I have been receiving quite a bit of unflattering mail about the “agenda” being pursued on this blog. Depending on the correspondent, that is defined as either denying people their civil right to gloat, hiding the “truth” that people of the RC faith are welcomed and encouraged to come to Ibrox, or indulging in Chamberlain-style appeasement with the banning of the “H” word and other incontrovertible rights-to-insult.
The objection to moderation of any sort appears to be at the root of these diatribes. Our position here in terms of moderation is clear. There is no “agenda” other than a desire not to be chasing up posts containing the rantings and ravings of partisan types who “demand” their right to be heard no matter how objectionable it might be to those hear it. We are not here to service a conduit for conspiracy theories based in Masonic Lodges or the Vatican. There are plenty of places where people can indulge in that kind of stuff, but the moderators here are just not interested. The administration of the site takes around four hours per day. That’s a long time trawling through posts which often set out deliberately to insult, abuse or otherwise cause offence – mildly or otherwise.
Our view is that the blog will only have cross-club support if we stick to what we can substantiate by fact or reasonably infer from the way things proceed. Further, we feel that if we are to gain credibility as an alternative source of news and comment to the MSM, that we need to cut down on the fansite type comments. There is no dignity (a word often used here) in calling the Rangers manager or their fans names. We need to maintain higher standards of impartiality than football fansites, because we know that a united fan base can actually make a difference as RTC did when the SPL chairmen were gearing up for a parachute for the new Rangers. OT discussions are fine, and often amusing, but they shouldn’t become the main reason to come here.
The requirement to have a WordPress account before posting here is not in any way draconian. It is designed to make people accountable for what they post whilst still maintaining anonymity, and therefore being exempt from moderation. Those who don’t like it are not being compelled to carry out any instruction – they only need go to a place where they don’t feel so constrained.
If the main issue of this blog becomes how the blog is being administered – or how the moderation policy is affecting the human rights of posters, we may as well just pack up now.
There have never been any objections to the suggested posting rules on here. We assume that people who post are reasonably intelligent. Therefore it seems fair to assume that those who have ignored the suggested posting rules did so deliberately. If that doesn’t happen, moderation is just not required.
If what we are trying to do fails because of our posting framework, then we will be blamed. We are certain though, that we can have no credibility if we indulge ourselves in conspiracy theories and constant references to anachronistic organisations, the Scottish school system, and the leanings of referees.
There is real corruption in Scottish football. It is based not on religious rivalries but on greed and acquisitiveness. The only thing that matters is that we identify that corruption and help put an end to it.
Our job is to ask questions and not jump to our own conclusions about the answers. That will divide us as surely as the realisation of the depth of the corruption united us. To be totally united as fans, we need to have more Rangers fans on here. Therefore we need to create an atmosphere that they can be comfortable with. Is that the case right now? The anger for RFC’s mismanagement and abuse of the game in Scotland is real, but we need to look forward if we are truly committed to ensuring that what happened to Rangers can’t happen again.
We’re not gonna throw the toys out of the pram here. If anyone else would like to run the blog under those circumstances of zero moderation, we will be happy to hand over the domain. There is no “agenda” – we will be happy to hand the work over to others.
The initial posting which proposed the change to WordPress logins received over 130 TUs and only three TDs. Subsequently the post advising of the changes got around 100 TUs and 100 TDs. It seems that minds are not entirely made up.
To get some closure on this once and for all, we have added a poll below to end on Saturday at 1700 where you can decide whether you want to go along with our original plan in terms of login and moderation. We obviously recommend that you vote “Yes”
exiledcelt says:
September 22, 2012 at 09:37
6.5 For clarification, any monies due from the SPL were included amongst the assets of the Company sold to the Purchaser and were reflected in the sale consideration paid. It was therefore for the Purchaser to negotiate with the SPL regarding payment of these monies,
Thanks for that I did not realise the point above. Seems Green got a pretty good deal then, all the assets and players contracts for 5.5m.
davis58b – correct – it means money that should have went to the crditors did not and CG will need to have D&P help in explaining this to BDO.
Can I ask the more knowledgeable on here to clarify something. Does he have to put out a glossy prospectus, by law, before progressing with a share offer (IPO)? Everything appears to be focused on separating the fans from their money, rather than snuggling up to large institutional investors. Without a truthful prospectus the chances on conning the large institutions, presumably, are negligible, but what about irate whipped up WATP who think he is the second coming? He is promising shortly to put out to the fans some kind of “offer document” to gauge the “interest”. If this looks promising, could he quickly, on the back of suggested SFA/SPL persecution, raise another few millions to swell the already gathered season ticket money and forget about the big institutions? An adverse FTT or disciplinary report then being the catalyst for him packing it all in as being unworkable. Cue then the setting loose of irate bears out the front door, while he leaves quietly out the back one.
davis58 says:
September 22, 2012 at 09:50
6.5 For clarification, any monies due from the SPL were included amongst the assets of the Company sold to the Purchaser and were reflected in the sale consideration paid. It was therefore for the Purchaser to negotiate with the SPL regarding payment of these monies,
Thanks for that I did not realise the point above. Seems Green got a pretty good deal then, all the assets and players contracts for 5.5m.
—————
“pretty good deal” … mmm!? Some would say “grossly undervalued”! 😉
davis58 says:
September 22, 2012 at 06:15
0 0 Rate This
Ragers Against The Machine says:
September 22, 2012 at 02:56
That “football will continue at Ibrox” and Ragers “can make a fresh start” does not equate to a continuation of the old club.
I would suggest that is a green light to phoenix. The question I think you should be asking is why they made that statement.
=====================
I don’t agree that the statement from HMRC was a “green light to phoenix”.
When a business goes bust, and ends up in administration, it is quite common for the business to be bought as a going concern from the Administrators by new owners, and for the business just to carry on, from the cusomers’ perspective, as if nothing had happened. Of course the creditors get shafted, but that is not phoenixism. Phoenixism is where the business is sold at a knock-down price and debt free to the old owners.
So if Green and his consortium are totally unconnected with the previous owners of RFC, then there is no phoenixism.
However, if it could ever be established that Green was just a front man for Whyte (as I strongly suspect), then that would be a situation that HMRC would definitely take a close interest in.
I honestly cannot shake the feeling that in a bar far far away Mr C Whyte is pissing himself as he sees his plan coming to fruition. Albeit with some tinkering as and when required the outcome is Win Win for him…IMHO
Danish Pastry says: September 21, 2012 at 22:16
twopanda bears says:
September 21, 2012 at 19:22
________________
Think Clause 46 is going to be a talking point for the time being
Kinda caught me out as their definition of a `Club` taken from their remit fits my old fashioned …
Think you`re right but I`ll skip on Horlicks and buy a bottle of creative wine to formulate an idea if I can.
—————
Haha, Horlicks is a euphemism for whatever you like. Yes that (46) takes some mind-bending and (47) shows that nothing is done and dusted. Early on they referred to the no-show of important documents. Guess they were less than impressed by the non-cooperation.
It’s no doubt my difficulty with legalese but the concepts of club, company, and so on, are rather confusing. Maybe Charles has actually bought himself more history than he bargained for? Especially if the club remains accountable in spite of change of division and ownership.
_______________________________________________________
Ok – Much clearer now – “History” – critical distinctions to ponder from the Commissions Notes
Sticking with Clause [46] – Sophisticated in Concept I venture – Bear with me on this.
Yes “Club” – the recognisable entity that plays, spectates and supports the Club [could be any Club]. This creates `memories` i.e. History. It fits with the Andy Cameron view I heard where his view was `Rangers will always be Rangers` – doesn’t matter what the company number is and so on. And his and other views are correct on that I`d say. You can`t forget you were married at a Church even if that Church no longer exists – or you travelled abroad to support your Club and the memories that generated. It is about memories / history / tradition – as the Commission referred to their interpretation from common speech and thought – So fine – There would be an unbroken line of History in memory – but of no legal standing.
The Commission also points to the Club as dependant on the legal “Owner and Operator”. But the owner and operator are affiliated to an association which awards titles and trophies. Every title and every trophy has the names inscribed of the other member clubs in the affiliated association.
The SFA / SPL are therefore the `Parent` of Titles and Trophies – and award same to the affiliated association member as defined in the rules – that is the Owner and Operator. How Titles and trophies are awarded is with the consent of the entire association – to a / in favour of a particular owner and operator responsible for their membership of the Association. If the Owner goes legally bust the association is terminated – as is the history of that association. It stops. Whatever remains stays with the oldco – That history of that association simply can`t go anywhere else – and it certainly can`t be sold on to a newco as the oldco`s association has ceased and there is nothing to sell.
I venture there are two histories – one based on the memory and tradition [trademark/brand] that CG has `bought` and; – to be restarted as a different corporate entity and legally responsible in future. The memories and tradition of the Club go on unbroken by those who play and spectate.
The second History is of a legal affiliation by owners and operators to an association as defined in their articles as a Football Club that has ceased after 140 years. The titles/ trophies remain with the oldco and cannot be legally transferred because they belong to an association membership that has now ceased. If there is a question on previous titles and trophies awarded it is for the oldco to defend – none other – as they were legally responsible for the past.
Think that`s the gist of Clause [46] – I think……………..
methinks after reading nimmos document that chuck g’s golden goose might just be cooked .
No wonder his outbursts have got more outlandish and he has the look of the haunted these days .
A few more items on the oldco newco thing that affects how CG will sell his shares in his IPO
On debenture holders and current share holders, according to the D&P report from Aug 24th it states the following
Debenture Holders
13.20 Please refer to previous reports for a complete background on the debentures issued by the Company, however, in accordance with clause 2.3.2 of the debentures, the debentures are repayable in full upon the appointment of Administrators of the Company and in consideration for the surrender of the various benefits of holding the debentures (“the Benefits”).
13.21 The Company will move to a CVL process shortly and in this regard, under clause 2.3.1, it is the Joint Administrators understanding that all debenture holders will become unsecured non-preferential creditors in the CVL for the par value of the debenture.
13.22 Based upon current information it is anticipated that there will be sufficient realisations to enable a distribution to the non-preferential unsecured creditors of the Company, however the timing and quantum of any distribution is uncertain, although any distribution will be made in the CVL.
13.23 The Joint Administrators understand that Newco will shortly be issuing a statement to all debenture holders, regarding Newco‟s position on the debenture holder rights for the 2012 / 2013 season.
Members
13.24 Members‟ will continue to hold a share in the Company, however there is no prospect of a dividend distribution to members in respect of their shareholding.
Now given that some folks have already bought shares in the club and also bought debentures in the club, now that CG still claims it is one and the same, can these folks shares be transferred over at value to the new owners of the club? And when is the statement going to come from CG regarding the 13.23 understanding from the Administrators? Shortly?
How can I buy a share in a company that is not connected to the club. Seems if the company goes belly up and the club remains, I bought shares in soemthing other than the club. But if my shares are worthless and are tied to RFC2012 about to be liquidated, what was their connection to the club?
CG will need to be like the conman with the 3 cups and a ball – you need to guess where the ball is – or his case – where is the club? Under which cup……..
I await the clarifications……………
So……..whicvh entity is the answer to these questions:
Who owned all the registrations for the Rangers players 2000-2011?
Who made the financial transactions in buying them and selling them?
Who built up the debt that ultimately sunk Rangers?
If one entity built up the debt through their financial transactions, was it transferred at some point to the other entity and if so when?
If Mr Green bought the club, but not the company, who did the players registrations belong to?
If they were an asset of the company but not the club, does that mean they were never registered to the club – ever, since 1899?
twopanda bears says:
September 22, 2012 at 10:34
==================
The best explanation yet. So simple to understand,I only had to read it twice.
One more item on the debenture holders.
A friend of mine used to go with his dad regularly with his father when he was younger. When he reached his 30’s he only really went for the big games – but his father went as often as he could. When his father applied to buy a debenture block of seats for him and his sons, my friend was excillerated at the prospect of them all watching football as a family – especially European games – all together in confortable seats and guaranteed. His father had a few bob so this was something they could afford.
A few years later however his father died tragically in an accident – my friends and his brothers could not bear to part with his debenture or let it lapse and so kept it going long after he had passed away – the least they could do in his memory, but also so they could go to the games and still remember their dad as well – and then their mum went to take the seat their dad took, which made it even more poignant
I have not talked to him for a while – but I know what those debentures meant to his family. I can only wonder what they are thinking now that these seats that their dad paid for and they kept for years is now lying empty – pending a clarification from CG “shorlty”.
There is always a human element to this story!
davis58 says:
September 22, 2012 at 06:06
Paulmac says:
September 22, 2012 at 03:35
“I mean “Debt free” in terms that the new Company does not have any liability to the debts incurred by Rangers PLC, the former owner of the club.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Firstly…I agree any debts incurred by Rangers Football Club PLC should not carry over…as The Rangers Football Club Limited are legally a seperate and unrelated Football club even though they are working hard to convince all they are the same club….
Secondly….calling Rangers PLC the owner does not seperate them…the shareholders where/are the owners…and as we know Rangers Football club PLC was the consequence of the football club requiring to float shares and thus converting the Football Club that was incorporated as a Company in 1899 from a Limited to a PLC
Thirdly…if you are basing your opinion on debt free from what Charlie is feeding you…I would suggest you take a serious look at the situation without our imput…
“The new owner of the Club, states we are debt free, and as circa 35k season tickets have been sold, I see no reason to doubt him.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You see no reason to doubt him…not the strongest case to defend…it would be helpful to understand his definition of debt free….35k season tickets at £260 each, equates to a reducing debt of just over £9 million…as an example…so his glib throw away ‘debt free’ comment..I believe was comfort comment to fans..
“The Club and the Company are separate entities, though only the Company requires registration and vat, audited accounts etc.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How are they seperate entities? please explain? as we have already established the club created in 1872..was incorporated as a Company in 1899 and converted to a PLC to float shares so yes there would only be one set of accounts and VAT registration..
“The club and company are considered to be separate entities by HMRC, D&P, the SPL, and the SFA. And most importantly it is held as being the same club, Rangers FC by the supporters of the club and that is really all that matters.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HMRC do not…please show where they have stated that they are 2 seperate legal entities? As legally they would be incorrect..
D&P are being investigated for their part in this whole affair…their opinion is not worth a dime…
The SPL and the SFA again…again if you are basing legal opinion/fact on these 2…then you are struggling…
Rangers supporters are free to believe what they wish…they can believe Father Christmas really does exist if they wish…I have no issue with that…however I also have the right to state the club is being liquidated based on the facts..
Ps. I wish I was Paul McConville 🙂 …Sadly I’m not…
scottyjimbo says:
September 22, 2012 at 10:10
6 0 Rate This
Can I ask the more knowledgeable on here to clarify something. Does he have to put out a glossy prospectus, by law, before progressing with a share offer (IPO)? Everything appears to be focused on separating the fans from their money, rather than snuggling up to large institutional investors. Without a truthful prospectus the chances on conning the large institutions, presumably, are negligible, but what about irate whipped up WATP who think he is the second coming? He is promising shortly to put out to the fans some kind of “offer document” to gauge the “interest”. If this looks promising, could he quickly, on the back of suggested SFA/SPL persecution, raise another few millions to swell the already gathered season ticket money and forget about the big institutions? An adverse FTT or disciplinary report then being the catalyst for him packing it all in as being unworkable. Cue then the setting loose of irate bears out the front door, while he leaves quietly out the back one.
=====
He has to get the mug punters – any institutional investors wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole (no return on investment IF you want a successful club on the park), at £500 he will need 40,000 mug punter sevconians the real rangers managed 26,000 in 142 years and they got shafted, this will give him £20M, how long would that last?
It strikes me that Lord Nimmo Smith is in a no win situation. If the Commission find against Rangers FC/Rangers 2012 Ltd/Sevco then the accusations of bias from the supporters of these entities will be vindicated. On the other hand, if the Commission find in favour of Rangers(etc) then LNS may well be accused of bias in the opposite direction to prove the absence of bias as alleged by RFC supporters in the first place. There you go.
For those with a spare hour and a half, Paul McC has conducted his usual (extremely lenghty) analysis on the Opinion by Lord Nimmo Smiths Commission. It is well worth a read.
http://tinyurl.com/cjqahxh
For the benefit of the hard of comprehending, do the ground rules set by Lord Nimmo Smith make the future of The Big Hoose more likely to be:
a) The venue for memorable European football nights with the Barcelonas, Milans and Bayern Munichs of this world?
or
b) Asda?
According to the D&P report from Aug 24th it states the following
Debenture Holders
13.22 Based upon current information it is anticipated that there will be sufficient realisations to enable a distribution to the non-preferential unsecured creditors of the Company, however the timing and quantum of any distribution is uncertain, although any distribution will be made in the CVL.
…………….
A very very significant statement
It is saying that when RFC are eventually liquidated it is anticipated that there will be a surplus left over for non-preferential unsecured creditors after the secured creditors have been paid in full
There are 3 secured creditors with floating charges over RFC assets. Both of them need to be paid before the non-preferential unsecured creditors get anything
The top priority FC holder is Close Leasing followed by RFCG(Craig Whyte) then The Scottish Sports Council
,,,,,,,,
Close Leasing are an undisputed secured creditor for money loaned to RFC in 2011.The amount is unknown but has to be a significant number (perhaps £2m-£3m) given that CW yielded preference over his floating charge and had around £6m in cash on 14 Feb2012. If Whyte and Close Leasing are in cahoots the Close FC may even be as high as the £27.5m that RFCG claimed in their floating charge. This would be a neat way to legitimise a big debt that could be syphoned off before liquidation.
i.e. CW gets £27.5m of which £20m (say) is immediately siphoned out of RFC into a BVI company with the foreknowledge of Close Leasing
,,,,,,,
RFCG claimed £27.5m under their FC but this was disputed by D&P (verbally not in court)
,,,,,,,
The Scottish Sports Council FC was transferred with MP and now rests on the books of Sevco Scotland
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So
What D&P are saying on 24 Aug 2012 in para 13.22 is that the liquidation pot is forecast to be sufficient to pay off all floating charges and still leave some money for the unsecured creditors
This is impossible unless the CW FC and almost certainly the Close Leasing FC have been removed from the Creditors list as part of the asset purchase by Sevco 5088
If so the big questions are
Where is the bookkeeping for these transactions?
What has Sevco done with these floating charges?
Have they issued shares in Sevco 5088 in exchange for these debts being written off?
On 14 June Sevco 5088 registered a resolution at Companies House which authorised Green to “instantaneously” allot shares in Sevco 5088 to 3rd parties without a shareholder vote. So it would have been possible to synchronise the purchase of assets+3 floating charges with a Sevco 5088 share allotment to Close and Whyte and the transfer of the SSC floating charge to Sevco Scotland
Mmm………..
Goosy would this be a clever way of D&P to give the creditors hope … i.e. they will get something if they win the 25M court case they are pursuing – hence the unknown quantum at an unknown date possibly in an unknown dimension?
wolvibhoy says:
September 22, 2012 at 08:50
I’m confused about this whole separate entities issue? What exactly did the old shareholders (the small holding ones) in oldco think they owned? Did they think they owned a little piece of RFC or did they know that they actually owned shares in a company that owned RFC as part of its overall portfolio?
And if a football club is some sort of separate entity (that cannot go out of business) to the company that runs it (that can go out of business), what exactly are the potential investors in newco being told they are buying? A share in TRFC or a share in a separate company that owns TRFC?
Can you actually own a part of a football club by this separate entity definition?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Would be investors will be buying shares in the new Rangers company; Sevco Scotland as was. However, they will not have a majority shareholding and as such there will be absolutely nothing stopping the board/majority from selling the ‘club’ entity to another company perhaps owned by themselves. The new shareholders then end up owning a company that used to own the Rangers club entity. That could be repeated ad infinitum and make Mr G a pretty packet.
Although the MSM will be setting out to convince Scotland that the SFA and SPL are looking to strip Titles and Trophies when RFC have not been found guilty of using dual contracts/undisclosed payments, the truth of the matter MUST be that RFC are as guilty as sin and the SFA and SPL are fully aware that they have been playing and paying players in a way that completely voids their registrations. There is absolutely zero chance that the football authorities would be looking to make secretive, corrupt, dirty deals on punishments unless they knew for a 100% fact RFC were guilty of cheating. This latest spin on the story tells us that RFC ARE guilty.
Ordinary Fan says:
September 22, 2012 at 11:59
11 0 Rate This
Although the MSM will be setting out to convince Scotland that the SFA and SPL are looking to strip Titles and Trophies when RFC have not been found guilty of using dual contracts/undisclosed payments, the truth of the matter MUST be that RFC are as guilty as sin and the SFA and SPL are fully aware that they have been playing and paying players in a way that completely voids their registrations. There is absolutely zero chance that the football authorities would be looking to make secretive, corrupt, dirty deals on punishments unless they knew for a 100% fact RFC were guilty of cheating. This latest spin on the story tells us that RFC ARE guilty.
=======
Basically yes but much simpler than it has been made out, not about dual contracts and it isn’t a difficult decision and it has hee haw to do whether the FTT finds that TAX and NI should have been paid.
RFC2012(IA) admit that the payments were made, the players admit that the payments were made
The simple question is
Where these payments included in the documentation submitted?
If the answer is no then any player who received any payment was not properly registered.
That’s it
Althetim says:
September 22, 2012 at 11:12
9 0 Rate This
It strikes me that Lord Nimmo Smith is in a no win situation. If the Commission find against Rangers FC/Rangers 2012 Ltd/Sevco then the accusations of bias from the supporters of these entities will be vindicated.
========
A strange way of looking at it. Nimmo Smith and his panel will look at the evidence, evaluate it, and come to a conclusion based on that evidence. The decision will be published, and will set out the legal reasoning behind the decision in minute detail. An accusation of bias would only be “vindicated” if there was a clear conflict between the evidence and the decision reached. I would suggest that that is extremely unlikely.
the taxman cometh says:
September 22, 2012 at 12:43
Correct ttc! – can only add the FTT is needed to establish the scale of potential void registrations
Mr Bunny @ 11.14
I have played the Guidigate recording backwards and you can quite clearly hear the subliminal message”Scottish Sports Journalists report on all things Rangers with Fear and Favour.”
I venture there are two histories – one based on the memory and tradition [trademark/brand] that CG has `bought` and; – to be restarted as a different corporate entity and legally responsible in future. The memories and tradition of the Club go on unbroken by those who play and spectate.
The second History is of a legal affiliation by owners and operators to an association as defined in their articles as a Football Club that has ceased after 140 years. The titles/ trophies remain with the oldco and cannot be legally transferred because they belong to an association membership that has now ceased. If there is a question on previous titles and trophies awarded it is for the oldco to defend – none other – as they were legally responsible for the past.
Think that`s the gist of Clause [46] – I think……………..
Does this mean that newco, when they win their first trophy, can’t add it on to the oldcos trophy haul and will be thier first?
Stuart Cosgrove has just named BRTH as an excellent writer based on his theme structured posts on here…
Take a bow BRTH!
scottc says:
September 22, 2012 at 11:56
wolvibhoy says:
September 22, 2012 at 08:50
Would be investors will be buying shares in the new Rangers company; Sevco Scotland as was. However, they will not have a majority shareholding and as such there will be absolutely nothing stopping the board/majority from selling the ‘club’ entity to another company perhaps owned by themselves. The new shareholders then end up owning a company that used to own the Rangers club entity. That could be repeated ad infinitum and make Mr G a pretty packet.
___________________________________________
The AIM (Alternative Investment Market) is a risky place for “investors”. It is rife with “shorters” who will sell shares on a falling market till the share is worth next to nothing, leaving those holding the shares for the longer term or for emotional reasons with virtually nothing. This share dealing is of no value to the company. Only the initial sale (IPO) puts money into the hands of the current owners. The small time day traders will have a field day with this share, the “investors” will be taking a big risk.
davis58 says:
September 22, 2012 at 08:44
4 0 Rate This
Lord Wobbly says:
September 22, 2012 at 07:00
Does “debt free” mean that they have paid the footballing debts (Rapid Vienna etc)
————
Then they have sold the Club and by doing so separated Company from Business. However as lawyers from all of HMRC, D&P, SFA, SPL seem to be happy enough with this separation, who am I to question it especially as its in my interest. However I do think it will take a court case to establish what the actual legal position is, and no one appears to want that.
—————-
davis88,
Nice to see someone from the blue side putting a reasoned viewpoint across. I am originally from the blue sympathy. Living at a distance it’s questionable how much of a genuine supporter you can be. In fact, over the years, I’ve felt more and more alienated by it all.
Unlike yourself though, I can’t see how that the club ‘getting away with it’, no matter how legally, is in my interest. I see it as embarrassing. So much so that I can no longer support or have any sympathy for what seems to be essentially a scam and a fraud. Whatever team or company is presently continuing football at Ibrox is only doing so because quite a number of people have been royally shafted. I see only shame in that.
In a just world, that which was of value would have been sold for the best price to satisfy outstanding debts – even if this meant a form of blue team emerging without a stadium. Groundshare is possible. Clyde are trying to get back to their roots, might have been something there stadium-wise. Hampden would no doubt have been an option.
Added to the financial embarrassment is the fact that those at the heart of the present enterprise are appealing to the most primitive instincts of the supporters in order to get them on-side. The very worst aspects of the historical reputation of Rangers may have been preserved and perhaps given a boost by the words of official spokesmen.
Unless some form of financial justice is seen to be done, the new entity, whatever it is, will have a dark cloud hanging over it. I know others, like myself, who now consider Rangers to be dead. And if the EBT issue goes against old Rangers on sporting grounds that will merely add insult to the injury perpetrated by a once proud club.
It’s an alternative viewpoint from the blue side, well, a very peely-wally, cyanotic shade of blue.
Paulmac says:
September 22, 2012 at 11:07
Paul
everything you say is true if you believe that the company is the Club and are inseparable, my point of view is they are separate entities and there is considerable legal opinions to support us both.
Danish P – I too was glad to engage with Davis58 and find someone to disseminate the information with – as someone I respect a lot from your time on RTC and here, your postings are always read by me – I tend to skip over those I think trolling bur we definitely need the likes of yourself, Davis58 and easyjimbo and any others who will from another angle give us the view from a RFC/Sevco angle and ensure our dialogue here is kept within reason and be able to argued/verified/understood by all fans of all teams.
If not, then anyhting here stated not verified becomes another wild chase trying to see what is true and what is conjecture.
My nephew who is a bear laughed at me the other day when I teased him about the new world record for being dumped out of cups within a 13 month season – 5 of them – 1 more next week (hopefully) – he replied I thought you said it was 2 different clubs? If so then its the first cup we got dumped out of. So I had to admit defeat and retract and make it Swally as the holder of the world record for being a manager dumped out of 5 cups in 13 months LOL………good to be kept honest!!! 🙂
Iceman 8.47. I totally agree – this is indeed the nub. All else is speculation – interesting, but speculation none the less – until this issue is resolved. I have a vague memory of reading on RTC many moons ago, that CW split the club from the RFC company (knowing where it was all going) a couple of years ago. If this is so – I have no legal nor accountancy training – it may very well be that the team could be sold from Administration legally. The issue then is – was a fair and proper price demanded. The fact that a much higher sum was offered withing days of CG’s apparent take over suggests that price paid was bogus. This is what the absent judge and the Liquidators are suppose to rule on. Because of their delay, the present users of the title RFC or TRFC will soon be able to argue that there has been too long an interval, that a reversal judgement would be unfair. They will be able to make a case to justify their belief that the old club, with its history, are not part of the Liquidation and that the new club are not the owners of the debt, that the debt is owned by the stripped company which owns next to nothing. The question then arises – were the real estates (Ibroke and Merry Park) owned by the sold club or the old company. I suspect that the properties will have been sold with the club to CG. We are dealing with ‘professionals’ strippers here. It is as you say, Iceman, a mess! A mess which has been deliberately created to confuse and ensure that the prime objective is achieved. That prime objective is that RFC survives. That it is a phoenix company will be ignored …. but it is only a Pheonix if the old team’s sale out of Administration was bogus …. which takes us back to Iceman’s point …. ‘Aye, there’s the rub!’
Ordinary Fan says:
September 22, 2012 at 11:59
Yes haul the criminal up before the beak, because the prosecutor fiscal says there is a case to answer. Outline the punishment which is not in the rule book, and lets just forget about innocence before being found guilty
Lying in the bath listening to Radio Scotland on my iPad
Jabba,Murdo ,dodds,chic young etc spouting absolute cobblers about league reconstruction.
‘Rangers have been punished enough’ apparently
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
davis58 says:
September 22, 2012 at 14:30
everything you say is true if you believe that the company is the Club and are inseparable, my point of view is they are separate entities and there is considerable legal opinions to support us both.
——–
I’m still ruminating over this one myself.
It seems to me that, legally, Club and Company are one and the same.
However, the SPL rules at the very least imply, if not state outright, that they are separate things.
This could lead to lots of confusion as the SPL commission considers Newco liable for sins of Oldco under SPL rules, whilst other investigations may find that, in the outside legal world, they are not!
Despite claims on here that the situation is easy to understand, I think there’s going to be a huge car crash between these two viewpoints, which will end up in Mr Charles going to court again when the SPL comes to its decision.
Creepylurker says:
September 22, 2012 at 13:32
Think that`s the gist of Clause [46] – I think……………..
Does this mean that newco, when they win their first trophy, can’t add it on to the oldcos trophy haul and will be their first?
__________
Apart from the Moniker 😉 Two questions there – Clearly the first trophy or title will be their first – you`re next proposition is more challenging / interesting. Forgetting about the SPL Inquiry for the moment – The oldco`s trophy haul that were properly awarded is still there and intact in their trophy room. They`ve not been expunged – they still exist. The oldco that was legally awarded these may not exist going forward but it still existed for 140 years. Unfortunately for them they can have no legal owner if the oldco is liquidated / struck-off. [You can`t buy an Olympic Gold Medal or a Test Match win].
To me Clause [46] indicates the recognisable entity they describe means the memories and tradition of the Club can go on unbroken by those who play and spectate. So when newco wins a trophy, then yes logically – it can sit beside the oldco [memories and tradition] trophy haul – why not? The supporters and players can claim the old trophy haul – collectively – as their own, But not the new incorporated company owners – who have no legal right to them.
All Football owners / operators are really only continuity Guardians of their club for their and future generations. If CG and D+P had played this smart they would have taken over the trophies as new protective Guardians. However, they`ve chosen to brag they`ve “bought” them [for £1!!] and want to defend their monetary value. Suggests to me the whole lot of them are just interested in money frankly.
The Commission is about what we all should really value.
Bill says:
September 22, 2012 at 14:44
0 0 Rate This
Lying in the bath listening to Radio Scotland on my iPad
Jabba,Murdo ,dodds,chic young etc spouting absolute cobblers about league reconstruction.
‘Rangers have been punished enough’ apparently
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
=====
I have stopped listening to them as I could not afford the upkeep of having to continually buy a new radio after smashing them up. 🙂
Serious question here in relation to RFC/Sevco….
When Germany united, did it lay claim to all East Germany Olympic medals and world records – plus any doping issues/disqualifications eminating from East German athletes?
I’m afraid that the more that comes out the more it becomes obvious just how disgraceful it was that Duff and Phelps had already done the deal to sell the assets before the CVA was even rejected.
The more it becomes obvious that they were operating on behalf of Rangers, the business and not the creditors, even when the creditors should have been their main concern. Indeed they shafted the creditors before they even became the main concern.
BDO’s investigation and report will not be a quick one. Not when one considers the actions of Mr Murray and his board, Mr Whyte and his relationship with Duff and Phelps (see earlier emails re administration and pre-determined outcome), the whole background to Mr Green taking control of the assets for so little money and Duff and Phelps’ part in that.
I suspect it will be a really messy business to sort it all out and that there will be a lot of very uncomfortable people.
Danish Pastry says:
September 22, 2012 at 14:08
davis88,
Nice to see someone from the blue side putting a reasoned viewpoint across. I am originally from the blue sympathy. Living at a distance it’s questionable how much of a genuine supporter you can be. In fact, over the years, I’ve felt more and more alienated by it all.
Unlike yourself though, I can’t see how that the club ‘getting away with it’, no matter how legally, is in my interest. I see it as embarrassing. So much so that I can no longer support or have any sympathy for what seems to be essentially a scam and a fraud. Whatever team or company is presently continuing football at Ibrox is only doing so because quite a number of people have been royally shafted. I see only shame in that.
I don’t know if you have read all my posts but I have indicated that the SFA’s actions have been, I believe, to prevent us getting away with it. It would of been an appalling precedence to set, if we had gone into administration then Phoenix out back into the SPL. However I do believe that many organisations wished that, and I do believe Green was led to believe this route was possible, if he agreed punitive terms.
What I tend to think is that months ago the team I have supported since a boy was facing extinction, I will obviously believe any legal argument that supports my desire to see Rangers continue to play football. It is not the ideal situation, playing in the 3rd division, however it is what we have. You are correct though in doubting my credentials as a rangers supporter my friends would agree with you they claim you are only a supporter if you attend every game, I unfortunately cannot do that as I live in south east asia.
You are also correct in saying, or perhaps it was another poster, that it is embarrassing, however desperate times call for desperate measures, but I do agree with exilecelt, working abroad we are lucky we can be in each others company (Rangers and Celtic fans) during televised matches without incident, and that tends to mellow you.
davis58 says:
September 22, 2012 at 14:38
0 0 Rate This
Ordinary Fan says:
September 22, 2012 at 11:59
Yes haul the criminal up before the beak, because the prosecutor fiscal says there is a case to answer. Outline the punishment which is not in the rule book, and lets just forget about innocence before being found guilty
=============
So if a PF offers a deal to a criminal and that criminal says no, would the judge and jury be biased?
test
exiledcelt says:
September 22, 2012 at 14:58
I fail to see the relevance here, but to expand your argument did the team GB or whatever it was called at the time, claim the medals and dope tests of its colonies. Surely they were separate members of the Olympics, now like FIFA and the NFL they decide the rules and who is a member or not, usually I would suggest to be beneficial to themselves.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
September 22, 2012 at 15:02
So if a PF offers a deal to a criminal and that criminal says no, would the judge and jury be biased?
Well I would not be to optimistic regards the outcome, would you.
Though I am surprised no one else has mentioned the statement regards impartiality from the so called independent commission.
I would like to see what the lawyers think about it, it seems very strange to me. (a non lawyer)
I see the old Atlantic League idea has reared its ugly head again today.
It’s just another desperate attempt to help out Sevco, pigs will fly before it happens.
davis58 says:
September 22, 2012 at 15:00
1 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
September 22, 2012 at 14:08
——–
Sorry, I worded that clumsily. I was questioning my own credentials as a foreign-based ‘supporter’, not yours 😉
After having followed this story for a couple of years I wouldn’t clutch at any legal straw to keep the club alive. I was listening to the Velocast pro-cycling podcast the other day and they were pretty adamant that their sport should be demolished and rebuilt after the past 20 years of doping. My opinion about old Rangers was that it too should have been dismantled and rebuilt from scratch – as a Scottish team, and have shown the old extremist elements the permanent exit door. Zero tolerance. In fact, it’s looking as though the whole structure that rules Scootish football should suffer the same fate.
Scotland’s top clubs* are to discuss the possibility of being part of a new European regional league set-up.
* plus The Rangers, apparently
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19685823
Davis58 – the relevance is they did not claim anything from East Germany – they did in fact buy the country (it cost the “West’ Germans a lot of money for the reunification) yet the Olympic awards are still showing as we all saw in London Olympics for East Germany.
The fact is awards cannot be bought – if I by Worlds Best Dad mug at a jumble sale does not make it so – CG cannot “buy” awards. Either his club has earned them or another club earned them – does not make them his.
Otherwise it will get rediculous and Manc City will buy over Notts Forrest for less money than they paid for Baliotella and claim to have won the EC 2 times…..
SPL decided by their rules who awards went to – they can strip them from whomever they want. Otherwise Ben Johnson would be an Olymic medal and record holder……….
CG cannot buy the history of anyone same despite his insistence he did.
The comments by Murdo McLeod just before kick-off were a disgrace. he suggested that ‘Scottish football made the worst ever financial decision by not allowing The Rangers into the spl’ – its as if the last 8 months never happened! Murdo… why would not having a club that has financially HURT us all for the last 12years be a bad decision? does he understand the financial doping that took place? and as one of them finally said the fact that The Rangers are playing in Ramsdens cup and the early round of the Scottish cup and league cup – and all the 3rd division games is great financially for the SFL teams. Or is Murdo the Agent speaking here?????/
I’m named after my old Grandad, I’m a product of his genes and still live in the family house he was brought up in. When he passed he left me all of his WWII medals. I just phoned the Ministry of Defence to inform them I will be claiming them as my own and can’t wait to display them at the next armistice day parade and share a few stories of the war with my old comrades.
Apparently a couple of Military Police lads are on the way round to see me, I presume to cross the “t’s” and dot the “i’s”.
That push across North Africa was a nightmare but the drive up through Italy was a breeze.
Collusion. Do not worry TSFM I am not about to delve into territory this site has been plagued by the last couple of week’s. But this word for me sum’s up Celtic & The Rangers for me. Today’s announcement about the european league confirms it for me the boards of the old firm are very close and dahm well near merge. Today finished it for me the old firm are 1 when the money men talk, P Lawell I feel is in on it.
Aye I’m still raging at the sportsound muppets pre match discussion
It’s as if the last few months hadn’t actually happened
As usual Richard Gordon said very little and then stopped Jim Spense from trying to give an alternative view.
Thank god for Stuart Cosgrove on Off the Ball
Bill says:
September 22, 2012 at 17:09
This Clyde 1 the now is shocking full of “Zombie” apoligist’s struggling to listen to it without my blood boiling. Seem’s to be they want to ignore the issue and laugh at men who phone up and question the situation.
Test
Is The Scottish Sun actually trying to elbow its way into the traditional DR market with articles like this? It would be ironic if The Sun caused DR readership to go ‘tits up’.
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/leaguedivision3/4551484/We-see-secret-document-that-says-Hampden-beaks-wanted-Gers-stripped-of-9-trophies.html
More interesting tweets from RTC: http://twitter.com/rangerstaxcase
Surely if Rangers are to survive as a club going forward they will need to distance themselves from the sins of the past.
I cannot see why CG (other than short term, playing to the galleries in order to sell season tickets and perhaps a share issue) is desperately trying to secure the history of RFC(IA).
Who is going to invest in a club, sponsor a club that is more likely than not going to be found guilty of industrial scale, deliberate cheating?
On SSB Guidi (where have I heard that name before) alluding to the fact that chuckie green may not be as pure as the driven snow??? What can he mean?? 🙂
davis58 says:
September 22, 2012 at 15:16
So if a PF offers a deal to a criminal and that criminal says no, would the judge and jury be biased?
Well I would not be to optimistic regards the outcome, would you.
——
The PF very often offers a deal to the accused’s defence lawyer. Alternatively, the defence lawyer can seek a deal with the PF … “we’ll plead guilty to this charge if you drop that one” kind of thing.
This comes from a period of negotiation, and can even happen on the day of a trial.. The prosecution (PF) and defence will discuss between themselves whether they can reach an arrangement that saves everyone’s time. A “guilty” plea on one charge or other, with remaining charges dropped, makes everyone’s life a lot easier!
It is a funny way to do justice, but that’s what happens.
If an agreement cannot be reached, the trial proceeds as planned. There is no bias introduced. The original charges stand, that’s all.
On jabber watch men – just in the mood for that
Here we go – League reconstruction – what`s the odds the old chestnut of the Atlantic League idea raises its MSM news diversion status again?
Ah Yes – Is that the one centred in the middle of the North Sea? – That UEFA has rejected for over a decade – or a new League centred on the Atlantic [does what tin says thing] – where there is no UEFA? Hope the MSM pundits remember the time zones in New York – or it might not work 😉
Brenda says:
September 22, 2012 at 17:41
HAHA where you the last caller on ssb making Mark feel very uncomfortable, something is amiss I wonder if it’s being saved for the Sunday print’s. Only time will tell I guess.
From Wikipedia:-
The four founders of Rangers[3] – brothers Moses and Peter McNeil, Peter Campbell and William McBeath – met in 1872. Rangers’ first match, in May of that year, was a 0–0 friendly draw with Callander F.C. on the public pitches of Glasgow Green.[4] In 1873, the club held its first annual meeting and staff were elected.[5
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Before incorporation in 1899 they had an AGM and elected staff. No doubt accounts were involved ie. money. Presumably they had a bank account. If they are not a legal entity at this point how can they open a bank account?
This idea that the club is not a legal entity is nothing but more smoke and mirrors emanating from under the apron.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
September 22, 2012 at 15:02
davis58 says:
September 22, 2012 at 14:38
0 0 Rate This
Ordinary Fan says:
September 22, 2012 at 11:59
Yes haul the criminal up before the beak, because the prosecutor fiscal says there is a case to answer. Outline the punishment which is not in the rule book, and lets just forget about innocence before being found guilty
=============
So if a PF offers a deal to a criminal and that criminal says no, would the judge and jury be biased?
=================
What kind of “deal” do you think a PF would offer a criminal.
If anyone makes it on to the radio, please tell them that no one wants reconstruction that is designed to help one cub which self distructed and caused all the panic in the first place. And remind them they are tubes, Cosgrove excluded.
Agrajag says:
September 22, 2012 at 18:01
What kind of “deal” do you think a PF would offer a criminal.
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
A deal involving lesser charges for a guilty plea or turning Queen’s evidence?
l
Celtic, the members club became
Celtic Ltd, the company became
Celtic PLC, the public limited company.
Few questions,
At what point could Celtic the members club have spilt off from the PLC, given that the PLC originally was the members club, what was the legal vehicle for achieving this.
Is the Rangers situation any different. At which point did the members club split itself from the PLC which bis to be liquidated.
Rangers the members club is the PLC, or at least became it. They can’t really just be split up forming two separate entities as a matter of convenience.
If a partnership becomes a limited company, which then becomes a PLC it cannot simply become a partnership again, the notion is nonsense. However if the PLC is liquidated, then a new partnership could be formed, but that is a different thing entirely. It is neither the PLC, nor most importantly the original partnership.
Blogs “Deranged, Crass rude unacceptable….. “ and;
jabber was the “first to mention TRFC should be in the Third Division” – Blimey
Parson St. Bhoy says:
September 22, 2012 at 18:06
Agrajag says:
September 22, 2012 at 18:01
What kind of “deal” do you think a PF would offer a criminal.
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
A deal involving lesser charges for a guilty plea or turning Queen’s evidence?
————————————————————-
Can a PF do such a deal. Agree that if a person will plead guilty then they will drop the existing charge and replace it with a lesser one.
I didn’t know they could do that.
Oldcobrokemyheartbycheating @ 17:57
Lol no it wasn’t me but it was good to hear him squirming 🙂 I think there may be another ‘exclusive’ tomorrow ……. Chuckie’s flight to Monaco is booked and wee apartment leased till things calm down 🙂 hope it’s a long term lease dawwell got pretty heated today but thankfully didn’t tell us any more ‘facts’ 🙂 the plot thickens ……………….???
This is brilliant. Cosgrove is playing Traynor at his own game. He is beating him too. 🙂
Agrajag says:
September 22, 2012 at 18:17
Parson St. Bhoy says:
September 22, 2012 at 18:06
Agrajag says:
September 22, 2012 at 18:01
What kind of “deal” do you think a PF would offer a criminal.
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
A deal involving lesser charges for a guilty plea or turning Queen’s evidence?
————————————————————-
Can a PF do such a deal. Agree that if a person will plead guilty then they will drop the existing charge and replace it with a lesser one.
I didn’t know they could do that.
==========================================
Yes they can.
Haha yes the shuttle flight Glasgow to Principal Monaco must be doing a nice little turn just now, scrumpled up Scottish note’s from Govan must be the order of the day for the in-flight duty free.
Brenda says:
September 22, 2012 at 18:20
============
Is Darrell the one who said he had seen the two contracts, then subsequently lied about having seen them, and indeed even having said it.
Think my post may have been missed, judging by some of the newer ones on this page. So here it is again:
davis58 says:
September 22, 2012 at 15:16
So if a PF offers a deal to a criminal and that criminal says no, would the judge and jury be biased?
Well I would not be to optimistic regards the outcome, would you.
——
The PF very often offers a deal to the accused’s defence lawyer. Alternatively, the defence lawyer can seek a deal with the PF … “we’ll plead guilty to this charge if you drop that one” kind of thing.
This comes from a period of negotiation, and can even happen on the day of a trial.. The prosecution (PF) and defence will discuss between themselves whether they can reach an arrangement that saves everyone’s time. A “guilty” plea on one charge or other, with remaining charges dropped, makes everyone’s life a lot easier!
It is a funny way to do justice, but that’s what happens.
If an agreement cannot be reached, the trial proceeds as planned. There is no bias introduced. The original charges stand, that’s all.
P.S. It’s also the case that an accused can be found guilty of a different charge to that he originally stood up for. This is because things may come to light during the trial that are covered by different legislation than that mentioned on the charge sheet.
Angus says:
September 22, 2012 at 18:42
=========================
So nothing whatsoever to do with the Judge and Jury, it’s the PF and defence lawyer who discuss it before the trial starts. Is that it.
Goodness only knows how my better half convinced me to listen to a radio programme (not sure what it’s called) with Sir Stuart of Cosgrove and Mr jabba with his rather rotund gluteus maximus squeaking uncomfortably from side to side on his sweaty chair.
Well done Mr Cosgrove for stubbornly giving Traynor a dose of his own medicine by deploying Traynor’s own spoiling tactics by talking over him.
Classic end to the programme by Cosgrove who managed to get the last word in response to the final callers question;
” Any ideas when this tax case thingy concludes and do youz guys think that The Rangers could go into Liquidisation again ”
The jist of it was that Jabba said no, that would be unlikely but Cosgrove stepped in with a transparent and wonderful reposte that the same fate could befall the Newclub as well!
Quell sighs in the background for such a realistic appraisal from SC.