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”
stmiley 21 September 2012 11:36
What jumped out at me in the report was his Lordship’s definition that the club was not a legal entity. It has no corporate personality. It’s more like a concept that can live on through multiple amorphisms like Doctor Who but that doesn’t mean Tom Baker is John Pertwee. I read a distinction between Oldco and Newco. Newco aren’t liable for SPL sanctions as they’ve never been a member. If, for arguments sake, stripping of titles did take place then it will be Oldco’s record that is adjusted. Oldco were signed up to the SPL’s rules so even though they are no longer a football club (previous posters have defined what a football club is; ground, players etc) they can still be subject to sanctions since the laws of contract mean that the terms they were bound by when they were a club can have consequences even after they become defunct. Like the guy who enquired after Airdrie’s crest and name and was told he could have it if he paid the outstanding debt, the liability can live on even after the contractor has gone away. My feelings were that the only linking between Oldco and Newco were implied. Newco were offered representation inasmuch as the findings might affect them. How is that? They are a new company. Surely they cannot be held responsible for the actions of previous owners of the assets they have bought. Someone used the analogy of a Jaguar car being sold on in an earlier post. If that car, as was proposed, had been involved in an accident, the new owners of it would not be liable for the previous owner’s actions. The implicit linkage for me was that there may be some benefit arising from Newco’s ownership of Oldco’s assets that might be affected by the decision of the tribunal. My speculation is that it might be the conditional/full SFA membership. We already know that this process included acceptance by Newco of some of Oldco’s liabilities (footballing debts for instance). Perhaps his Lordship has been briefed on other matters that we are not fully aware of.
Has charlie mentioned any figure for the supposed Adidas deal .Is it also true he said that T,Rangers would become the biggest brand available to Adidas ?
comedy reply welcome
Hector’s crisade continues, Becks and Rooney are in the crosshairs now
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8eab614c-0408-11e2-b91b-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=crm/email/2012921/nbe/ExclusiveComment/product#axzz278mqIaI8
Just spent a very enjoyable hour reading the Commission’s reasons for decision. In essence it appears to say, what many people have said all along:-
They have to accept all the history, good and bad, it can’t be cherry picked.
I also suspect that Nimmo Smith has been given cast iron guarantees that his commission will not be interfered with by the “powers that be”
An old friend from NI used to tell an apocryphal tale about the good Dr Ian
The Doc was fulminating from the pulpit on the sins of his congregation. If they did not immediately repent of their sinful ways, they were all going straight to the infernal regions, where there would be great lamentations, wailing and gnashing of teeth.
A wee woman piped up: “What if you dinnae hae ony teeth?”
The Great Man thvndered “Teeth will be provided!”
By the time the commission produces it’s report, the lamentations, wailing and gnashing of teeth of the Ibrox faithful will be registering on the Richter Scale.
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 mindbending 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 bargined for? Especially if the club remains accountable in spite of change of division and ownership.
The SFA and EUFA, define a “club” as the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member).
For Lord Nimmo Smith – a club is a legal entity.
His description of an entity without legal personality is simply a fantasy – no doubt spun to him by Neil Doncaster. A fantasy that has no basis in fact.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartThree-UEFAClubLicensing/03%20The%20Club%20as%20Licence%20Applicant%20and%20Licence%20(2).pdf
Castofthousands says:
September 21, 2012 at 22:06
That was an affa long paragraph, Cast.
The car analogy doesn’t stand up, because a car is a Thing which is definite, physical, and you can point at. Successive owners of the hypothetical Jaguar do not define themselves as being that Jaguar.
The “Dr Who” thing is much better, though I doubt any of the Dr’s incarnations would appreciate being called amorphic. Each of his bodies is the custodian of his being, and each takes responsibility for what past custodians have done – good and bad.
Scapa – yes, they have to accept all the history. And the Statement doesn’t even give them the option to turn round and say they’re actaully a New Club after all. It’s all pretty well tied down (though some of the rules may be open to interpretation).
Will Mr Charles dare to argue in the Courts that TRFC is not, after all, RFC? Popcorn time.
bogsdollox says:
September 21, 2012 at 22:00
3 0 Rate This
“The inconvenient truth for Green is that he is only in the league because he successfully transferred the entity that is “Rangers FC”, but in doing so he can’t disassociate himself from their past (at least in footballing terms). If he was to argue the case legally, he would probably win, but at the cost of the club’s membership of the SFA/SFL.”
So he’s spouting all his nonesense and getting into trouble with the SFA etc knowing full well his hands are tied. He’s a little scamp he is – whatever can he be thinking?
Its almost as though he’s playing to the gallery and trying to provoke trouble – what do the SFA rules have to say about that I wonder?
====================================================
Mr Green simply bought the “Ranger FC” brand.
The SFA transferred the membership previously held by Rangers to Sevco.
Sevco now operate the Rangers FC brand and hold the membership previously held by Rangers.
In footballing terms and in legal terms, Sevco’s Rangers FC have nothing at all to do with Rangers Football Club.
This is not difficult to understand.
Scapa
The FT link does not work. There is a pay firewall.
Best way round that is to post up the headline of the story so people can google it and access the story for free.
Castofthousands says:
September 21, 2012 at 22:06
‘…The implicit linkage for me was that there may be some benefit arising from Newco’s ownership of Oldco’s assets that might be affected by the decision of the tribunal. My speculation is that it might be the conditional/full SFA membership. We already know that this process included acceptance by Newco of some of Oldco’s liabilities (footballing debts for instance)….’
—–
I agree.
It is now just about conceivable that CG was outsmarted by the SFA.
They decided to break their own rules and offered membership to an unentitled new club.
That offer was desperately seized by CG.
He now realises that his acceptance of the conditions imposed stated by the SFA keeps ‘The Rangers Ltd FC’ fairly and squarely within the SFA’s jurisdiction, and therefore within the judicial Commission’ s jurisdiction.
And he now faces the distinct possibility that, if the charges of non-disclosure-of -payments-to-players ( and non-payment of taxes due to the civil authorities!) are proved , not only will RFC(IA) lose some titles, but ‘The Rangers FC Ltd’ will have to be at least suspended from membership for at least a season, if not wholly expelled for some number of seasons.
No wonder the man has a haunted and pursued look of paranoia about him, or that his outbursts are increasingly verging on mindless, off-the-wall ravings.
No investor of any significance is going to touch the IPO, when there is a real possibility that there could be no football at Ibrox , and zilch return on any capital invested.
Could this be the reason that Charles is now seemingly hurrying up with the share issue. He needs to get the share sale prior to the commission reaching any decision. Once he has collected all the money, he can turn round and say that in order to avoid the possibility of expulsion, he will have to relinquish the history of RFC and accept that they are a new club.
The SFA will not withdraw membership as league and cup matches have been played and we will be told that it would cause, yes you get it Armageddon.
Angus says:
September 21, 2012 at 20:36
I’m stating the newco/oldco/RFC situation as it’s laid out in the Statement. It clearly maintains that The Club continued to exist above the change in company going on in the background……..
I think we have to sit with the Statement’s interpretation of whether the original “Club” Rangers FC still exists – plainly, in their eyes, it does and that is how they intend to proceed.
———————————————————————————-
Angus, that’s fits exactly with my own interpretation of the document. Lord Nimmo Smith and his colleagues take great pains on page 17 to differentiate between the ‘Club’ and the ‘owner and operator’.
The document states :”In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold.’
On page 2 it is noted that ‘The club owned and operated by Oldco played in the League from 1998 until 2012 under the name of Rangers Football Club (“Rangers FC”)’.
Page 3 adds ‘On 14 June 2012 a newly incorporated company, Sevco Scotland Limited, purchased substantially all the business and assets of Oldco, including Rangers FC….’
The document talks about it being the Club and not the owner that plays in the League and that :
‘The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed on the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of the breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator. While there can be no question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with a legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it.’
The above points are alluded to earlier (page 12) when it is set out that Newco should have a direct interest in the proceedings as in Nimmo’s team’s opinion ‘…Rangers FC remains liable to the imposition of sanctions for breaches of the Rules committed while it was owned and operated by Oldco, even though it is now owned and operated by Newco. It is for this reason that Newco has, in our opinion, a direct interest in the proceedings.’
It is interesting too that whilst they avoid discussing possible sanctions they do make mention of a hypothetical example of a Club (P.16) who has been ‘engaged in match-fixing in the last game of the season, but is then relegated and consequently ceases to be a member of the SPL….(but is) still liable to disciplinary action at the instance of the SPL…’.
Could ‘at the instance of the SPL’ mean a recommendation from the Tribunal for expulsion of the Club would then be passed to the SFA for action?
In summary IMHO the Tribunal’s view is that Sevco/Newco buying the Club (and then gaining the transfer of the Club’s membership) places Sevco/Newco directly in the line of any sanctions arising from the Tribunal findings.
This might not just be the stripping of titles from the Club but far more serious sanctions including possible expulsion from the League as this matter involves the SFA too.
/ Red Lichtie
redcelt: Bah Murdoch!
Taxmen challenge film fund partners
By Andrew Bounds and Hannah Kuchler
A host of business leaders, sports stars and celebrities including footballer David Beckham, singer Bob Geldof and Lucian Grainge, chief executive of Universal Media Group, could face large tax bills after HM Revenue and Customs closed an investigation into two tax-efficient investment funds.
The partnerships, which have attracted more than £700m, invest in the making of films such as Avatar, and computer games such as Dirt, the rally racing game backed by driver Colin McRae.
Other people who invested include footballer Wayne Rooney, cricketer Andrew Flintoff, and composer Andrew Lloyd Webber.
Ingenious Media, which runs the partnerships, says they are a legitimate way of backing Britain’s creative industries. But in a letter to investors it said the Revenue had listed arguments suggesting the partnership was not trading, or if trading then not for a profit. If upheld, this would mean the big early losses could not be offset for tax against later gains. The Revenue’s view is being challenged by Ingenious.
The dispute marks the latest in a series of challenges by the UK tax authority against investment vehicles used by wealthy individuals amid government pressure to maximise revenues for the Treasury at a time of fiscal austerity.
In June, the comedian Jimmy Carr was among several celebrities revealed to be under investigation by the Revenue over tax arrangements that David Cameron, the prime minister, branded “morally wrong”.
Ingenious has never offered schemes of the kind used by Mr Carr to move money offshore to avoid tax.
James Clayton, chief executive of Ingenious, said the company had asked to close its partnerships so it could resolve the longstanding dispute at a tribunal.
He described the Revenue’s arguments as “ludicrous”. “These funds are self evidently commercial as many of the films and games produced have made a profit, including, of course Avatar, the highest grossing film of all time,” he added.
Ingenious Film Partners was established as a limited liability partnership with more than 70 members in 2005. They put in a combined £672m, which included borrowing £287m from Ingenious Resources, a linked business. By borrowing to invest, members can offset the loan interest against other bills. The profits they make help repay the loan.
However, those who did borrow could be liable for tax greater than their investment if Ingenious lost the tribunal, said a lawyer representing one investor.
Kit Sorrell, of Pannone in Manchester, said someone borrowing £19.6m and investing £400,000 themselves would be liable for £8m in tax. “They will be required to pay income tax on ‘income’ they have never received.”
The partnership lost £350m in its first year, with a single investor losing £47.7m. This can be used to defer tax owed on other income. However, Mr Clayton said it had been profitable in every subsequent year. “To date, the partnerships have generated over £600m of taxable income in the UK with a further £1bn of expected taxable income. It is therefore simply ludicrous for HMRC to suggest that these partnerships were run simply to defer income and not to make a profit.”
In April 2010, 99 per cent of eligible members retired, receiving a combined £201.7m back. They will continue to receive profits from the films they backed.
People close to Mr Beckham said he was not involved in offshore tax planning and pointed out he was resident in the US for tax purposes. Other former investors included Gary Lineker, the former footballer and TV pundit, and Matthew Freud, head of Freud Communications.
Attempts were made to contact all the other investors named by the Financial Times but they either declined to comment or did not respond.
The tribunal is not expected before 2013. HMRC said it could not comment on individual schemes but was reviewing film partnerships.
SPL Rules, I1: “Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club.”
This would seem, arguably, to separate “Club” and “owner and operator of such Club”, as in the argued Statement of Reason.
Evidently, this goes some way to contradicting the SFA interpretation of “Club” posted by Hirsute above…
“a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member).”
This *is* difficult to understand. Currently, however, I’m siding with Nimmo Smith, being as the case he’s dealing with is an SPL investigation and thus subject to the SPL Rules (and therefore interpretations) rather than the SFA ones.
If Rangers Tribute Act and RFC are the same footballing entity, what are the potential consequences for Scottish Football and football everywhere? I don’t see how a business, in this case a football club, can drop a potential debt of £130 MILLION and carry on as normal.
Let’s not forget that if it wasn’t for fan pressure Rangers Tribute Act would have started this season in the SPL! It was a very hard fight to get that disgraceful plan shelved.
So if it wasn’t for supporters protecting the sport themselves, RTA would have been literally carrying on as if they were RFC, the same stadium, players (I suspect most would have stayed if Rangers Tribute Act had started this season in the SPL), the same number of staff, assets, club crest etc, yet they walk away from an eye watering level of debt, most of it tax payers money and small businesses money. If I owned a football club and that was facing huge debt what would stop me doing the same? Serious question, is this normal in business? Is this setting a new precedent in football?
Have the SFA/SPL done a Hymen Roth here and in their devious way ” engineered it beautifully” to protect themselves from Charlie’s double cross ie revealing details of their negotiations while they were trying to get membership etc. I believe that they know that Rangers are “bang to rights” when it comes to dual contracts and improperly registered players but that they want Lord Nimmo Smith and his colleagues to cary out the sentence.
A question: Is Charles required to put the possible punishment of stripped titles or expulsion in his prospectus. If he does not and, lets say TRFC are suspended for a season, with the possibility of administration, would Charlie be liable?
nowoldandgrumpy says:
September 21, 2012 at 22:49
‘……The SFA will not withdraw membership as league and cup matches have been played…’
——–
I think you’re right in so far as that any penalty could in practice only be imposed with effect from a future date ( formal end of season, perhaps).
Quite what would happen in that kind of scenario ( would an ‘expelled’ team even turn up to play any remaining matches? A suspended team probably would, if it wanted back in again!)
Maybe someone on the blog knows of a precedent in Europe , of a ‘deferred-to-end-of season’ penalty of expulsion/suspension?
SPL Rules, I1: “Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club.”
This would seem, arguably, to separate “Club” and “owner and operator of such Club”, as in the argued Statement of Reason.
Evidently, this goes some way to contradicting the SFA interpretation of “Club” posted by Hirsute above…
“a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member).”
This *is* difficult to understand. Currently, however, I’m siding with Nimmo Smith, being as the case he’s dealing with is an SPL investigation and thus subject to the SPL Rules (and therefore interpretations) rather than the SFA ones.
===================
The SPL description of a “Club” (as distinct from a “club”) is their definition of a member of the SPL. It has no authority to make a general definition of a “club” for the purposes of association football. That is left to EUFA and, by proxy, the SFA. The official definition is clear and unambiguous.
Even within the SPL rules, “owner and operator” of a Club simply creates a distinction between a club and its ultimate beneficial owners. In the case of RFC (pre-administration) the “owner and operator” would have been Wavetower (Rangers Group) – who had a controlling interest in the club. When in administration Wavetower remained the owner; but D&P became the operator.
This is only difficult to understand if (like the SPL) you want it to be.
Ordinary Fan says:
If Rangers Tribute Act and RFC are the same footballing entity, what are the potential consequences for Scottish Football and football everywhere? I don’t see how a business, in this case a football club, can drop a potential debt of £130 MILLION and carry on as normal.
———–
Surely it was the company, not the club, which dropped the debt?
By making an issue over banners at a CFC friendly game and suggesting that a repeat “offence” is worthy of a charge the SFA have crossed a Rubicon of sorts
They have set a precedent that a charge is warranted if a banner deemed offensive to the SFA is displayed on 2 occasions at any match (SPL,friendlies, CL etc)
And they have reserved the right to keep confidential to themselves that the banner was deemed offensive on the first occasion it was displayed
Alternatively
Since the banner was not displayed by the club but by a group of fans, this charge is founded on the proposition that CFC received a request from the SFA to advise this group of fans not to display this banner on a second occasion.It also presupposes that the group of fans who displayed the offensive banner had received a warning from CFC not to repeat the offence
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Methinks the leaky grapevine that is Scottish Football would have picked up any such request to CFC to ensure that this banner was not displayed for a second time
It also beggars belief that CFC would remotely consider advising the banner group not to display it again and concurrently to ask them to keep this request confidential
so is this another hole the SFA have dug in the interests of whataboutery?
nowoldandgrumpy says:
September 21, 2012 at 22:49
4 0 Rate This
Could this be the reason that Charles is now seemingly hurrying up with the share issue. He needs to get the share sale prior to the commission reaching any decision. Once he has collected all the money, he can turn round and say that in order to avoid the possibility of expulsion, he will have to relinquish the history of RFC and accept that they are a new club.
The SFA will not withdraw membership as league and cup matches have been played and we will be told that it would cause, yes you get it Armageddon.
================================
No.
Gratuitous Alienation is much more at issue in the haste to launch his IPO.
The business & assets of RFC were, IMO, grossly under priced at £5.5m. I would guess BDO are likely to want an additional £20m on top of what was paid to D&P.
If so, that £20m will go directly to the owner of the floating charge – which I fully expect to be Ticketus (court case pending) by the time RFC is finally liquidated.
This is all about timing. Get the mob to buy shares in Sevco. Use the money to pay off BDO. BDO (who are behind Sevco) own the new Rangers AND get the majority of their money back.
Simples!!
This is all about timing. Get the mob to buy shares in Sevco. Use the money to pay off BDO. BDO pay off Ticketus (who are behind Sevco) own the new Rangers AND get the majority of their money back.
re-read before posting! 🙁
john clarke says:
September 21, 2012 at 23:02
==========
Since the SFA created a conditional membership, what are the chances that they would create a conditional suspension?
HirsutePursuit and Scapa, Good to see you back.
Webster says @ 23:27 ” or his sevconian messenger-boy Carlo Verdi “!
HirsutePursuit says:
September 21, 2012 at 23:34
============
According to LH in the commissions submission, he bought the business, most of the assets and RFC.
What was the price required to buy St Mirren again?
Contrast and compare the two clubs values and that could give an estimate of the true value that could be realised.
ttm1961 says:
September 21, 2012 at 23:40
Webster says @ 23:27 ” or his sevconian messenger-boy Carlo Verdi “!
or even.. Johnny Ola..?
Just had to post:
the post count was 666. Not superstitious or anything.
A quick ramble thru Lord Nimmo Smith’s opinion –
The “EBT” charges cover a period from 23rd November 2000 to 3rd May 2011.
This includes a charge of fielding ineligible players.
There is a further charge against Rangers (In administration) for failing to co-operate after March 15 this year, which is capable at the very least of causing Duff and Phelps embarrassment.
There is a clear distinction between the Independent Commission set up by the SPL and the SPL itself.
No fair-minded and informed observer would consider the possibility that the Commission or a member thereof was biased.
Rangers dropped the bias argument before the hearing on 11th September.
Mr Green has said the SPL refused to reply to his lawyers.
The Commission says that the SPL’s lawyer did so by letter and in numerous emails.
Which of the two statements above is correct?
Oldco and NewCo were going to turn up, represented by the same lawyer, to argue that the SPL had no jurisdiction. At the last minute they declined to attend.
The SPL undoubtedly has jurisdiction over OLDCO.
The SPL undoubtedly has jurisdiction over THE CLUB.
The club is a separate but non-legal entity which continues notwithstanding transfer from one owner to another. Rangers Football Club therefore continue as before even though ownership has been transferred.
The SPL has no jurisdiction over NEWCO, but as it has power to impose sanctions on the club, owned by newco, newco has a direct interest in proceedings.
Therefore newco could face all of the punishments for the offences if proved, on the basis that the club it bought was guilty of them.
The administrators’ argument that this was a legal process and as such ought to be stopped without their consent failed. The case can go forward to a full hearing.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/lord-nimmo-smith-and-rangers-the-judge-sets-the-gound-rules/
Today’s contribution to the debate by His Lordship is very welcome news. Takes a bit of time to analyse and, to me at least, is still open to interpretation. But, one way or another, it certainly appears to contain no good news for Mr Green and the good folks down Govan way. ‘Rock and a hard place’ as someone commented earlier.
Hopefully it will in due course also help expose those at the SFA and SPL – and indeed elsewhere – who have brought the game into so much disrepute. The next couple of months should be very interesting indeed.
Can’t wait to see how the hacks, the wireless wonders and their fellow travellers mange to spin this one. But spin it they surely will! Hence the need for all of us here to maintain the appropriate focus on the big issue for the forseeable future.
TSFM
As far as the moderation game goes, I know it can be a hassle and the need for a WordPress account might dissuade some of the more “unhelpful” commenters. As I said at my own blog today, sorry yesterday, one of the great things about it, and here, and RTC was the community spirit and tolerance, even where fans, of differing views and none, conversed. There were always some who were classic trolls, but usually they werenoted, and people could choosee to read their ramblings or not.
The point here is to have constructive discussions about the main football governance issues of the day in Scotland. For better or worse, for the last 18 months anyway, the name at the top of that list has been Rangers. The connections, perceived and actual, with the top echelons of Scots football have caused concerns about the game itself, and often the authorities take the route which causes even more disquiet in dealing with it.
So let’s have a place where people do not need to rant and rave at each other – where tolerance is key – and which can go on to help effect real and much needed change in the Scottish footballl administration.
Paul McConville says:
Paul, a very forensic piece on your own blog and It made sense to a non-legal brain such as mine. Well done, I’m sure it was hard work.
The legal wheels are now grinding, slowly, as they do.
As always patience is required and we should be careful not to pre judge what may happen.
I have little doubt myself, but then there seems to be a lot of evidence out there
Someone commented earlier about Budapest Honved being a similar case to the Ragers in terms of retaining history etc. I found the last sentence of the following from Wiki to be the biggest of many differences:
In 1991 the club revived the Kispest name and became Kispest Honvéd FC. However the name change marked the beginning of a decline in the club’s fortunes. In 2003 they were relegated, but they returned to the first division the following season. However, Kispest Honvéd Sports Circle Ltd, the company that owned the club, owed millions of H*ngarian forints in taxes and in October 2004 went into liquidation. The company practised a policy that treated it’s players as self-employed contractors rather than employees and as result, significantly reduced the club’s tax burden. However the tax authorities objected and were supported by the courts, leaving the club in arrears with no means of paying them. Rival directors argued over who owed how much tax and eventually the Hungarian League intervened. As a result a new club, Budapest Honvéd FC, was formed and allowed to take the place of Kispest Honvéd FC in the first division on the condition that the tax debt was paid off.
@ Paul McConville @ 00:18
Just a brilliant hack through the baroque to distill the meat (succulent!).
Paul McConville says:
September 22, 2012 at 00:18
Good summation. Thanks for reminding me that the stakes are as high, if not higher, for D&P as they are for Mr Green. With that happy thought I shall turn in.
Paul McConville’s post at 00.35 is spot on. Whilst everyone is entitled to a hold a view on any issue that falls within the general spirit of this blog, I find it dispiriting to see some of the excessive stuff that crops up from time to time. For my part, I simply ignore the obvious nonsenses and treat others as views that reflect different perspectives from the ones that I hold. It’s impossible to truly moderate subjective views in a way that will keep everyone happy.
May I also apologise for the Freudian slip in the last paragaraph of my previous post. Quite apposite as it turned out!
Someone commented earlier about Budapest Honved being a similar case to the Ragers in terms of retaining history etc. I found the last sentence of the following from Wiki to be the biggest of many differences:
In 1991 the club revived the Kispest name and became Kispest Honvéd FC. However the name change marked the beginning of a decline in the club’s fortunes. In 2003 they were relegated, but they returned to the first division the following season. However, Kispest Honvéd Sports Circle Ltd, the company that owned the club, owed millions of H*ngarian forints in taxes and in October 2004 went into liquidation. The company practised a policy that treated it’s players as self-employed contractors rather than employees and as result, significantly reduced the club’s tax burden. However the tax authorities objected and were supported by the courts, leaving the club in arrears with no means of paying them. Rival directors argued over who owed how much tax and eventually the H*ngarian League intervened. As a result a new club, Budapest Honvéd FC, was formed and allowed to take the place of Kispest Honvéd FC in the first division on the condition that the tax debt was paid off.
This is my third and final attempt at this. I feel like I have been round the H*ngaroring!
For anyone contemplating that a suspension or expulsion could be an outcome from this, I simply don’t think that will happen.
Have you forgotten what Regan and Doncaster tried to engineer earlier in the summer? Their threats to the SFL clubs (whatever one of those is)? Where they wanted the new entity to be placed?
Basically, they can let the commission come up with any punishments it wants. Even if Lord Nimmo Smith and team think it warrants suspension. The ultimate arbiters are the SFA. They are the appellate body. They have set themselves up to ensure they reduce anything that has the potential to reduce the income stream from Quorn Rangers deluded fans.
Any suspension will simply not be upheld by these corrupt money chasers on appeal.
I hope lots of you can come up with reasons why I am wrong.
History
[3] Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872 as an association football club. It was incorporated (as a company) in 1899 as the Rangers football club limited. In recent years the Company’s (clubs) name was changed to The Rangers Football Club PLC, and it is now called RFC 2012 plc (in administration) In line with the terminolgy used in the correspondance between the parties, we shall refer to this Company (Club) as the “Oldco”
~ ~ ~
So the club became the Company….which is being liquidated…there is an attempt in the above to surgically seperate the club and Company..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[4] ………………………………The club owned and operated by Oldco played in the league from until 2012 under the name Rangers Football Club (“Rangers FC”)
~ ~ ~
According to section [3] Oldco is the Football Club that was incorporated as the Company in 1899….yet in section [4] we have a suggestion that the club was being run by a Company referred to as Oldco?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In short the use of Oldco seems an intentional application to muddy the water in order to create a distinction that does not exist…
Simply replace the word Oldco with Rangers Football Club Plc in the document and see how different and logical the document becomes..
Section [9] Makes a further attempt to seperate the club from its incorporation when it states..”The fourth chapter alleges that during the period from the 15th of March 2012 Oldco (then in administartion) and Rangers FC”…..it continues at various points to make the same repeated distinction..
Section [23] states that the administrators (Duff and Phelps) on behalf of the Oldco refuse to give their consent….anyone care to take a stabb at who Duff and Phelps are administrators for?
Section [26] has an interesting statement from the solicitor of the NEWCLUB
“NEWCO is prepared to appear and be represented at next week’s hearing as SPL Limited’s own correspondance recognises, it has an interest in any process that purports to involve business and assets which it acquired from Oldco, NAMELY RANGERS FC”
So the Oldco namely RANGERS FC are one in the same!
Section [46] in my mind is fairly straightforward a club is an entity that can be owned and operated…the share holders own it…the directors operate it…if one or both changes…that does not excempt the legal entity that is the club from punishments..nor does it seperate the club from the Company it was incorporated as in 1899..
The more you read this document the more it becomes apparent…there is meat on the bone with this.
Angus says
Rangers FC, as an ongoing and continuing Club, are liable for everything they always have been. The Statement of Reason only confirms that. Your determination to insist that the new RFC are the same as the old RFC is exactly what is going to kill your Club stone dead.
Angus, They are two completely different legal entities (Companies) one is in liquidation the other thriving and debt free. If you believe you can pursue the latter for the formers debts, then why are HMRC etc not doing that? You quote the Statement of Reasons as if it is some sort of legal definition, it is not. I would suggest you go back and look at HMRC’s statement when they refused the CVA, and effectively put Rangers PLC into liquidation. There, they clearly state that Rangers FC can continue and will not be pursued. I know that does not sit well with most people, I for one am amazed that the laws of the land render HMRC so toothless. However at the end of the day, your great buddies Hector, shafted you guys not us.
Can you not understand that, or don’t you want to?
Ok, have read the document and Paul McConville’s views. There seems to be different definitions and implications of the club / owner issues around, but none seem to fit the reality of whats happened at the SFA. They allowed a membership to be transferred from one club to another (2 clubs and 2 companies) but the Commission will take the view that the club is one entity which has had different owners. So the transfer and conditional membership was unnecessary?, although the aim was to allow a non club in to the league and accept some negotiated / and possibly agreed(?!?) conditions. Was there a plan all along in the SFA to put up with some more shenanigans pending the heavyweight commisison, or have we just been lucky that some justice might prevail after the SPL / SFL1 place didnt materialise.?
Some thoughts then. It would appear that if the allegations are proven any consequences and/or sanctions / punishments would apply to the club and possibly individuals involved in Oldco, and Newco as owners of the club would therefore be affected.
Good news then.
Also, the Commission seem to have a handle on the dates when different groups of players were involved, and when players might have been ineligible.If proven some serious sanctions are likely.
Good news again then.
It would also seem inconceivable that the Commission would not challenge the SFA on why their procedures and personnel (CO, GS etc) did not flag up any such iregularities, or why no action was taken. Alternatively, if there is no real investigation of this, the making public of such incompetence would be just as damaging.
More good news then.
It does look like despite all that has happened, the SFA by putting this panel into play have managed to pull a victory for sporting integrity from the jaws of a corrupt defeat! Either some are innocent here and have found a way to get a serious panel of judges to do the deed, or the guilty are making amends and are willing to take their lumps along with olco, newco and the club.
Now, if, and I mean IF, Mr Green really is only in it for the club’s long term future, one might begin to feel a little sympathy for some of his views, and that that he might have been stitched up by oldco, D&P, and the SFA!
Ok, a thought too far. Good night all.
Oops, final thought though, when the Information does come out, it will beinteresting to see when and which of the msm begin to start doing their jobs. The red tops and phone ins have been firmly on one side so far, but how far will they be willing to go to hang on to the coattails of the club when the evidence becomes overwheming. The phone ins might just be worth listening to.
Paulmac says
it has an interest in any process that purports to involve business and assets which it acquired from Oldco, NAMELY RANGERS FC”
Paul, Does that not read, that they acquired the assets “Rangers FC” from oldco?
SUNSPORT has seen documentary evidence that Hampden bosses asked Rangers to accept the loss of FIVE league titles and FOUR Scottish Cups.
The draft papers were given to Gers chief executive Charles Green at a top-secret summit this summer.
Top brass wanted Green to accept “EBT sanctions” in return for newco Gers getting the chance to be parachuted into Division One.
The package of punishments — instantly REJECTED by Green — would have stripped Gers of NINE major trophies won between 2001 and 2011.
They were NOT asked to give up any of their League Cup wins. Details of the offer, made during discussions involving Green, the SPL, SFA, SFL and administrators Duff and Phelps, emerged last night.
Had Green accepted the EBT sanctions, he’d have agreed to “(i) the withdrawal from Rangers FC, RFC and Sevco of the award and status of Champion Club (as defined in SPL Rules) of the Scottish Premier League for each and all of Seasons 2002/03, 2004/05, 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11; (ii) the withdrawal from Rangers FC, RFC and Sevco of the award and status of winner of the Scottish Cup for each and all of Seasons 2001/02, 2002/03, 2007/08 and 2008/09”.
Among a list of “Agreements and Undertakings” which Green was asked to accept were: “(i) accept and agree to be bound by each and all of the EBT Sanctions; (ii) the SFA and the SPL agree that no further sanctions will be imposed with respect to or concerning the EBT Payments and Arrangements; and (iii) RFC and Sevco shall not directly or indirectly make any claim and/or representation to have won any of the Championships and/or Cups which are the subject of any and all of the EBT Sanctions”.
It’s understood Green rejected the offer of EBT sanctions as Gers have still to be found guilty of any misuse of the Trusts. An independent commission appointed by the SPL will begin a hearing on November 13 regarding the alleged undisclosed payments.
HMRC is expected to announce the findings of its first-tier tribunal hearing on the EBTs within weeks.
Gers have already refused to co-operate with the former hearing.
And Green is facing an SFA charge of bringing the game into disrepute after claiming the process was “fundamentally misconceived”.
The leaked papers appear to add weight to Green’s assertion that a range of penalties have been considered before any guilt is proved.
SunSport has also seen an exchange of correspondence between HMRC and the SPL dating back to October and November 2010. Yet there was no official Hampden probe into Gers’ use of Trusts until earlier this year.
But with Green having already threatened to take his case to law, the emergence of the secret documents shows stripping of titles has been on the Hampden agenda since the close-season.
Earlier this month, Green said: “The club cannot continue to participate in an SPL process we believe is fundamentally misconceived.”
Below is what HMRC actually said after CVA was rejected:
Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start.”
That “football will continue at Ibrox” and Ragers “can make a fresh start” does not equate to a continuation of the old club.
More strawclutchery me thinks.
If I was paranoid I might just believe the timing of this latest news on EBT’s and stripping of titles, and the bizarre disciplinary charge regarding a science fiction themed banner display, from 2 months ago, was no coincidence.
If I was paranoid I might even suggest that this was done to appease RFC supporters just before they heard news likely to anger them.
davis58 says:
September 22, 2012 at 01:42
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I welcome your efforts to engage…
Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872 as an association football club. The Football club founded in 1872 was incorporated as the company in 1899 as the Rangers football club limited. In recent years the clubs name was changed to The Rangers Football Club PLC in order to float shares and allow fans like yourself the opportunity to purchase shares and to have a minor ownership of the Football club. The club has recently changed its name again and it is now called RFC 2012 plc…
Can you clarify where in that sequence the club and the Company remain 2 seperate identifiable entities?…with seperate VAT and comapny registration numbers…with seperate audited accounts?
davis58 says:
September 22, 2012 at 01:42
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As we are on a roll…could you expand on the comment…and what your definition of ‘debt free’ means in the world of The Rangers Football Club Limited?
davis58 says:
September 22, 2012 at 02:06
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Only if you rearrange the words to fit that assertion.
The term Oldco in the correspondance was further qualified by referring to it by name Rangers FC…as no assets were purchased from a Club/Company by the name Oldco.
Angus says:
September 21, 2012 at 22:24
Castofthousands says:
September 21, 2012 at 22:06
That was an affa long paragraph, Cast.
The car analogy doesn’t stand up, because a car is a Thing which is definite, physical, and you can point at. Successive owners of the hypothetical Jaguar do not define themselves as being that Jaguar.
**********
The analogy I made was that I bought the licence plates of an ofl e-type jag that won rallies and once put on my e-type jag, pretended my e-jag was the same……..and fans of car rallies paid to get photos beside it believing it to be the same………
Re john Clarke at23:02,
the only examples I can think of John, were in Australian rugby league. In 2002 Canterbury bulldogs were found guilty of rorting the salary cap and stripped of all points gained, and more recently, in 2010, Melbourne storm were found guilty of rorting the salary cap AND dual contacts, they were stripped of all honours won over the period, all points gained in the league and had to fulfill their fixtures unable to gain any points, therefore they finished the season on nil points
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. 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.
The Club and the Company are separate entities, though only the Company requires registration and vat, audited accounts etc. 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.
The SFA have tried to be pragmatic with their rules, I believe, to prevent Rangers getting away scot free, by trying to impose conditions of membership. This has confused the issue, and we now have the, old or new dependent on the situation card, being played by all parties whenever it suits them. At the end of the day, it appears D&P, and all concerned have played a blinder here.
By the way I take it, scots law thoughts is your blog? If so I must commend you, it is an excellent site, that somehow manages to translate legalese into something non legal people can understand. It was also on there I believe you first questioned whether Club and Company where one and the same thing. If I remember correctly you had some doubts, due to the SFA rules, indicating that they might actually be separate entities.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
September 21, 2012 at 22:49
Could this be the reason that Charles is now seemingly hurrying up with the share issue. He needs to get the share sale prior to the commission reaching any decision. Once he has collected all the money, he can turn round and say that in order to avoid the possibility of expulsion, he will have to relinquish the history of RFC and accept that they are a new club.
The SFA will not withdraw membership as league and cup matches have been played and we will be told that it would cause, yes you get it Armageddon
++++++++++
NOAG – I think you are spot on – this is the reason he keeps stating he bought those titles and they are his. When the time comes, he will sacrifice those “bought” items and tell the peepil that he and his consortium are willing to take the loss on those titles in order to save T’Rangers and break away to be the New Club so that they cannot be expelled or suspended. He will make a tearful speech about it being a sad day, the lss of history and loss of money (even tho he never paid for the titles – shh!) but in order to keep the club for the peepil, he will have to make the sacrifice. He will be a hero for the peepil, we will all the be the baddies who would not stop punishing them, he will pocket the money and we will be left with a scorched earth policy – all with the collusion and agreement of the authorirites – football and goverment bodies.
For the next Celtic v T’Rangers meeting – especially if its this season in the cup as we expect – I would urge all sane people to avoid it – it will be ugly!
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.
campsiejoe says:
September 21, 2012 at 21:10
19 0 Rate This
So, if I am reading the comments about the Nimmo report correctly, it looks like Charlie and the Schizophrenic Sevcovians, could be on the verge of hoisting themselves by their own petard, assisted by their friends at the SFA/SPL/SFL, and the MSM
Very soon now, it appears that they will have to decide who and what they are or were, and they will have to stop morphing between identities to suit their agenda at any given point in their timeline
Meantime Charlie, who appears to becoming more and more desperate in his pursuit of cash, is in the USA feeding the Schizophrenic Sevcovians more moonbeams than Murray the Mint ever thought possible
If he achieves even 10% of his soundbites, I will be amazed
This is going to get interesting, and we are still waiting for the FTT result and BDO’s arrival on the scene to add to the fun
==========
I wish I could share your optimism, but the SFA et al didn’t go to all this bother just to have sevco expelled from scottish football altogether.
Titles will be stripped but any other sanction (despite the crimes being second only to match fixing) will be a relatively damp squib.
All sevco did was buy the assets of a soon to be dead club and there is plenty in how they managed to do that which warrants investigation of an accounting and football administration kind – were all the players registered correctly, were the assets sold at a song effing over the creditors?
exiledcelt says:
September 22, 2012 at 06:07
For the next Celtic v T’Rangers meeting – especially if its this season in the cup as we expect – I would urge all sane people to avoid it – it will be ugly!
Your not suggesting the SFA or SFL will fix the draw are you? Even if they did, like they have done so many times previously, I think it will be to avoid Rangers and Celtic being drawn together.
davis58 says:
September 22, 2012 at 06:06
0 0 Rate This
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. 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.
The Club and the Company are separate entities, though only the Company requires registration and vat, audited accounts etc. 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.
The SFA have tried to be pragmatic with their rules, I believe, to prevent Rangers getting away scot free, by trying to impose
conditions of membership. This has confused the issue, and we now have the, old or new dependent on the situation card, being played by all parties whenever it suits them. At the end of the day, it appears D&P, and all concerned have played a blinder here.
By the way I take it, scots law thoughts is your blog? If so I must commend you, it is an excellent site, that somehow manages to translate legalese into something non legal people can understand. It was also on there I believe you first questioned whether Club and Company where one and the same thing. If I remember correctly you had some doubts, due to the SFA rules, indicating that they might actually be separate entities.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Welcome to the fray Davis58
Does “debt free” mean that they have paid the footballing debts (Rapid Vienna etc)?
I’m pretty sure that D&P’s made no such distinction betwixt club and company. See the definitions from their Administrators report.
Paulmac and Paul McConville are also two distinct and separate entities 😀
Edited post from what I put onthe law thoughts blog.
So if you accept the.premise that what this independent commission decides is correct and binding, for example Rangers “are not dead” (note: this only in the eyes of SFA/SPL – we still have BDO to hear from. Davis58 – many were surprised at HMRC seemingly walking away aftrr rejecting the CVA until it was pointed out that it meant they could go after the previous money men, shutdown and Murray) then newco will be liable for any punishment that the commission decides to levy against it for the rule breaches alleged to have taken place for a decade and more. Charlie Green an “the rangers” fans can’t keep playing the newco/oldco shell game in order to dodge responsibility.
Personally I am much happier to see Rangers, the club, paying the price for their breaking the rules rather than dodging punishment.by changing the brass plate above the door.
>>> Independent commission: you’re up!
davis58 says:
September 22, 2012 at 06:22
exiledcelt says:
September 22, 2012 at 06:07
For the next Celtic v T’Rangers meeting – especially if its this season in the cup as we expect – I would urge all sane people to avoid it – it will be ugly!
Your not suggesting the SFA or SFL will fix the draw are you? Even if they did, like they have done so many times previously, I think it will be to avoid Rangers and Celtic being drawn together
*********
Well the Sky deal done by the SPL meant the league was effectively fixed in order to have 4 Glasgow derbies a season – it meant neither Celtic nor Rangers-NIA could be outside the top 6 otherwise the Sky deal could be cancelled if we are to believe our ND. In the cups, numerous times they have been able to be kept apart when it suited SFA – especially semi finals – so I am sure one of the balls would be hotter and one colder or something along those lines to ensure CG has a good pay day.
I hope not but with this band of folks doing secret deals all over the place who coudl put anything past them.
HRMC made the statement probably due to pressure from Salmond and his band – after all the so called fabric of Scottish society could not be thrown away in the scrapheap – it had to be reupholstered.
The problem is I would have loved the new owners of the new club to have started afresh and got rid of the bile and nonsense that seems to attach itself to the old club.
However to make money quickly for his paymasters CG had to call to the lowest denominator and get the peepil mobilised. No time to cut their cloth accordingly, use their youngsters with a shrewd manager to work their way back up and be welcomed back.
The option to not only be the same but also worse if its possible was taken – that is the sad part.
Scotland had the chance to rid itself of the cancer of sectariansim in its sport – it did not take it due to commercial and political pressures.
Lord Wobbly says:
September 22, 2012 at 07:00
Does “debt free” mean that they have paid the footballing debts (Rapid Vienna etc)?
I’m pretty sure that D&P’s made no such distinction betwixt club and company. See the definitions from their Administrators report.
I doubt very much these debts have been serviced, due to the fact that they are the obligation of Rangers PLC. Green only agreed to accept them as part of this now disputed 5 party agreement. The Dundee United one certainly appears to be hotly contested, as previous agreements pointed towards the SPL paying them and not Rangers.
With regards the D&P, the point I was alluding to is that D&P claimed they had sold the ‘Business” as a going concern. If you take the viewpoint that the Company is the legal entity that runs the business of the football club. 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.
Paulmac, Paul McConville my apologies to both for the mix up.
I suspect the legal ramifications will be on what exactly was purchased when Green bought RFC – the club – that is the nub of it all. All previous precedent has never allowed the separation of an esoteric club from the legally incorporated entity of the club, so no-one actually knows what was purchased when he bought “Rangers” – even green himself has no real idea.
Is such an entity legally competent?
Was it actually possible to buy this entity?
Can it actually be liable to sanctions?
Can Green sue if he was sold this entity under false pretences – if it emerges either that it can be excluded or suspended – or if it emerges that no such entity existed and therefore should not have been sold in the first place?
The whole thing is a deliberately created shambolic mess – the entire objective is to allow some means of allowing Rangers to survive two extinction events – a financial collapse of the club and rule breaking of such heinousness that expulsion or long-term suspension is the only option.
The most likely scenario is a suspension , which CG appeals and takes to court – the court then rules that his company cannot be liable whereupon the next logical step of removing their membership because it was legally invalid is not taken and some new “agreement” emerges which allows them to evade responsibility – with the MSM claiming that the stripping of titles has been a vindictive vicious assault and once agin the tiresome nonsense that they have not only been punished enough but are being victimised.
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?
Apologies for the lack of legal jargon, it’s just not a thing I understand well!
If i was to apply for a mortgage on a house and repay my monthly debt on time i would be slightly peeved if the bailiffs turned up one day to evict me as it was not a mortgage i thought i had but an investment in a rental company that owned the house and they have just gone bust.
Substitute the word “club” for “brand” and everything suddenly makes sense.
(well, most of it! 🙂 )
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/11/markets/brands_bankruptcy/index.htm
Debt free – an intersting claim
If I go to buy a car and ask for credit and say to the credit dept taking my application they would assume I don’t have a mortgage, don’t have any loans or outstanding bills. In other words, money coming in is more than the money that needs to go out for the foreseeable future.
So is CG saying that he owns 100% Ibrox and Murray Park, does not pay rent or any oustanding loans, all bills are being paid as they come in and the money going out in the foreseeable future (this season) is all planned and accomodated?
Or is he trying to infer that he has paid everyone up front and is now self sufficient and pays off shared cups games after they happen – otherwise he is rolling in it.
Or is he talking from an accountant point of view – his assets (players plus stadia plus trainign ground plus car park) are more than the debts he has.
Someone with a microphone should ask him to clear this up…………..
Or shall we just wait for the IPO prospectus where he HAS to clear it up………..
davis58 says:
September 22, 2012 at 08:44
I doubt very much these debts have been serviced, due to the fact that they are the obligation of Rangers PLC. Green only agreed to accept them as part of this now disputed 5 party agreement. The Dundee United one certainly appears to be hotly contested, as previous agreements pointed towards the SPL paying them and not Rangers.
+++++++++++
Wrong – CG showed an email from May when Sevco were not even registered – the deal was shoudl a CVA go through the debts would be paid form the prize money. CG uses drafts and prior agreements as he likes to use for his case as he sees fit – hence the confusion he is causing….
exiledcelt says:
September 22, 2012 at 08:59
Wrong.
Afraid not, you see Charles Green has absolutely no connection with any of these debts. Rangers PLC are liable for them, the agreement was the SPL would pay Dundee United.
Goodmorning from an overcast island of Sjaelland. If the blog reached a bit of a low point a few days ago it has now risen to new heights with the current discussion. Great to see some old posters back too. Bravo.
Davis98 – to help you in your confusion
The letter CG quotes is from 18 May
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19266049
“A letter from the SPL to the club – dated 18 May 2012 – stated ‘The Board decided to accede to the application of Dundee Utd and accordingly, the sum will be withheld from the next sum payable by the SPL Limited to Rangers and the sum will be paid by the SPL Limited to Dundee Utd.’
This was a deal between Oldco and SPL – correct
However in the 5 way agreement he – not Oldco – agreed to pay all football debts.
Ad per D&P report the SPL money was given to CG to use in his negociations with SPL.
SPL kept the money – but CG still needs to pay football debts.
He is confusing the bears by using a deal concocted with the Old co to say it relates to the new co when it is 2 different things.
Hope that helps you
wolvibhoy says:
September 22, 2012 at 08:50
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?
We are being told it is to the Club. This is another case of club/company when it suits. All parties are guilty of this and sometimes it isn’t intentional, its far more common to refer to the Company as the club in common speech. I would imagine though when addressing large investors he is pointing in a less passionate way to the Company.
exiledcelt says:
September 22, 2012 at 09:19
Can you point me to a link that documents what was in the actual 5 party agreement?
Are SFL clubs still able to do transfer business? Sky Sports are reporting that Stirling Albion have signed a player from Falkirk. In England teams from the championship and below can still do business but I’m not sure about Scotland. If so does that mean TRFC can sign players from 1st Sep next year and not Jan 2014 as was apparently the case.
Davis58 – no problem – it was in D&P report from 24 Aug – as you should know the 5 way agreement has never been made public but the follwoing is from the Admin so this is the only public record to date – hope it helps
As has been widely publicised, the Purchaser was unsuccessful in its application for the transfer of the Company‟s SPL share and following further negotiations with the Football Authorities, ultimately agreed such terms as were necessary to obtain the transfer of the Company‟s SFA membership and gain membership of the SFL. The terms of these agreements were, inter alia:
6.4.1 that the Company‟s SPL share was transferred to Dundee Football Club.
6.4.2 that the Company‟s SFA membership was transferred to the Purchaser.
6.4.3 that the SFA Appellate Tribunal, which was due to be reconvened following the Interlocuter of Lord Glennie on the Club‟s Judicial Review, was empowered to impose the Transfer Embargo.
6.4.4 that the Purchaser is required to assume liability for all football-related creditors, being all creditors of the Company that are football clubs, the Football Authorities or clubs of the other national football associations. This includes outstanding transfer fees and SFA disciplinary fines arising from the SFA Disciplinary Tribunal commented on in previous reports.
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, which was concluded in the above noted agreements.
HirsutePursuit on September 21, 2012 at 22:19
26 0
Most Popular Content
All | Today | This Week | This Month
Good Evening.Let me ask a question: Have you ever stopped and thought about how you go about producing a Radio Programme. It might be one with music and so on, or it might be a talk show or indee…Rated 280↑ 1↓ (281 Votes)
Good Evening,I wonder how many people recall who won the Oscar for best supporting actor in 1973.I will give you a clue— the gent concerned has been described as a Romanian born British America…Rated 213↑ 4↓ (217 Votes)
Sevco didnt exist on 18th May and a company cannot contract before it is incorporated. Some journos appear “confused” and are mixing up Newco (SevCo) Rangers and Oldco Rangers the same thingRated 182↑ 3↓ (185 Votes)
CREATE YOUR OWN RATINGRate This
The SFA and EUFA, define a “club” as the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member).
For Lord Nimmo Smith – a club is a legal entity.
His description of an entity without legal personality is simply a fantasy – no doubt spun to him by Neil Doncaster. A fantasy that has no basis in fact.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartThree-UEFAClubLicensing/03%20The%20Club%20as%20Licence%20Applicant%20and%20Licence%20(2).pdf
3.1 Definition of Licence Applicant
3.1.1 The Licence Applicant may only be a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member). The licence applicant is responsible for the fulfillment of the club licensing criteria.
I think this cuts directly to the chase. I’ve been reading the posts re the report and it’s interpretation with great interest. From what people are saying there is quite a bit of leeway in interpretation. Why would you state that a club can be transferred between two different legal entities, having no legal entity of its own, and in direct contradiction to the established rules, as hirsute indicates above (the legal entity issue). There must be purpose to this. I am disgusted and cynical enough to think that is already determined, but substantially ill informed of the background matters that I’m in a continual state dumfoonery regarding same. Basically to me, if hirsute is right, and it looks convincing, what the hell is going on?
Again I implore TSFM to set up the necessary petition for full parliamentary and public enquiries. This has to occur before the back ground deals are done and we are told to move along. The fight will be so much harder when the wagons are circled and they’ve brought in the nominal dissenters.