organisation seeks and is offered ‘government’ monies, it to some extent loses a measure of independence.
SD(Scotland) receives funding also from the SFA.
Now,there is an old adage that you don’t bite the hand that feeds you.So, particularly when SD(Scotland’s) brief is NOT  the holding to account of Football fGovernance  in Scotland, it follows that by accepting money from the SFA, they are likely NOT to run in open opposition to the SFA.
In other words, they can be expected neither to feel obliged  to make demands of Football Governance as a whole and call it to account, NOR to risk funding the loss of which would hamper them in working towards their proper aims.
By contrast, the SFSA’s brief is, in effect, to take forward the underlying principles of the McLeish report, only some recommendations of which have been ( perhaps less than wholeheartedly) adopted.
Essentially, the SFSA wants Scottish football to be benchmarked nationally by the tens of thousnds of supporters whose money is the life-blood of the sport but whose needs and desires are , in these educated-consumer-democratic times, are contemptuously dismissed , where they are acknowledged at all, in a way that no big company would even contemplate.
The football supporter needs these days to be informed about the extent to which his whole football experience is, ultimately, value for money, over a range of measurable and measured criteria- from the football success of the national team right down to the buggering about with match times, and the quality and price of the match-day experience.
In among that, and central to it, is measurement and assessment of financial fair play, sporting integrity, and how rules are framed and applied and altered.
The starting point is to obtain data: we know that all is not perfect, but in what ways in particular? The ‘blue elephant’ is in the room, of course and will have to be dealt with , but just as importantly the structures that allowed that level of cheating  and complicity in that cheating, have got to be radically overhauled so that never again could such cheating happen.And of course there were and are a whole lot of other areas of dissatisfaction to be examined, measured, assessed and sorted.
It is very early days ( official launch only 18 months or so ago!), no government funding [ and certainly no SFA funding!],but the survey to collect data has been launched with great success.
When the survey is complete there will be factual data to analyse, tabulate and draw conclusions from.
And to compare with the experience of other countries.
And progressively, not necessarily aggressively, start getting our ‘Governance’ people to respod to such demands for change and improvement that the tens of thousands of supporters believe to be necessary and  practicable, over time, to retore confidence in the integrity of our governance as part of enhancing our Sport at every level , from National team football success through to safeguarding the long-term future of the game.
There will be no question but that true democratic principles will followed in the election of office-bearers in due course. ( As other have remarked, the setters-up of an organisation of necessity are self-appointed! Until such time as there is an established membership when proper mechanisms can be set up.
I don’t know what the plans are for nominations and elections. I hope they are reasonably advanced,because a fundamental principle is that boards and officer be democratically elected just as soon as may be practicable.
I can add that I don’t have any paricular objection to the current board members ( even the politicians)
but , clearly, the sooner their ‘appointments’ are endorsed ( or not) by the voting membership, the better.
In conclusion, the SFSA is the only organisation that is truly a national supporters organisation whose principle aim is get our Football governance ( at National, League and club level)to appreciate that the Sport is for us, not them, and that their performance over every measurable aspect will be monitored and compared  with that of other National Football Associations, other leagues, and othe clubs.
Not aggressively, but objectively -and independently.

View Comment

Avatar

Higgy’s ShoesPosted on9:19 am - Jul 28, 2017


http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/where-did-it-go-wrong-ann

Couldn’t have put it better myself.

HS

View Comment

Avatar

Charlie_KellyPosted on9:26 am - Jul 28, 2017


Found this response from Rod McKenzie rather interesting:

Q: If there was another insolvency event at Ibrox would that be considered as a first or second offence?ROD McKENZIE: “Second. As it stands. There is a time period between insolvency events which I think is five years. So it might not now be 25 points. I think it is a five-year period between, and if you have a further insolvency event within the five year period then you get a further 25 point deduction. At Rangers in 2011 was the administration but they went into liquidation in 2012. We are just still within the five year period.”
Now forget the fact he doesn’t even know what year rangers went in to administration, and focus on why there was no points deduction for going in to “Liquidation”. This was a second insolvency event within the 5 year period.
So why was there no further 25pt deduction carried forward to the 2012/13 season? Those of us who deal in reality know why there was no further punishment. There was nothing there to punish! The football club in question ceased to exist and a new club took it’s place in the bottom tier of the Scottish Football League.
The SFA/SPL tried to get around this by claiming that it was the holding company that had gone in to administration/liquidation and not the club.
OK fine but what happens going forward if a club is facing financial ruin? Take a hypothetical scenario, let’s say a random top flight club (Ross County for example) is owned & operated by “Company A ltd” and the club/company have run up massive debts chasing on field success. It becomes obvious to everyone at Ross County that the end is nigh and that gong in to administration is the only solution. In this scenario what is to stop them setting up “Company B ltd” and selling the “club” to Company B Ltd BEFORE placing Company A Ltd in to administration?
What would happened if a club tried to pull a stunt like that now in 2017 or does it still depend on which club we’re talking about ?

View Comment

Avatar

FinlochPosted on10:24 am - Jul 28, 2017


The more people like Topping say the worse they make it for themselves.

Ms Budge may just want to look at the future.
I understand that with her shiny new stand but the foundations she seems happy to rest it on are cancerous. 
And implosive.
Just think what a principalled Budge Resignation would do for Scottish Football.

That would be a really smart move and the right thing for all fans.

I’d go further and suggest it would be Hearts finest political move since the team embarrassed the then Establishment when they signed en masse with a few others from the game for what we now know as Macrae’s Battallion.

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on10:30 am - Jul 28, 2017


AuldheidJuly 28, 2017 at 04:22
It is ironic (if somewhat surprising) therefore to note that there are least three (possibly four) current shareholders listed in the SPFL which have no legal personality.++++++++++++++++++++++++I meant to ask who are they?

Auldheid, I think that Brechin and Stranraer are unincorporated bodies. Annan is Community Benefit Society and Stenhousemuir a CIC.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on11:24 am - Jul 28, 2017


    LNS was not a legal setting. It cannot be allowed to stand. The Supreme Court…The highest law in the land, clearly points to the decision being arrived at, on a false assumption.    LNS  has no weight in law, and not a word emanating from it, can be used to defend itself, against what the law has stated.    As a document it’s only value, is in proving the SFA and SPFL agreed to a stitch-up.   It cannot be argued that LNS conclusions, are worth the paper they are written on. They are not, and the law says so.
    It would appear they are opting for “trial  by media”, rather than face anything Judicial.  I wonder why?

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on11:42 am - Jul 28, 2017


I really think that the SFSA could – and should – grasp an opportunity like the SPFL statement to assume a moral leadership of fans of Scottish football.
I’m not sure what it is they hope to provide in terms of moral authority if they are not fearless enough to address directly the biggest and still evolving scandal the game has seen.
I am hoping that like Celtic, they are taking time to respond.
The question is, how can they ignore it?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on11:49 am - Jul 28, 2017


I’ve just been catching up with recent posts including those surrounding the SFSA and have to say that, as someone who likes to see a ‘Devil’s Advocate’ approach to any debate, I am glad that Goosy Goosy has questioned the integrity of the SFSA. As usual, a Devil’s Advocate has brought an opportunity to the blog to look a bit more in depth at a subject, and though nothing is finalised, both sides of the argument were well put and we may now have a clearer picture of what the organisation is about, or we may not, but my, and I’m sure others, own opinions will have a bit more information on which to form that opinion.

I’ve stated before that I will judge the effectiveness of the SFSA by what they say or do about the biggest ongoing disgrace Scottish football has ever known, but if they choose to do nothing, that doesn’t mean they are useless, or compromised, just that we shall be left to make up our own minds as to whether or not to support them in what they try to do.

In my opinion, if we join them (as individuals) we will be able to, perhaps, influence their policies, if not, we won’t. In the meantime, though, it will be important that we don’t take out eyes off the ball, thinking some better organised outfit is going to sort this great wrong out, and continue as we have always done – keeping this issue at the forefront of Scottish football, constantly looking for a way to find justice!!

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:10 pm - Jul 28, 2017


Some things that were not said by the SPFL in the statement, or at any other time.

a) They have not said Rangers didn’t cheat.
b) They have not said that there is no case to answer.
c) They have not said that they regret that they cannot take the opportunity to revisit, and possibly justify, the LNS decision.
d) They did not say what it was in law that prevented them revisiting LNS or explain how it was that an SPL inquiry could be bound by the same criteria as a proper judicial inquiry.
e) They did not explain why they should use judicial criteria in this instance, having previously ignored it in the past when amending their own rules to penalise one club retrospectively under a new rule that did not exist at the time of the ‘offence’.
f) In the absence of a) and b) they have shown no regret for what has transpired.
g) There has never been the slightest hint from either governing body that they are in any way angry with, or annoyed by, a club that brought Scottish football so much grief.
h) Despite referring to RFC’s ‘continuation’ (under SPL rules), they have not said how TRFC could be considered the same club as RFC under SPL rules when TRFC started life in the SFL, an organisation with different rules that did not mention ‘liquidation’, or even hint that a liquidated club could possibly continue.

In effect, all that that statement was about was excusing the SPFL’s inaction, trying to justify it with sophistry (such as mentioning legal criteria without explaining how it comes into play in an SPL, non-judicial, inquiry), and it is clear that there never was any intention of properly addressing the issue with the question, ‘should we consider reviewing LNS’, never even asked at this so-called review. 

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on1:20 pm - Jul 28, 2017


BIG PINK
JULY 28, 2017 at 11:42
 
I really think that the SFSA could – and should – grasp an opportunity like the SPFL statement to assume a moral leadership of fans of Scottish football. I’m not sure what it is they hope to provide in terms of moral authority if they are not fearless enough to address directly the biggest and still evolving scandal the game has seen. I am hoping that like Celtic, they are taking time to respond. The question is, how can they ignore it?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
BP
IMO
Its not all that difficult
.At their next  Board meeting the current SFSA Board should vote on whether they are prepared to make upholding sporting integrity the prime goal of their Mission Statement. All other goals will be subservient to this aim. Key Performance Indicators should then be developed to measure whether the governing bodies are upholding integrity going forward. Regular reports should be emailed to members when, as we expect corruption continues to be manifest in mismanagement of current rules and the law of the land. However The SFSA should avoid public involvement  on any topic until they have a fully functioning  democratically elected Board comprised of Fan Directors.
The focus on integrity should   automatically make resolving corruption the number one goal for the immediate term. It would enable an umbrella coalition to be established  between the SFSA and  other groups solely responsible for pursuing the Judicial Review route. The idea would be that the SFSA address an d measure progress on long term implications of removing the elephant while the rest of the coalition get on with shoving it out the window
Steps should be taken immediately to introduce democracy to SFSA using as a voter roll the names of all those for whom they have email addresses. Groups claiming to represent many unnamed members should be charged with adding them to the email voters roll by a target cut off date. The election of Fan Shadow Directors to overlap with the current Board should proceed on a democratic basis shortly after the cut off date. Whether this is  by direct election or through some temporary representative body should be thought through and voted on by email.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The views of the Celtic Board are no longer relevant
They had the opportunity to stand up and be counted .Instead they cooperated by their silence in a disgraceful, unethical and shameless strategy. Their focus now should be removing Bro Walfrids Statue from Celtic Park before it falls over in shame

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:53 pm - Jul 28, 2017


This post carries a ‘Sun’ warning11 so who knows if it’s true?

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/1340234/celtic-rangers-strip-the-titles-go-fund-me/

‘IT IS FRAUD’ Celtic fans warned they may have been duped by bogus crowdfunding page aiming to raise legal action to strip Rangers’ titles
The GoFundMe campaign is believed to have raised over £2,000 before it was removed from the site
But the campaign has since been removed from the site along with the Twitter account @RangerTaxCase which advertised it.And the account @CelticResearch has been warning Hoops fans not to share or be conned by the campaign.They said on Twitter: “If you have sent anything to this fake page on go fund me go back and report it. It is fraud. Get your money back and report those behind it.”
If you have sent anything to this fake page on go fund me go back and report it.It is fraud. Get your money back and report those behind it pic.twitter.com/xza1UMf9zi— CelticResearch (@CelticResearch) July 27, 2017
Minutes after the fake account was taken offline a similar page sprung up on GoFundMe claiming to serve the same purpose.The ‘Strip The Cheated Titles’ page was launched under the name John Cuthbert today with a £5,000 target.As yet, no donations have been made. 
 

 

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on2:35 pm - Jul 28, 2017


Charlie Kelly

the rules have always dealt with this point.  Was hypothetical owner of Ross County Company A Ltd sufficiently solvent to allow it to transfer ‘Ross County’ to Company B Ltd.  

This was always the distinction of Administration.  A bog standard company sale was always just that.  Sale of one company to another a la McCann at Celtic, Whyte at Rangers and numerous others.

Alternatively Administration took an essentially insolvent company,  reduced its debt thus making it solvent again, (or more accurately a going concern) and thus available for unconditional transfer (assuming the new company had accounts, non criminal directors, directors not linked to the previous ‘club’ failure etc etc. )

Finally came liquidation.  The creditor retains control.  He liquidates you. Regardless of the attractiveness of ‘the club,’ whatever that may be, you cannot, at least you could not transfer it because the entire entity was insolvent.  If you can, (and to be clear the rules say you cant*) then one should reconsider the risk reward conundrum of Speculate to Accumulate since the speculate element now apparently ‘only’ carries a downside risk of demotion to division 4.  

If I am say St Mirren to continue the hypothetical flavour and I have a season similar to January 2017 where we’re heading for division 3 of four anyway without significant action/investment.  Leveraging heavily to buy my way out of trouble doesn’t seem that big a risk now does it?  Not if I can simply drop to 4 and shed all the debt of my failed rescue attempt.  

*. It has always intrigued me if clubs realised that that was what they were apparently voting for at (I think) vote 1 of 3 at the SFL admission meeting in July 2012.  It has subsequently been treated as “Can we transfer Rodney’s Club under conditions of insolvency?”  My reading and I suspect a few others reading of the question at the time was “Can Charlie call his new club Rangers?”

Certainly I have (of all people) a Stewart Milne quote from that time tucked away in my mind where he specifically says something along the lines of “Down to 4 because that’s where all the new clubs go.”

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on2:58 pm - Jul 28, 2017


BLUJULY 28, 2017 at 10:30 7 Votes 

AuldheidJuly 28, 2017 at 04:22It is ironic (if somewhat surprising) therefore to note that there are least three (possibly four) current shareholders listed in the SPFL which have no legal personality.++++++++++++++++++++++++I meant to ask who are they?

Auldheid, I think that Brechin and Stranraer are unincorporated bodies. Annan is Community Benefit Society and Stenhousemuir a CIC.
………………..
Not sure if the Community Benefit Society and Annan Athletic are one and the same as yet. The CBS was only formed/registered four weeks ago and I’m not aware of any requested to transfer the SFA membership or an application to transfer the club’s SPFL share.

So, I think, the SFA/SPFL member club Annan Athletic FC, is still an unincorporated association at the moment.

That said, I’m not sure if registration of a Community Benefit Society is completely analogous with the process of incorporation. So there may not be a requirement for a transfer of membership or share.

Nevertheless, at the time the SPFL shares were registered, Annan, Brechin & Stranraer were all unincorporated associations and were incapable (lacking legal personality) to be the owners of shares.

If they are not shareholders, the Clubs do not hold membership of the league (even if they are currently competing in the competition) under the SPFL articles. 

If the Clubs are not members of the SPFL they have no registered membership of the SFA – though they will retain their Full membership status. 

If there is no SPFL membership and no SFA registered membership, it puts in doubt the registration of every player at those Clubs since the moment those Clubs’ SPFL shares were (mis)registered.

Of course, no one has noticed till now, so even though they may all have been imperfectly registered – they’d still be eligible.14

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on3:51 pm - Jul 28, 2017


HP,
You seem more familiar with the Annan situation than me, but the Club/club is designated as ‘Annan Athletic Community Football Club Limited’ in the Mutuals Public Register, my reading of that is that it has a legal personality. Whether that is actually the entity that has SFA membership and holds one of the 42 SPFL shares, I couldn’t be certain.
I’m sure that the League and SFA have discretion to make things up as required, so they’ll all be bona fide members.

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on4:01 pm - Jul 28, 2017


Blue
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC175364/filing-history/MzE3NTg2MTAwN2FkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

View Comment

Avatar

BopsterPosted on4:11 pm - Jul 28, 2017


Too many fans don’t care about what has actually happened.  They don’t realise they are mugs for still paying their way into a Scottish football match. The evidence is in the crowds attending.
If the fans want change then simply stop going to the games.
Ive written to my club and told them this and cancelled my FOH payments but Im one of a very small minority who will do this.
Celtic Park will be jam packed for the start of the season and they are the fans who you would think are most angry at the cheating saga.
So all this huffing and puffing and crowd funding talk, in my opinion is a waste of time.
Zero stars coming my way for such a defeatist post.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on4:40 pm - Jul 28, 2017


Bopster
I think many share your frustration. Sadly fewer may share your resolve.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on4:50 pm - Jul 28, 2017


Does anyone else think the SFA might actually tell the SPFL the review they have asked for will not be happening, and that the matter is closed? The SPFL will then say ‘we tried’.  In my view the SFA would only allow a review if there is zero chance of anyone within their organisation, past or present, being shown in a bad light. We all know that would be impossible. 

View Comment

Avatar

ScaramouchePosted on5:55 pm - Jul 28, 2017


We do what we can I suppose. Can’t cancel the season ticket as they have the money and I wouldn’t get a refund. But no more money from me for Celtic till things change.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on6:28 pm - Jul 28, 2017


I would guess the discussion would be more along the lines of,

“Can we have a review please”

“Yes.  What would you like it to say?”

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on6:45 pm - Jul 28, 2017


SMUGASJULY 28, 2017 at 14:35
“Can Charlie call his new club Rangers?”
————
I remember ar the time such names as rangers utd and rangers Glasgow and rangers 2012. branded about,some fans even tried to get copyrite on many of the names so the ibrox club could not use those names or had to pay someone for the use of a name

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on6:51 pm - Jul 28, 2017


It’s been a hectic couple of days for me so i may have missed the start date for the independent review concerning the way in which Scottish football’s authorities have dealt with non-payment of tax and the ibrox fiasco

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on6:57 pm - Jul 28, 2017


Smugas July 28, 2017 at 18:28
=================
You don’t need to go too far back to find out how those in power set up inquiries.

During the period that Rebekah Brooks was involved in the phone hacking allegations, she received advice from Tony Blair along these lines.

1. Set up an independent inquiry – Blair recommended Keith McDonald to chair it as a “great and good type” and added “Get them to investigate me and others and publish a “Hutton” style report” (the Hutton inquiry was about the death of David Kelly)
2. Publish the first part of the report as the Police finish their inquiry. It will clear you but accept shortcomings and solutions. Publish part two after any trials are over.

So there you have Blair advising how to set up an inquiry, with an “independent” chair already identified for her, who to question, the timing of publication of the reports, but most frighteningly the outcome is pre-determined to clear her, albeit with some shortcomings identified.

Independent my @rse!

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:20 pm - Jul 28, 2017


One of charles Green’s statements at the time.
“Those titles are mine, not oldco’s. I bought them, they’re part of newco and they’re staying in newco.
GREEN insists he won’t attend the tribunal set-up to discuss the possibility of title-stripping and is adamant the trophies are his after he purchased them.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/charles-green-insists-rangers-titles-1497932
So after charles Green bought or purchased 54 titles the club now playing at ibrox and the ibrox fans now claim they they have won 54 titles?
I bought lunch today i never claimed i won it.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on8:12 pm - Jul 28, 2017


Lets suppose that what happened in 2012 happened to Celtic, or Hearts or Aberdeen, hibs etc.

‘Celtic’ died.  It was announced all over the press with coffins in the main pages. 

But within a few days of heartfelt grief we were given a ray of hope!  We were not dead!

Who would not buy into that?  The media, Neil Doncaster, the SFA meekly, Uefa corrupted, advertising agencies, all give you hope – you did not die!  54 going for 55.

If it was Celtic I might buy into that!  After all these august bodies have said so!

Except there is a problem.

As a poster on JA606 said earlier on today (NNH) it doesn’t matter how many people tell a lie it doesn’t make it true.  As long as one person carries the truth forward, it will always be the truth made public.  The truth is the truth.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on8:54 pm - Jul 28, 2017


HirsutePursuitJuly 28, 2017 at 14:58 (Edit)    Cheers. It looks like the rules had to change from 2005 to accommodate the changing structure a club might take (and to tackle Romanov).
The rules however lack the clarity of UEFA Art12 and Art45 and it is that lack of clarity that is being used to in effect make our game a franchise as manifest in the construct applied to club and owner operator given in the 5 Way  Agreement .
UEFA would want any applicant for a UEFA licence to be covered by Art12 but if they aren’t would they be eligible to apply?
Since Rangers never to anyone’s knowledge complied with UEFA rules regarding the relationship between a club and its operator then it must have been Rangers as a club on its own that applied for UEFA Licences pre 2012.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:29 pm - Jul 28, 2017


AuldheidJuly 28, 2017 at 20:54
‘… then it must have been Rangers as a club on its own that applied for UEFA Licences pre 2012..’
______
Absolutely.
Who else could do it- there was only the Football Club, ‘operated’ by its own directors, who, on Administration, lost any legal capacity to operate it, so it went into Liquidation, broken up for parts by the administrators , like many an old Govan-built ship  in the breakers’ yard, leaving only old memories of former glories, some of its parts bought up cheaply by scrap-dealers to build a wee puffer , have it registered at Lloyds ( as a new vessel) and paddle about the Clyde pretending to be what it is not!

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:44 pm - Jul 28, 2017


My previous post. Silly me, ‘puffers’ don’t paddle, as Dan Macphail knew to his cost on the ‘Vital Spark’ when he remonstrated with Para Handy, telling him he would have ‘a coal bill bigger than the Queen Mary’,using up steam blowing the new whistle!19

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:02 pm - Jul 28, 2017


 jimboJuly 28, 2017 at 20:12
‘…….. The truth is the truth.’
___________
True!19

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on10:48 pm - Jul 28, 2017


Derek Johnstone getting paid for pish in ET and contributing the sum of feck all.
“If you look at most clubs in the Premiership, whether it is Motherwell, Partick Thistle or St Johnstone,they have an area in the ground where the singers are. 0606

View Comment

Avatar

Bogs DolloxPosted on11:25 pm - Jul 28, 2017


upthehoopsJuly 28, 2017 at 16:50 
Does anyone else think the SFA might actually tell the SPFL the review they have asked for will not be happening, and that the matter is closed? The SPFL will then say ‘we tried’.  In my view the SFA would only allow a review if there is zero chance of anyone within their organisation, past or present, being shown in a bad light. We all know that would be impossible. 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The cover up so far suggests you are right.

Let’s keep going on this one without the talk about no other Club/Fans other than Celtic having the resolve to see this through.
The people on this Forum come from most clubs and want to see justice done.

The reality might be that only a strong lead from Celtic or their fans will see this one to its conclusion. Every movement needs a leader.

View Comment

Avatar

Bogs DolloxPosted on11:33 pm - Jul 28, 2017


Cluster OneJuly 28, 2017 at 19:20 
One of charles Green’s statements at the time. “Those titles are mine, not oldco’s. I bought them, they’re part of newco and they’re staying in newco. GREEN insists he won’t attend the tribunal set-up to discuss the possibility of title-stripping and is adamant the trophies are his after he purchased them. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/charles-green-insists-rangers-titles-1497932 So after charles Green bought or purchased 54 titles the club now playing at ibrox and the ibrox fans now claim they they have won 54 titles? I bought lunch today i never claimed i won it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Which Sevco legally purchased them 5088 Ltd or Scotland Ltd?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:17 am - Jul 29, 2017


Cluster OneJuly 28, 2017 at 19:20
‘….One of charles Green’s statements at the time.“Those titles are mine, not oldco’s. I bought them, they’re part of newco and they’re staying in newco’
__________
The sheer absurdity of the claim is laughable.
That ordinary ‘Rangers’ punters cannot see the absurdity is, in a way, tragic.
That our Football Governance people pretend even to think  that there was any meaning in the concept of ‘selling’ the sporting achievements ( even ‘honest’ ones) of a historic ( and passed into history) club to the owner of a brand  new football club tells us all we need to know about the types who are in charge of our Football:
that is, that they are  despicable defenders of deceit , desperately now  demonstrating their determination to defy the determined demand from those thousands of us who disbelieve every word they say, that they get to grips with reality, acknowledge their deceit, apologise for it  and take all other appropriate action to redeem, if not themselves, then Scottish Football.
The sheltering behind bogus legalistic nonsense is not acceptable.
A club now dead broke the rules.
It can still, in death, be stripped of its falsely claimed ‘honours and titles’, in a way similar to the way that in former times guys like Oliver Cromwell were dug up from their graves and  legally beheaded for the crime of regicide… Not even in death can the guilty avoid just punishment!
The new club,of course,  has no place in this matter( except in so far as their false claim to the titles and honours would be shown to be meaningless)
Because it has no possible legitimate claim even to the genuinely earned titles and honours of the dead club-no matter what  any ‘5-way Agreement’ might have been signed by forsworn people.
It’s as simple as that.

View Comment

Avatar

iceman63Posted on12:43 am - Jul 29, 2017


I am with Bopster. The fans should simply walk away, and understand the entire enterprise of Scottish Professional Football is fraudulent.
The passion of fans is used by cynical owners as though it belonged to them and not to the fans themselves. All fans need simply to become ex-fans. I became one in 2012, and have not been back.
Show the businesses that you are ethical customers not simply assets of the cub and do do walking away.
Only then can a clean game emerge. If fans say this is a fraud and walk away, then, and only then will the clubs respond. Then and only then will action be taken..

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on1:40 am - Jul 29, 2017


Auldheid
It’s important to recognise that ‘Club’ (with a capital C) is no more than a designation (label) for an artificial construct that has been awarded a very unique meaning within the SPL/SPFL articles from 2005 onwards. 

Whether that unique interpretation is correct or not, it cannot and does not apply to anything else.
 
A football ‘club’ (with a lower case c) needs no designation. It never has. Indeed, within the original SPL articles it was stated that only football clubs could hold shares in the company. No ‘owner & operator’ nonsense then. The word ‘club’ needed no specific definition, as it is/was self evident that football ‘clubs’ have a legally recognised form – whether that is (in the case of the then SPL members) corporate bodies or (in the cases of Annan, Brechin & Stranraer) unincorporated associations.
 
That unique SPL/SPFL designation for ‘Club’ DOES NOT apply to the SFA articles or anything else. So the word ‘club’ has its ordinary meaning as far as SFA membership is concerned.
 
There is no distinction between club/company in the SFA articles. There can be absolutely no dispute that The Rangers Football Club PLC was a member club of the SFA.
In one sense, the SFA should not really need to concern itself with the SPL/SPFL definition. If the SPL/SPFL choose to call the football clubs within its league ‘owners & operators’ of ‘Clubs’ it should be of no real consequence to the SFA.
 
It is the SPL/SPFL ‘owners & operators’ which hold SFA membership, which hold membership of the SPL/SPFL, which contracts with players, registers players with SPL/SPFL/SFA, registers a home ground, registers the team colours, etc.
 
It is the SPL/SPFL ‘owners & operators’ that perform all of the operations of association football clubs.
 
They are only permitted to perform these tasks because the SPL/SPFL ‘owners & operators’ are all recognised by the SFA as the association football clubs.
 
Club (with a capital C), beyond the imagination of the deluded, is a completely meaningless concept.
 

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on1:54 am - Jul 29, 2017


In the SPL/SPFL articles:

Substitute the phrase ‘owner & operator’ with ‘franchise holding football club’

Substitute the word ‘Club’ with ‘SPL/SPFL Franchise’

…and suddenly it all makes perfect sense.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on7:23 am - Jul 29, 2017


In the course of my career I studied finance and accounts to a basic level.  Mainly budgetary control. but I did pick up on some bits and pieces like balance sheets.  So happy to be corrected in anything I get wrong.

Charles Green did not buy Rangers as a ‘going concern’.  This is important to understand.  To buy Rangers as a going concern he would need to have bought them whilst in administration. Had he done so, he could quite rightly have claimed the titles.  It was not possible once they had begun the liquidation process.  He merely bought the assets.

Assets can have intangible aspects to them.

“What is an ‘Intangible Asset’. An intangible asset is an asset that is not physical in nature. Corporate intellectual property, including items such as patents, trademarks, copyrights and business methodologies, are intangible assets, as are goodwill and brand recognition. Intangible assets exist in opposition to tangible assets which include land, vehicles, equipment, inventory, stocks, bonds and cash..”

Nowhere ever, have I read of buying history or awards given to a now defunct business.

The guy was talking nonsense as he later more or less admitted in court.

Lets suppose Tesco wins ‘supermarket of the year’ but goes bust.  Goes into liquidation.  The assets of old Tesco are bought by Sommerfield.  Do you think they have the right to say they are ‘Supermarket of the year’?  I don’t think so.  They are a new firm.  Starting from scratch.  Even if the shops still have Tesco signs, they have new owners and will have different ways of working.

As I said last night, I can almost understand why The Rangers fans cling on to the falsehoods spread about by the media and the people at Hampden, I might have done it myself in the same position.  If I was deluded. Why is it not obvious to so many people that they have been lied to.  Can only be desperation.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on7:34 am - Jul 29, 2017


Meant to say, I’m surprised Charles Green got away with so much.  There are regulations in the City about phoenix operations.  A firm going into liquidation, shedding it’s debt, and a new firm appearing with the impression of being the oldco.  Even the name of the new firm is supposed to be substantially different.  All he did was add a ‘THE’ to the name.

View Comment

Avatar

part time petePosted on7:53 am - Jul 29, 2017


How did DCK get away with being a director of this new enterprise when you read this
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/phoenix-companies-and-the-role-of-the-insolvency-service/phoenix-companies-and-the-role-of-the-insolvency-service

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:31 am - Jul 29, 2017


JIMBOJULY 29, 2017 at 07:34
There are regulations in the City about phoenix operations.  A firm going into liquidation, shedding it’s debt, and a new firm appearing with the impression of being the oldco. 
————-
Why have these regulations in the city  about the phoenix operation at ibrox not been imposed?
———————-
PART TIME PETEJULY 29, 2017 at 07:53
In general, anyone who was a director in the 12 months before the company went into liquidation is banned from taking part in the management of another business with the same name. This prohibition lasts for 5 years and also covers names which are so similar they suggest an association with the previous company.
7. Reusing the company name after insolvent liquidationIf you’re a director of a company that has gone into insolvent liquidation, you’ll be banned for 5 years from forming, managing or promoting any business (including companies) with the same or similar name to your liquidated company. A banned name includes:
a name the company was known by in the 12 months before liquidationa registered name at companies housea trading nameany similar name that suggests an association with the liquidated companyThis restriction applies to both registered directors and people who have acted as a director in the 12 months before liquidation.
If you break these restrictions you could be:
prosecuted and imprisonedmade personally responsible for debts gained during the time you managed the business using the banned nameYou can also be prosecuted and made personally responsible for company debts incurred whilst using the name if you act on the instructions of someone you know is breaking these restrictions whilst you’re:
a director or manager of another companyinvolved in the management of another businessThis is because you’re helping them to break the law.
——————–
Again why is the law not being imposed?

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on9:53 am - Jul 29, 2017


Cluster One, I’ve been wondering about that for 5 years!  It seems so obvious. Maybe it’s got something to do with the Club/Company thing but heaven help me I don’t want to go down that route.

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on10:09 am - Jul 29, 2017


JIMBO,CLUSTER ONE
when it comes to ibrox there are no rules,in fact they make new ones to accomodate,temporary membership anyone

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on10:42 am - Jul 29, 2017


Who was Charles Green’s ‘inside man’ when he was buying his basket of assets?

Green was an outsider, yet seemed to know exactly what buttons to press with the media, SFA, SPL & SPFL.

I’ve one particular name in mind…

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on11:37 am - Jul 29, 2017


JINGSO.JIMSIE
i would have to say jim traynor

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on11:42 am - Jul 29, 2017


I see Billy Bowie of Kilmarnock is the latest to say ‘move on’.  At this rate of sympathy Rangers will be submitting a claim for damages. 

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on11:59 am - Jul 29, 2017


UPTHEHOOPS
yet another one asking away fans to boycott his stadium,weird

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on12:12 pm - Jul 29, 2017


Bogs Dollox
July 28, 2017 at 23:33
 
Which Sevco legally purchased them 5088 Ltd or Scotland Ltd?
———————————————————————–
 
$64,000 question .04   A tale of two Sevcos.

View Comment

Avatar

bad capt madmanPosted on12:43 pm - Jul 29, 2017


The tale of two Sevcos is the one Craig White might be taking to court. 
There was also the mysterious deed of novation which Charles Green mentioned was used to transfer the assets from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland. It was never made public and no one could ever seem to find a copy or the original. Those careless lawyers and their filing systems eh? 
If there was a deed of novation, was it legal? Does its existence not contradict the claim that D&P sold the assets to Sevco Scotland?
I might be wrong, and I’m not an ace detective, but I think someone’s not telling the truth, the whole truth or nothing like the truth.
And that’s without reckoning with the input, role or involvement of the football authorities to facilitate it all.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:49 pm - Jul 29, 2017


woodsteinJuly 29, 2017 at 12:12
‘…$64,000 question .    A tale of two Sevcos.’
________
Geezo, woodstein, how apt to make a reference to a cheating quiz show in the context of the ‘saga’!
“Over the course of the second half of 1958, quiz shows implicated by the scandal were canceled rapidly; and their Nielsen ratings plunged. Among them, with their cancellation dates:
……The $64,000 Challenge (September 14)” 19
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950s_quiz_show_scandals

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:11 pm - Jul 29, 2017


bad capt madmanJuly 29, 2017 at 12:43
‘…If there was a deed of novation, .’
____________
That was a word that was absolutely new to me when I first saw it mentioned , and it sent me to the dictionary. I can’t now remember whether it was publicly mentioned by D&P, or BDO, or whether it was one of Charlotte’s leaked emails in which it ws mentioned?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:27 pm - Jul 29, 2017


Ostensibly from Merchant Legal in March 2013

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

Dear Sirs

You have asked us to provide our preliminary views on a number of potential claims, assets and rights which are currently owned by Aidan Earley, Craig Whyte, Sevco 5088 Limited (“Sevco 5088”) and certain other companies some of which are planned to be assigned to Law Finance Limited and certain of its subsidiaries. These claims, assets and rights are as follows:

1. Certain media rights and the memorabilia and trophies of Glasgow Rangers together with a number of intellectual properties relating to the Glasgow Rangers brand. These rights and assets were acquired by RFC Group Ltd from RFC 2012 Plc prior to that company entering into administration in February of 2012 (“the IP Claims”).

2. Claims (“the Asset Claims”) by Sevco 5088 to all of the business and assets of RFC 2012 Plc (“RFC 2012”) which were either purchased by Sevco 5088 from RFC 2012 in June of 2012 and then transferred to Sevco Scotland Ltd (“Sevco Scotland”) or purchased by Sevco Scotland directly from RFC 2012. Sevco Scotland was incorporated on 29 May 2012 with the initial sole shareholder and director being Charles Green. It is the position of Sevco 5088 that it is the rightful owner of these assets (“the Club Assets”).

3. Rights to a debt of £30m and associated rights under a first fixed and floating charges over the business and assets of RFC 2012 Plc (“the Security Rights”).

4. The book, film and television rights relating to the two takeovers of the Rangers Football Club in May of 2011 and June of 2012 in so far as they relate to Craig Whyte and associates (“Story Rights”).

5. Claims which Craig Whyte has Duff and Phelps (the former administrators of RFC 2012 Plc) (“Duff and Phelps Claims”)

6. An economic interest in an assortment of legal claims which Craig Whyte and others intend to assert against, inter alios, Duff and Phelps (the former administrators of RFC 2012 Plc), the Scottish Daily Record and Mirror Group Newspapers and Charles Green and Imran Ahmad (“the MiscellaneousClaims”)

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:31 pm - Jul 29, 2017


It is clear from the original CVA proposal that it was Sevco 5088 which bought the right to buy the assets in the event of a CVA failure.

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

4.17 Following the extensive marketing of the Company and the extensive sale process, an offer was made by Sevco 5088 Limited (Sevco) to make a loan on certain terms (explained below) in conjunction with the purchase by Sevco of the Group Shares.

4.23 In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential.

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on2:04 pm - Jul 29, 2017


John Clark
July 29, 2017 at 12:49  
“how apt to make a reference to a cheating quiz show in the context of the ‘saga’!”
 
———————————————————————-
 
If anyone would “get it” I was sure it would be you JC 🙂
 
I was 8+ when it was cancelled. (UK Version ATV) £6400 prize.
 
JC check your mail.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on2:19 pm - Jul 29, 2017


Homunculus,
“1. Certain media rights and the memorabilia and trophies of Glasgow Rangers together with a number of intellectual properties relating to the Glasgow Rangers brand. These rights and assets were acquired by RFC Group Ltd from RFC 2012 Plc prior to that company entering into administration in February of 2012 (“the IP Claims”)”

That’s sensational if true, I’ve never read that before, so is Craig Whyte claiming he bought the IP rights (including trophies) before Rangers went into administration? Prior to 14 Feb? That’s been kept quiet.
By trophies I take it he means the actual trophies in the trophy room not historical titles, which I don’t think can be bought.

A number of ‘intellectual properties’ is a bit vague.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on2:25 pm - Jul 29, 2017


JIMBO
JULY 29, 2017 at 14:19
=================================

As I said Jimbo, it’s ostensibly from a letter sent by Merchant Legal. It was allegedly to Worthington Group PLC and Aiden Airley discussing their potential claim over assets, as listed in the letter.

Their opinion on that particular claim

1. The IP Claims Due to the nature of these claims and the location of the assets in question it is likely that at least some of them are subject to Scots Law and jurisdiction. Assuming that the relevant acquisition contract has been completed and that it is not void or voidable (as a result, for instance, as a result of it being ultra vires) or subject to a right of rescission (as a result, for instance, of an actionable pre-contractual misrepresentation), then the plaintiffs would be able to obtain a declaration from the Court confirming that ownership of these assets is theirs and for their return or alternatively seek an order for damages for conversion in certain circumstances. Conversion is an act of deliberately dealing with a chattel in a manner inconsistent with another person’s right whereby that person is deprived of the use and possession of that chattel. In order for a defendant to be liable for the tort of conversion in English law (codified in England as Wrongful Interference With Goods by section 2(2) of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 Act) the defendant need not intend to question or deny the plaintiff’s rights. It is enough that the conduct is inconsistent with those rights.

Where the media or other rights have been illegally exploited for monetary gain then an alternative to seeking damages is to ask the court to require the defendants to account to  the plaintiff for any profits made from the exploitation. Alternatively or additionally an injunction might be sought restraining future breaches. 

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on2:35 pm - Jul 29, 2017


Think if it goes to court, it could be lengthy trial.

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on3:55 pm - Jul 29, 2017


JIMBO
JULY 29, 2017 at 07:34   
Meant to say, I’m surprised Charles Green got away with so much.  There are regulations in the City about phoenix operations.  A firm going into liquidation, shedding it’s debt, and a new firm appearing with the impression of being the oldco.  Even the name of the new firm is supposed to be substantially different.  All he did was add a ‘THE’ to the name.

Actually, Jimbo, he didn’t even do that. The old club was The Rangers Football Club PLC, so it was just the company designation he changed

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on3:58 pm - Jul 29, 2017


John ClarkJuly 29, 2017 at 13:11
bad capt madmanJuly 29, 2017 at 12:43‘…If there was a deed of novation, .’____________That was a word that was absolutely new to me when I first saw it mentioned , and it sent me to the dictionary. I can’t now remember whether it was publicly mentioned by D&P, or BDO, or whether it was one of Charlotte’s leaked emails in which it ws mentioned?
Dont know if this will help your curiosity
Remember we used to have a lawywer to aid us in our queries, he never really left us, his legacy is in- tact.
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/rangers-shareholders-and-a-director-go-missing-will-they-return-by-ecojon/

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:05 pm - Jul 29, 2017


JIMBOJULY 29, 2017 at 14:19
A number of ‘intellectual properties’ is a bit vague.
———————
hope this helps to narrow it down a bit
(trademark pt1) i need to find part 2

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on7:20 pm - Jul 29, 2017


Cluster one, thanks for that, that’s a wide range of things.  I’ll catch up with you tomorrow hopefully.  I was in the pub from 3pm with a friend over from Eindhoven (the home of Phillips).  Anyhow, as I have got older I love to listen to ‘Take the Floor’ on R. Shortbread on a Saturday night.  I know it’s sad, but after Celtic win 0-5 against our English cousins it makes me happy.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:51 pm - Jul 29, 2017


JIMBOJULY 29, 2017 at 19:20       4 Votes 
Cluster one, thanks for that, that’s a wide range of things.  I’ll catch up with you tomorrow hopefully.  I was in the pub from 3pm with a friend.
——————
The same reason i’m struggling to find pt219

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on11:03 pm - Jul 29, 2017


HirsutePursuitJuly 29, 2017 at 01:40

I’ve tried to pull the mythical nonsense all together in a article for CQN Magazine that should get published tomorrow.

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on11:33 pm - Jul 29, 2017



worth a watch again 7.21 in,”when the club went into administration” from the horses mouth.
Feb 20111 when club went into admin what does he mean by this he is negotiating with White and his lawyer.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:05 am - Jul 30, 2017


JIMBOJULY 29, 2017 at 07:34
‘……..All he did was add a ‘THE’ to the name…’
scottcJuly 29, 2017 at 15:
‘..Actually, Jimbo, he didn’t even do that. The old club was The Rangers Football Club PLC, so it was just the company designation he changed..’
________________________
The law of the land is heavily weighted in favour of cheating businessmen.

Not at all surprising when so many MPs over the period when laws governing ‘business’ and ‘commerce’ were passed, only very reluctantly, by Parliaments that were stuffed full of guys on the make, or lobbyists for them, as ‘Capitalism’ took root.

They were not likely to pass laws that might result in them personally being affected if their own ‘businesses’ failed.

Have a wee read at

https://www.purnells.co.uk/limited-company/creditors-voluntary-liquidations/phoenix-companies/three-exceptions-to-section-216

Not that I am suggesting that that particular legal firm is being anything but properly legal, no legal wrongdoing is involved in their advice.

But weep, at how some bastar. of a cheat , and his successor bas.a.d of a cheat, and his successor bastar. of a cheat, and his succesors as cheats can have their cheating endorsed by our Football Governance people.

So that we have a 5 year old club being allowed to claim to be a , what is it? hunnert and forty five years old ?

And ‘entitled’ to the sporting achievements of a dead club?
It is absolute nonsense.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:35 am - Jul 30, 2017


bigboab1916July 29, 2017 at 23:33
“worth a watch again…”
____________
” we asked for a self-declaration..” Says Regan

Ach, where it’s about a personage possessing wealth ‘off the radar'( as vouchsafed by no less or no greater an ars.hole  than our Keef) self-declaration  could of course be trusted!
As readily trusted as SDM’s returns to Campbell at the SFA about the remuneration of his players

Dear God!
How could otherwise intelligent men allow themselves to be so breast-nakedly and blindfolded as to rely on the ‘word’ of a desperately indebted club’s officers?

Alex Thomson is not the only with raised eyebrows

And Regan’s wee reference to ‘particularly in the West of Scotland’ reminds me of the Edinburgh University professor who tried to portray the serious matter of ( possible) corruption in the Governance of Scottish Football as no more than an example of ‘west of Scotland’ inter-club sporting rivalry

( and, when I think of it, he is worse than the original cheats, and the Football Governance cheats, and the SMSM defenders of cheatery)

University academics are supposed to be rigorously objective as regards acknowledging ‘facts’.

I don’t think Professor (whatever his name) was at all at his objective best when I attended the Regan talk to sports students.

Further, I think that any academic specialising in Sport who does not include in his researches the huge question of the collapse of  integrity in  the Governance of  Scottish Football and its probable causes is maybe  not deserving of any special status as a scholar.

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on9:10 am - Jul 30, 2017


An article by 200% This is just the beginning (hopefully not been posted before)
http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/895806334?-11344:801:0

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on11:56 am - Jul 30, 2017


A thought for this Sunday morning:

This 5 Way Agreement, why was it a ‘five’ way agreement? I mean, I know the entities involved, TRFC, RFC, the SFA, the SPL and the SFL, but surely there was a sixth entity involved, one that is spoken of, and is allegedly recognised by the SPL (though not, according to their respective rules, by the SFA and SFL). It seems to me, that, if the titles, though not the debt, already belonged to that sixth entity, then it should have had a say in whether or not the titles could be attached to a new company, indeed, it should have had a say in whether or not that club, itself, should be a part of that new company.

Seriously, if the titles belonged to RFC (the Club), then there is no way that they (the titles) can be included in an agreement/contract to which it is not a party. RFC plc could only have passed (by whatever means) those titles to TRFC Ltd, if it had full and irrevocable ownership of those titles (whether or not it is actually possible to transfer ownership of titles).

I am, of course, assuming that there is mention in the agreement of the titles that RFC owned before it’s death, but, of course, I can’t be certain that it does, because we have never been given sight of what was actually agreed and executed. It may well be, for all we know, the case that there never has been a 5WA, that it’s just something they like us all to believe exists that, should their need arise, they can reveal that it doesn’t exist.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on12:50 pm - Jul 30, 2017


Cluster One,

So no mention of titles or awards or even history in the list.  In fact the nearest I could see to history was ‘calendars’ ! 12

Good lengthy article on CQN about 5 way agreement & club/company issues
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/neil-doncaster-and-the-birth-of-monster-myths/

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on12:57 pm - Jul 30, 2017


ps  I think the above article is by Auldheid 04

View Comment

Avatar

HighlanderPosted on2:42 pm - Jul 30, 2017


BY CQN MAGAZINE ON  30TH JULY 2017
A few months ago two CQNers met with Neil Doncaster in his offices at Hampden. This meeting happened weeks before the Supreme Court’s judgment established once and for all that Rangers cheated.

Doncaster was asked what the SPFL would do in the event that BDO were unsuccessful in their appeal to the Supreme Court. The Chief Executive of the SPFL outlined pretty much exactly what was released in their statement last week.

Their minds were closed in advance. They were prepared for the judgment in favour of HMRC and had a pre-prepared position.

If true, and I have no reason to doubt it, this shows Ann Budge to be no more truthful and trustworthy than her SPFL Board colleagues, such as known truth-benders Neil Doncaster and Ralph Topping. Ms Budge is rapidly losing the positive reputation she had built up and it seems we can forget any fanciful notions we had of her instilling morality into the cesspit that is Scottish football and its governance.

She recently assured us after all, that no decision on the Supreme Court announcement had yet been taken by the newly constituted SPFL Board, yet the CQN report shows the matter had long since been determined. It seems that nobody is immune to the toxicity of the upper floors at Hampden and that commercial imperative will forever trump sporting, or indeed any other kind of, integrity.

Whatever next? A ‘no relegation for Rangers’ clause written into the rules to safeguard the much vaunted but over valued blue pound?

I suppose we should all try to be positive and see recent events as simply making it all the sweeter when the whole putrifying Hampden edifice comes crashing to the ground, as it surely will at some unknown future time. After all, Lance Armstrong’s illicitly-gotten gains took years to wrest back from him and the families of the Hillsborough tragedy had to wait even longer for a degree of justice to be served.  

View Comment

Comments are closed.