On the Old Club vs New Club (OCNC) debate, the SFA’s silence has been arguably the most damaging factor with respect to the future of the game. Of course people get frustrated when there is a deliberate policy of silence on the part of the SFA which results in the endless cycle of arguments being trotted out again and again with no resolution or closure possible.
The irony (it’s only irony if you assume that the SFA have gone to great lengths to create the conditions for the unbroken history status of the new club) is that the mealy-mouthed attitude they have adopted has actually polarised opinion in a far more serious and irreconcilable way than had they just made a clear statement when Sevco were handed SFA membership. A bit of leadership, with a decision either way at that time would have spiked a lot of OCNC guns very early on, but as history shows, they were afraid of a backlash from wherever it came.
I am now convinced that Scottish Football has passed the Event Horizon and is broken beyond the possibility of any repair that might have taken it back to its pre-2010 condition. Rangers fans will never – no matter what any eventual pronouncement from Hampden may be – accept that their next trophy will be their first. The trouble is that no-one else – again despite anything from Hampden – will cast them as anything else other than a new club who were given a free passage into the higher echelons of the game. Furthermore, they will forever force that down the throats of Rangers fans whenever and wherever they play. A recipe for discord, threats of violence, actual violence, and a general ramping up of the sectarian gas that we had all hoped, only a year or so ago, was to be set to an all-time low peep.
There is a saying in politics that we get the government we deserve. It works both ways though, and the SFA will get the audience it deserves. In actual fact it is the one it has actively sought over the last couple of years, for they have tacitly (and even perhaps explicitly) admitted that Scottish Football is a dish best served garnished with sectarianism. They have effectively told us that without it, the game cannot flourish, and they stick to that fallacy even although the empirical evidence of the past year indicates otherwise.
That belief is an intellectual black-hole they have now thrust the game into. They have effectively said that only two clubs actually matter in Scottish football. The crazy thing is that to put their plans into action they have successfully persuaded enough of the other clubs to jump into the chasm and hence vote themselves into irrelevance and permanent semi-obscurity.
That belief is also shared by the majority in the MSM, who despite their lofty, self-righteous and ostensibly anti-sectarian stance, have done everything they can to stir the hornet’s nest in the interests of greater sales.
Act as an unpaid wing of a PR company, check nothing, ask nothing, help to create unrest, and then tut-tut away indignantly like Monty Python Pepperpots when people take them to task.
Consequently the victims of all the wrongdoing (creditors and clubs) walk away without any redress or compensation for the loss of income and opportunity (and history) – stripped of any pride and dignity since they do so in the full knowledge of what has happened. But even as they wipe away the sand kicked in their faces, those clubs still insist on the loyalty of their own fanbases, the same fans whose trust they have betrayed with their meek acceptance of the new, old order.
The kinder interpretation of the impotence of the clubs is that they want to avoid the hassle and move on, the more cynical view that they are interested only in money, not people. In either case, sporting integrity, in the words of Lord Traynor of Winhall (Airdrie, not Vermont), is “crap”.
The question is; which constituency of 21st century Scotland subscribes to that 17th century paradigm?
Sadly, this massive hoax, this gigantic insult to our collective intelligence, is working. Many will leave the game – many already have in view of the spineless absence of intervention from their own clubs – but many, many more will stay and support the charade.
If you doubt my prediction, ask yourself how many tickets will be unsold the first time the New Rangers play Celtic at Parkhead? That my friends will be final imprimatur of authenticity on just exactly who New Rangers are, no matter the proclamations of both sides of the OCNC argument.
Good morning all
As I see things at the moment, on one hand we have the bears and brogues who just want 1 club, oldco and newco to be the same club called rangers, with history, orange tops etc.
On the other hand there are the spivs and money men who want 2 separate clubs with no financial connections in case the UTTT goes against them, they just want money money and more money.
So Ibrokes is a war zone right now and any AGM is going to be ugly.
And then we have the SFA in the middle, sh*t scared of either scenario, they won’t pick a side incase they pick the losing side.
Which brings me to why I think we are being force fed the same club crap via SMSM and our new friend bryce9a. The spivs are winning right now and although the bears cant see it, the brogues can.
Scottish football needs a strong Falkirk
And in a parallel universe, masquerading as sky sports news, Ally McCoist is talking cups of tea and January transfer targets for the sporting wing of this two part organisation
You do wonder if Ally actually appreciates how big a problem they currently have.
Surely, Fisiani, the RST (http://www.therst.co.uk/buyrangers/) will leap into action and make their first ‘big’ purchase, then sit back and try to figure out how much more they will have to raise? 🙂
I posted on Sunday some information that I thought was relevant about Bryce only for it to be removed, if anyone wants to see the info they can PM me.
Greenock Jack says: (199)
November 25, 2013 at 11:43 pm
4 24 Rate This
Barcabhoy
There’s no other way of saying this.
You are deluded and spinning for all your worth
————————————————————————-
Strong words but IMO an unfair and inaccurate assessment.
When you concentrate on actual corporate details, the interpretation of how a given situation within a business may pan out or similar you are an knowledgeable and interesting poster.
When you go on a different route, whether it be on random individual attack mode (eg. John McKay, Scott Murdoch etc.), spinning a line/slant or similar, you are not very subtle, accurate or to be frank, very good at it. As another poster put it “you lead with your chin”.
Far be it from me to lecture you on what to post but I do think the blog would benefit more if you stuck to what you were good at.
——————————
John McKay was good and big enough to reverse his comments after our conversation on twitter. We were debating a football point, it had no connection to Rangers , so I fail to see your interest. Scott Murdoch put out a profile which was entirely misleading. That should have been of interest , as he is currently attempting to join your board. His PR release painted him as someone with considerable personal wealth , due to his personal success in the commercial property market.
It was similar to Malcolm Murrays ludicrous claim to have owned 25% of Man Utd. As a supporter of a club who have been cheated and deceived by previous boards of Directors of your club, I have an interest in your club not being run by people who cannot provide an accurate CV
You may not like inaccuracies or spin being challenged, thats of no interest to me. You may not think i’m good at challenging this, that’s of even less interest to me.
What’s not going to happen, is that I am not going to stop pointing out spin and deflection from Rangers their hired hands and their supporters. That is relevant to how a Corporation behaves. It is relevant to how it exists in the environment of competition and sport. Rangers and their PR advisors have proven beyond any reasonable analysis that they cannot be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to behaving responsibly.
You may not like it, but until your club stops behaving like a bunch of corner boys , then posters on here and other forums ( including Rangers ones) will continue to criticise them .
Bryce, did you tweet WATP to one of your followers, if you are man enough to admit it , then I personally think this forum has no room for bigots, and you should go back to RM.
chancer67 says,
November 26, 2013 at 9:11 am
Here’s my twitter page.
https://twitter.com/Bryce9A
There’s 7000 tweets there. Folk so inclined can feel free to scroll through, find something to be offended at, and justify themselves not answering the points I raise.
One request, when you’re going to start pasting all the “WATP”, “Griffin is just mis-understood” stuff on here, leave alone the personal stuff about the wife and kids. Cheers. Excuse me from “distracting” you.
I’ll answer the on-topic posters when I get the chance today. Thanks for responding.
bryce9a says: (27)
November 26, 2013 at 1:16 am
‘As in any situation where a football club survives the insolvency of it’s corporate entitiy through a business/assets sale to a newco – such as happened to Leeds in 2007, Middlesbrough in 1986, Palace in 1986, 2000 and 2010, Portsmouth in 2010 and 2013, Luton/Bristol City/Plymouth/Rotherham/Bournemouth/Charlton the list goes on and on – a transfer of membership is required for the authorities to official recognise the football club as having continued.’
There is a big difference here; Leeds, Palace, Portsmouth, Luton, Plymouth, Rotherham and Bournemouth were not liquidated, they all achieved a CVA or were taken over before one was needed.
In the cases of Middlesboro, Bristol City and Charlton, their insolvency events occurred before the Insolvency Act came into being in late 1986, which stopped clubs or businesses from going into liquidation purely as a means of shedding debt. The Act insured that unless creditors agreed a CVA, then those businesses and clubs would no longer be able to trade, which happened in Rangers’ case and the others you mentioned. In fact, Middlesboro only survived because their insolvency event predated the Act by a matter of weeks.
So to say that these clubs represent a precedent in Rangers’ situation is wrong. Since the Insolvency Act came into being, any club failing to agree a CVA has gone bust.
This is also why the likes of Dunfermline and Hearts realise the importance of achieving a CVA; it’s the end if they don’t!
Bryce, so you think WATP is appropriate ,says it all really.
Chancer67,
Id be very interested to know if going off-topic to launch character assassinations of individual posters, by quote-mining from their personal twitter feeds, is frowned on by admins here.
I guess you are about to find out, one way or another. That’s the last off-topic post i’ll make on the matter and leave it to the powers that be.
I have just caught up with Bryce’s verbal contortions to justify his stance on the status of the club playing at Ibrox
As I understand his musings, in common with the rest of the Sevconians and the MSM, he believes the Club is an immortal entity
It is completely separate from the company, and only requires the company to accept, and be responsible for for all of the financial and administration requirements of the Club
It has no responsibilities beyond playing football and winning games
The company alone is responsible for raising all of the finance required and meeting all of the Club’s day to day requirements
It most definitely has no responsibility for any administrative errors made by the company, nor for any debts incurred by the company in satisfying the Club and its supporters’ voracious appetites
Should the company fail to deal with those errors, or honour those debts, the Club can remove itself from said company,washing its hands of all of the company’s responsibilities, and leech like, find another company that will continue to support it and sustain it, in the manner to which the Club and supporters believes they are entitled
In short it has no responsibilities, but it does have many rights and entitlements which everyone must recognise, accept, and help it fulfil, not least of which is the right to be seen and treated as the same immortal entity
Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, this is how Bryce and many others see the situation
Every argument they use has been destroyed many times over, by others better qualified than me, and yet they continue to cling to the myth that has been created for them
Their sense of superiority and entitlement will not allow them to see the truth, as to do so would be to admit failure
And as with so many things, failure is not an option
Fisiani says: (39)
November 26, 2013 at 7:06 am
Why buy shares in a COMPANY that will soon be bankrupt?
————————————————————————————-
That’s the beauty of it all. The shares are not in the loss making football club, they are in the property company with a healthy portfolio and a tenant who can be held to ransom.
From a poster on the LSE site:
“maybe its nothing but colin Kingsnorth the man behind Laxey, Norman Crighton the new sevco non executive director of sevco and Craig whyte all worked at Olliff & Partners in the early 90’s, coincidence? “
Bryce, I’m not assassinating anyone’s character just making an observation,,,by the way nice wig.
theoldcourse says: (39)
November 26, 2013 at 9:58 am
Fisiani says: (39)
November 26, 2013 at 7:06 am
Why buy shares in a COMPANY that will soon be bankrupt?
————————————————————————————-
That’s the beauty of it all. The shares are not in the loss making football club, they are in the property company with a healthy portfolio and a tenant who can be held to ransom.
==============================
Maybe this time round they’re actually going to buy the club from the spivs.
They can probably get it for next to nothing but can they afford the running costs,which will include property rental.
If they want to by the properties also then they’re going to have to dig deeper than ever before,and still cover losses running into 8 figures per year.
Not going to happen.
Bryce9a
A simple yes or no to the question would be suffice, time wasting is a tool of the guilty,lets see the resounding No that you are going to answer to the question
OK so the scores on the doors at half time.
The Ogilvie debate. Showed early promise but hid behind focussing on CO’s work at RFCold rather than his time at SFA. Expect better work in final third.
The Cup draw. Interesting use of demonstrating workings. The Bampots say no bye, Bryce says immaterial as fourth tier anyway. Unwinnable arguement on both sides so would have to call a tie. Of course there is one body that could categorically make determination – see above.
the article 6 membership fandango. Good showing against experienced and capable opposition. Held own side well. Appears to have gone to extra time on this one and the jury is still out. Looking forward to next instalment.
Note to parents. We have been made aware of some playground bullying and are monitoring the situation. Both sides! (insertsmileydoingthatparenttwofingerstoeyesthingthatusedtoannoythetitsoffmebutnowIfindmyselfdoingit)
Matteo Galy said…
There is a big difference here; Leeds, Palace, Portsmouth, Luton, Plymouth, Rotherham and Bournemouth were not liquidated, they all achieved a CVA or were taken over before one was needed
If you do your research, you will see Leeds, Rotherham, Bournemouth and Luton all failed to exit administration with a CVA, as a result of HMRC’s policy of blocking them in protest at the “Football creditors rule”. They were all punished under the Football League’s “exceptional circumstances” rule which permitted the transfer of share to the Newco, that had bought assets from the doomed oldcos, in every one of those cases.
To save you the time,
The best summation of the Leeds situation – the failure of the CVA, asset sale etc is here http://www.mightyleeds.co.uk/pdf/season200708kpmgletter.pdf
As for the others…
“Bournemouth, Luton and Rotherham were found guilty of breaching the Football League’s insolvency policy by failing to exit administration with a Company Voluntary Agreement – CVA. Bournemouth and Rotherham each had 17 points docked and Luton lost 20 points (the differing punishments taking account of each clubs’ past financial misdemeanours).”
http://www.footballsite.co.uk/Statistics/Articles/DidYouKnow29.htm
Palace Pompey did receive CVAs, but to the “club=company” chaps, so what?
Because, despite the CVA, an asset sale to a newco took place, prior to the oldco being dissolved, in all of those instances i quoted, the “club” still is new anyway, which is the only point I’m making.
There is no retreat from the absurdity of saying Pulis’s Crystal Palace FC have never been in the top flight before, having not existed prior to 2010 (date legal entity, that secured the assets from oldco, was formed) for the “club=company” advocate.
An absurdity underlined by the fact Club=company advocates are always so desperate to avoid saying “its a newco, so its a new club without any history” in any of the other, many other, asset-sale-to-newco scenarios that there have been.
If i found myself having to bend over backwards to avoid applying the principle i held to applied in other equivalent – asset sale to newco – instances, a little voice would be saying to me… “hold on…”
bryce9a says: (31)
November 26, 2013 at 1:16 am
MIH and Wavetower were parent companies, holding a controlling stake of shares in Oldco. Their “purchases” of the club were share purchases in the “owner and operator” (to borrow current SFA/SPFL lexicon), rather than the business & assets sale to newco referred to in my response above.
————————————————————————————————————————————–
According to Charles Green, he purchased Craig Whyte’s ‘owner and operator’ shares for £2.
Whyte got his for £1, but still didn’t need a transfer of membership
Sugars: On the cup debate, IIRC a poster on RM emailed the SFA and asked why Sevco had to play in an early round ,he posted the reply which stated the reason was because The Rangers are seen as a new club.To my knowledge this is the only time that the SFA have said this categorically.The email was from a junior member of the SFA, who no doubt would have been shireked by CO for writing said email, it would be interesting if anyone could locate the whereabouts of that email exchange.
Just on a very quick read of your link, Bryce, the Leeds situation immediately strikes me as different as HMRC are not the 75% debt holder in that case. They appeal on a point of principle, that principle being that a/ they don’t like the football creditor rule and that b/ they were concerned that the proxy holder representing >25% (and therefore presumably blocking HMRC’s majority status) were basically ‘at it.’
Leeds failure to emerge from the CVA appears to be down to the fact that they ran out of funds (and time) in defending their corner. RFCold were never ever going to emerge as in taking on HMRC they played with the big boys, and lost, heavily.
As I say, that’s a very quick read and apologies if its off beam.
Smugas,
Nice to see someone’s assigning these discussions the seriousness they deserve! Not sure about anyone else, but if i didnt enjoy it, i wouldn’t be here 😉
Smugas,
The point I’m making, broadly speaking, is this:
If you say Rangers “died”/ are now a new club etc, on the basis of “the company was the club, not the assets, therefore a doomed company means a doomed club” hen you must apply that to the many, many other instances of asset-sale-to-newcos. Which i would suggest leads to absurdity (proven by the desire of folks not to embrace such positions when presented with those instances).
You can pick apart each and every scenario for the morality shown, the pence in the pound creditors did or didnt get, etc, but – to my argument – its irrelevant.
Ive done the research – all those cases i listed, including very high profile rich-in-history clubs apparently being “born” within the last few years – were asset sales to newcos, and that’s all my comparison requires them to be for the purposes of my argument.
Bryce
Are you really saying that you have no problem with situation being created in football, whereby, a succession of companies could “own” a club, each company could run up massive losses and debts in the pursuit of on field results, go into admin, ditch the debts, and sell the “assets”/ club on to the next company who would simply do the same?
That seems to be the logical conclusion to your argument, I just call it rewarding bad behaviour
bryce9a says: (33)
November 26, 2013 at 10:38 am
The points made about what happens in England are well made.
The English authorities appear to be able to use their ‘exceptional circumstances’ rule and allow transfer of membership in the event of failure to achieved CVA and liquidation
The Football League statement on Coventry seems pretty clear regardling how it sees the process asbeing one which allows ”the club’ to continue withouit loss of history.
http://www.football-league.co.uk/footballleaguenews/20130802/football-league-statement-on-coventry-city_2293334_3335621
Is the problem not that the Scottish Authorities have failed to provided a clear and definitive statement as to what they believe is status of the club playing out of Ibrox?
We can look at as many parallels in England as we like but it is the liquidation precidents of clubs such as Third Lanark, Airdrie and Gretna that matter.
All the fans want to know is how the Scottish Football Authorities made their decisions re Rangers and if they regard the entity as being the same or a new club. Along with if the authorities differed from how they dealt with other clubs in similar situations and ,if so, why that was the case, how was it justified and what implications would that have for other clubs when faced with similar insolvency events in the future.
If they just had the balls to be transparent and open then this debate would have ended months ago.
The total mish mash of a response by Stewart Regan when questioned on the matter shows that these men are cowards and not fit to run the game.
If, as many expect, they thought Rangers to be an expceptional case (and I for one can see the merits in that argument) that warranted special treatment, then why not just swallow that bitter pill, take a few months of pain and then get back to business.
As long as they remain silent on the issue this will fester on for years and do the game as a whole no favours whatsoever.
Smugas
It’s a bit hard to assess Mr Ogilvy’s job performance at the SFA, since for much of that time, the biggest issue has been Rangers . An issue which he allegedly played no part in the management/resolution of, him being so heavily conflicted according to the CEO.
Scapa,
Rightbackatcha’
I don’t particularly care if Bryce is ok with the immortal club/silly old creditors concept, and I wouldn’t expect him to care much about my opinion either – as Regan (a lawyer I believe, funny that) it is open to supporters to believe what they want or some such. Surprise surprise the supporters of said club say potato and the rest say potato – that doesn’t really work on paper so well does it?
I’m sorry to go back to old ground (and I’m not ignoring your points Bryce but I’m supposed to be working!) but there is only one group, one authority who do not have the luxury of interpretation. I have paid my hard earned to have them make a decision in my interests. What do they think they are? Fans in blazers?
Smugas says: (558)
November 26, 2013 at 11:34 am
Hard to disagree with you. However, it is interesting that they have never, (and probably will never), come out with a definitive ruling, it’s just one long series of obfuscatory statements. They seem happy to see the bitterness between the fans deepen, anything to avoid them actually having to do their job, make decision, and earn their large fecking salaries.
Their nightmare scenario, now that Mr King has toddled off into the sunset, must be that Mr McCoist pulls off a cup triumph, and opens up Fergus’ can of worms.
Ha! My better half, has just asked if the SFA’s behaviour over the OCNC debate, leaves them open to criminal charges under the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012!
Now that really would be a Carlsberg moment…..
wottpi says: (1284)
November 26, 2013 at 11:23 am
We can look at as many parallels in England as we like but it is the liquidation precedents of clubs such as Third Lanark, Airdrie and Gretna that matter.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
True.
Football authorities in other countries do things differently than here. There is no ‘exceptional circumstances’ rule in Scotland for example, so while the situations regarding English clubs have been an interesting read, they are basically irrelevant when speaking about an insolvency event in this country.
The situation with Rangers is unprecedented in so many levels;
First time a transfer of membership has ever occurred
The need for a 5 way agreement
Company being seen as separate from the club
Conditional memberships
That’s just off the top of my head, but none of these were even heard of until Rangers went bust.
It would be nice to see the SFA come out and state one way or another whether Sevco are a new club, but if you’re making things up as you go along, then maybe it’s best to keep your mouth shut.
Bryce,
I don’t think you can ignore Chancer67’s question to you at 09.11. I also don’t think you can deflect and/or hide your response by the sort of obfuscatory (yet aggressive) reply you gave at 09.16.
And yes, to me it matters whether or not you think WATP is an appropriate viewpoint for someone who is purporting to present the acceptable, intelligent face of RFC*. Remember how this forum’s view of Malcolm Murray changed once he had let his mask slip recently.
As FIFA says at 10.21, a simple yes or no will do. You either stand by what you posted or you don’t, surely.
“It goes toward his credibility, your honour”.
The following is a post from a week ago that is perhaps worth repeating to try and bring some closure on the same club debate.
Although the oldco/newco debate is tiresome to some, the fact it continues unabated, ready to surface at the merest jibe suggest it has an importance way beyond what makes it tiresome.
If I can suggest what that might be.
There is a school of thought held by most non RIFC fans that Rangers cheated the rest of Scottish football when they embarked on the ebt route by which they broke the trust on which rules and sporting integrity depend and that the punishment for such a crime should be that their history ended when they were put into liquidation.
The insistence that it did not is seen by the rest of the game as a denial of the seriousness not only of what was done in the past but more important their ongoing attempts to avoid admission of and consequences of their cheating ever since the ebt story became public.
The difficulty this causes the rest is why should a club/organisation/entity that broke trust and cheated yet acts as if it had not, be allowed to compete against other clubs who have acted in a trustworthy manner?
There may have been apologies but the general narrative encouraged by the faulty LNS judgement is that all Rangers did was make clerical errors in registering players. This is bullshit. They embarked on a remuneration policy from Sept 1999, with the full knowledge of the existing SFA President Campbell Ogilvie, that was illegal in the way that it was followed. What made it illegal was using side letters, and they knew so or would not have hidden their existence and have admitted them when HMRC asked for sight of them in 2005.
This admission of guilt at cheating and breaking of trust is the huge hurdle that the Rangers camp are refusing to face and the desire/insistence to cling to their sporting history is indicative of their reluctance.
We already know that DOS EBTs were operated in such an incorrect manner as to make their use illegal and had the FTT found for HMRC in the loan ebts, cheating would have been the inevitable conclusion on them. If the UTT reverse the FTT, the conclusion that Rangers cheated and broke trust is one that no one can avoid and the way should be being prepared now for such an eventuality and what will be to them, an unpalatable truth.
Surely this is wise rather than to keep pretending the game is dealing with a minor misdemeanour which is how LNS portrayed it.
The other factor that keeps the debate alive is that if they retain their history and identity then there is no deterrent value in the existing rules, which makes the rules disreputable, not those who jibe at them.
UEFA Article 12 is UEFA’s attempt at a deterrent to a club dodging debt via liquidation and the SFA must introduce a deterrent element into their own Articles. Whether the UTT decision or a fuller understanding of what went on with DOS forces the issue, it is clear that the SFA Articles must include a provision similar to UEFA’s Art 12 in order to protect the integrity of our game.
If you read Article 12 you will see that its purpose is to protect the integrity of UEFA competition. If it is good enough for UEFA it should be good enough for the SFA.
What I would suggest is that any senior professional club who are liquidated may be allowed back into the professional game but cannot return to the tier at which they exited until three years have elapsed. That three years gives the club an opportunity to prove to the rest of the game that it has learned the lesson from its behaviour and is ready to join the rest of the footballing community as a partner untainted by its past behaviour if it is granted a licence in each of the three years.
The retention of sporting history would not be a given but dependent on behaviour in the three year period, Call it a probation period.
I believe it is the lack of admission of wrong doing and no correction policy that will keep this harmful debate going, and when I say harmful I mean to everyone.
However we cannot get such an honest approach whilst the SFA act as if trust was not broken when they, more than any other party, know that it was.
Just what are Ogilvie & Regan doing on a daily/weekly basis to justify the salary they are being paid,to me it seems Scottish football does not require 2 highly paid positions such as these for the return they are giving us ,is there any means of accountability for these two,one is doing nothing and the other it seems is doing next to nothing.
Auldheid says: (1046)
November 26, 2013 at 12:20 pm
Its a good post, with some interesting ideas. However, there will be no closure of this issue, until the pygmies on the SFA board, get off their well paid behinds , and make a decision one way or the other.
Every day that passes, the board look smaller and smaller, unable, unwilling or just too cowardly to confront any of the big issues, they volunteered to take on. There are no conscripts in the SFA.
bryce9a says: (34)
November 26, 2013 at 10:38 am
____________________________________
Bryce9a – remember, the club formerly known as Rangers were an incorporated company – making the CLUB and the Business, inseperable.
Once an insolvency event occurred, subsquebntly resulting int eh failuire to exit administration, both the CLUB and the company, were liquidated. This is under Scot’s law.
i do not know how your three english examples are relevant:
A.F.C. Bournemouth (previously Boscombe F.C., Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic Football Club).
They were never incorporated as a club under the company.
They paid off ALL liquidation debts (to the tune of 10p in the pound) so all creditors received 10% of debts owed.
Luton Town Football Club
Successfully exited Administration although suffered 30 pts resulting in subsequent additional relegation from previous administration issues.
They have not been liquidated.
Rotherham United F.C.
Rotherham United began their second successive year in League One with a 10-point deficit as a result of the CVA which saved the club from liquidation.
Mateo Galy is correct as far as i can see. The SFA , unless someone can show otherwise, had no rule which allowed them to deal with issues the way the English FA appears to have done. Had no rule , refers to July 2012 . The fact that the SFA now have a rule which allows them to act in the way the FA did, only supports the argument that what happened in England has no relevance whatsoever to what happened in Scotland in July 2012.
Now I know Rangers believe rules only apply to “the little people” , but there is an argument being made on here that is rules and precedent based. Its an irrelevance.
As i posted recently, apologise sincerely for cheating the rest of Scottish football, for deceiving the authorities and all clubs in Scotland, for tax evasion, for lying to the tax authorities, for huge financial irresponsibility, for claiming football earnings that should have gone to other clubs, and for stuffing suppliers and creditors. Do that and I will happily accept your emotional claim to being the same club.
Don’t do that, then accept that the rest of Scottish football will see you as arrogant sociopaths who refuse to accept responsibility and blame others for the havoc you and you alone have wreaked on your club, and on the game in Scotland. It’s your choice
Ferguslayedtheblues
In an earlier post you raised the possibility of the SFA bricking it if RIFC were to win the SC or be runners up to Scottish title winners.
They would indeed as would UEFA, as it would require UEFA to make a decision on whether Article 12 should be put aside and on the SFA to ask UEFA, because of the process that Article 15 sets in train, to make that decision.
Art 12 in simplistic terms requires a club to have been members of a national association for three years before it can be granted a licence to play in a UEFA competition. It is the failure to meet this requirement that stops RIFCs being able to qualify on sporting merit grounds until 3 years after 3 August 2012 (or thereabouts). It is there to stop a club shedding its debt and carrying on as before and to protect the integrity of UEFA competition.
However Article 15 opens the door to the unwanted dilemma. Should sporting merit take precedence over sporting integrity?
The Art 15 rule is obviously designed to allow a club not in the top tier and so not subject to UEFA licensing standards, who have won a national trophy, to be granted a UEFA licence for that year.
It does not envisage the sort of situation that Scottish football has risked creating where a club is removed from the top tier because it was liquidated, but allowed to return at a lower tier as if it were not.
I hope RIFC are runners up in the SC to the title winners this season.
I also hope any future RIFC budgeting estimate assumptions are checked with UEFA and SFA beforehand lest UEFA say “three years wait mate – Art 12 rules OK”
Art 15
1 If a club qualifies for a UEFA club competition on sporting merit but has not undergone any licensing process at all or has undergone a licensing process which is lesser/not equivalent to the one applicable for top division clubs, because it belongs to a division other than the top division, the UEFA member association of the club concerned may – on behalf of such a club – request an extraordinary application of the club licensing system in accordance with Annex IV.
2 Based on such an extraordinary application, UEFA may grant special permission to the club to enter the corresponding UEFA club competition subject to the relevant UEFA club competition regulations. Such an extraordinary application applies only to the specific club and for the season in question.
Annex IV says
ANNEX IV: Extraordinary application of the club licensing system
1. The UEFA administration defines the necessary deadlines and the minimum criteria for the extraordinary application of the club licensing system as specified in Article 15(1) and communicates them to the UEFA member associations at the latest by 31 August of the year preceding the licence season.
2. UEFA member associations must notify the UEFA administration of such extraordinary application requests in writing and stating the name of the club concerned by the deadline communicated by the UEFA administration.
3. The UEFA member associations are responsible for submitting the criteria to the club concerned for the assessment for the extraordinary procedure at national level. They must also take immediate action with the club concerned to prepare for the extraordinary procedure.
4. The club concerned must provide the necessary documentary proof to the licensor that will assess the club against the fixed minimum standards and forward the following documentation in one of the UEFA official languages to the UEFA administration by the deadline communicated by the latter:
a) a written request to apply for special permission to enter the corresponding UEFA club competition;
b) a recommendation by the licensor based on its assessment (including the dates and names of the persons having assessed the club);
c) all documentary evidence provided by the club and the licensor as requested by the UEFA administration;
d) any other documents requested by the UEFA administration during the extraordinary procedure.
5. The UEFA administration bases its decision on the documentation received and grants special permission to enter the UEFA club competitions if all the set criteria are fulfilled and if the club ultimately qualifies on sporting merit. The decision will be communicated to the UEFA member association, which has to forward it to the club concerned.
6. If such a club is eliminated on sporting merit during this extraordinary procedure, the UEFA member association concerned has to notify the UEFA administration immediately, and this procedure is immediately terminated, without further decision. Such a terminated procedure cannot be restarted at a later stage.
7. Appeals can be lodged against decisions made by the UEFA administration in writing before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in accordance with the relevant provisions laid down in the UEFA Statutes.
Barcabhoy says: (296)
November 26, 2013 at 12:59 pm
Nailed it.
Just the point I was about to make. They were incorporated so club and company were one and the same – they were never ‘de-corporated’ (if such a mechanism even exists?) before liquidation commenced, therefore it is the club that are currently coming to the end of their timeline in the courts, hence Mr Speirs ‘technically a new club’ pronouncements. The ‘Sevco and Rangers existing at the same time’ stuff is further evidence of this, but it’s the incorporation that really matters. In fact, it’s all that matters when it comes to this. There is no further arguement required.
You can talk about Rangers and The Rangers being the same thing in the hearts of supporters, and it’s not for me to tell football fans how to view their club philosophically speaking, but the reality is that Rangers are currently, quietly, working their passage across the Styx as we speak, and there’s no Orpheus to guide them back.
Barcabhoy says: (296)
November 26, 2013 at 12:59 pm
Had Rangers adopted your contrition strategy at the beginning I am quite sure it would have worked. Some people, who for various reasons just want Rangers in all its forms dead and buried would have been deeply unhappy, but, the vast majority of people would have moved on by now.
Unfortunately, the actions of a significant section of the Rangers support, Rangers employees and management, and the boards of the SFA & League authorities have made it impossible.
To be honest, i don’t know how the fractures in Scottish Football can now be repaired, but the first step has to be for the footballing authorities to cease and desist from making things worse!
Couldn’t agree more. If they had shown some sort of contrition for what had happened, then most people would have moved on by now – it would have been ‘Well, they’re sort of the same thing ‘, in the same way that Airdrie United and Airdrieonians were sort of the same thing (apologies to any Bankies fans still out there, and it’s probably not a great example, given the renaming of a few months ago…). Don’t get me wrong, at every single away match they probably wouldn’t have been allowed to forget what had happened, but it would have gone past the absolute stonewalling that most us give to the idea of moving on.
However…… to find that actually what happened to Rangers was the fault of everyone but Rangers and that, like Elephants, they won’t forget, you can understand why people are reluctant to move on, lest it be seen as appeasement.
Auldheid says: (1046)
November 26, 2013 at 12:20 pm
11 0 Rate This
———-
Bravo Auldheid, spot on.
I find it a bit sad to read so many strained arguments backed by legal gymnastics in an attempt to hang on to the history of RFC. When this all started I remember chatting with some RFC supporters who felt a sense of shame about what their club had done. In fact, a few even made the point that money owed should be paid back, even if it took a long time. It was a point of principle. A club like Rangers did not engage in cheating creditors out of what they were due.
Our friend Bryce argues his case well and is polite, I for one appreciate that. But I don’t understand how he or anyone else can adopt the, “Ah, but it was the company what did it, not us.”
To me it appears a cop out, a huge exercise in denial, and a sad display of moral bankruptcy. One thing missing in every argument I’ve heard from those who want to maintain the myth of the same club is any sense of decency regarding financial affairs. A veritable moral vacuum.
hangerhead said
Luton Town Football Club
Successfully exited Administration although suffered 30 pts resulting in subsequent additional relegation from previous administration issues.
They have not been liquidated.
Apologies i cant give every inaccuracy you stated the same attention, but smartphones are a birch and lunch hour’s limited, so ill take just one if you don’t mind.
Ok. The facts.
Luton Town’s original company, from when the club incorporated in 1897, has been dissolved.
Here it is. Read the ‘d’ word for yourself. http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00053130
So, did Luton Town “successfully exit administration”? “They were not liquidated” – that’s true is it?
If it is, then you’ve crossed over to my side, thrown an arm around my shoulder, and said “yeah, you were right, clubs can transcend their corporate entitys through asset sales!”
Alas, i wont get too excited, ill presume you just hadn’t done your research properly, rather than relinquishing the beloved “club=company” principle that you need to consign see your sworn rivals to the mortuary slab.
Generally speaking, your post is a classic example of what i described earlier. Folk defending to the end the virtue of “club=company” when it comes to consigning Gers, but – when the many, many other examples of football clubs apparently “surviving” through asset sales to newcos are presented, every effort is made to side-step the implications of their devoutly-held principle, at the expense of the facts quite often, as I’ve shown on a few occasions now.
It is tacit acceptance of the absolute absurdity of stating the likes of Portsmouth are a football club that didn’t exist 12 months ago purely because of the insolvency of a previous company, and the subsequent asset sale to a newco.
I am genuinely sorry for continuing this debate!
I’m sorry, but all the contrition in the world cannot change the technical arguement. The emotional one, yes absolutely. I would be very interested if Barca went back and inserted the word emotional into his response at 12.59 as an afterthought? I was also a “to the first division” supporter at the outset, back when doing such a thing seemed utterly unthinkable. Their hardened stance since has simply hardened mine.
I remember in RTC days saying that the best thing Doncaster and team could have done, with even a modicum of strategic common sense was come up with a trumped-up (as if) charge something along the lines of acknowledging playing one EBT recipient for x games in season 2011/12 gave rise to y points deduction and that led to relegation. In exchange (and this bit could easily have been done behind closed doors), we agree not to look too much further into the issue. If they were going to go for a complete fudge of a solution anyway, one where the creditors didn’t matter anyway BECAUSE THE COMPANY WAS LIQUIDATED then that was the solution to go for.
Do not make fudge and tell me its truffle, not when one club (or is it 2) say its truffle and 41 know its blumin’ fudge!
Smugas says: (559)
November 26, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Pleading guilty to such a specimen charge as part of a “plea bargain” would have worked.
Sadly we are where we are, with divisions that will become ever more bitter, while those with the responsibility to resolve the situation, cower behind obfuscation.
`Danish Pastry says: (1726)
November 26, 2013 at 1:29 pm
The arguments put forward by Bryce remind me of Adam on RTC. It was all about the law and the interpretation of the law. The principles or ethics on which laws are based, yet can get lost in their articulation, appear beyond the mindset to grasp. It is like explaining a charity flag to a merchant banker.
I have used the term Pharisee to cover such a mindset.
The big fella, who was strong on ethics, predicted much woe for the Pharisees. And by God was he right.
Briefly, I’m reading quite a few posts about the apparent amorality of my position. The thing is, morality is entirely irrelevant to the OCNC debate and shouldn’t be conflated as such.
Of course, you can say..
– “well they seem sorry so ill let them be the same club.”
Or…
– “they’re arrogant remorseless so and so’s, therefore ill declare them a new club” (slightly more ubiquitous, this one…!)
…but in doing so, your resigning from the rational debate and admitting that a club’s existence is a function of how mean or nice they/their fans are – need i explain the problem with that! 😮
scapaflow says: (1180)
November 26, 2013 at 11:42 am
Hard to disagree with you. However, it is interesting that they have never, (and probably will never), come out with a definitive ruling, it’s just one long series of obfuscatory statements. They seem happy to see the bitterness between the fans deepen, anything to avoid them actually having to do their job, make decision, and earn their large fecking salaries.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Cock-up or conspiracy? I just can’t get my head round it.
Under normal circumstances it is most likely that FUBAR situations are the result of cock-up. That’s because most times you expect people to be operating towrds the general good in a way that doesn’t require tortuous examination of rules, regulations, laws, guidance and secret deals with hidden side agreements.
Normally.
The difficulty here is that we have plain evidence that the main characters involved in this shambles are up to their eyes in conspiracies and concealment for purposes that seem far removed from the common good.
So why don’t the SFA make a straight forward statement on the OCNC situation?
What is it that stops obvious Rangers men like CO coming straight out and announcing that Newco is still the same club? You must imagine that he would love nothing better than to be able to do so?
Is it because they are caught between a rock and a hard place and would rather not leap for fear of unknown consequencs?
Is it fear that they could be held to account by disgruntled clubs / fans if they were to declare in favour of continued history?
Or is it because they are quite content to foment bitterness and division amongst fans of the game? Mibbee it will sell more tickets? A bit like having a new ‘Old Firm’ where now it is Rangers vs everyone else instead of just Celtic? I bet the Ibrox spivs aren’t too upset by this scenario either.
Honestly. I can’t tell. There have been so many examples of outrageous behaviour by those in charge of our game that I would not trust them with a kids under-9 league, never mind the professional sport.
Unless this is just one massive cock-up (and that is pretty hard to believe) you have to think that CO et al are earning their salaries alright. You just have to ask yourself – who do they think they are working for?
Can someone clarify Campbell Ogilvie’s complete EBT Loan, the figure of £95.000 is often used but I can clearly remember CF revealing that he had £150.000 in EBT loans in total.
If we are going to discuss footballs best administrator then we must get the facts right.
bryce9a says: (36)
November 26, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Bryce, that post sums why Rangers are in this mess, you’re not a former/present part of the management are you?
Scapaflow,
I said it was a different discussion with no part to play in any rational OCNC argument. I didnt say morality didn’t matter.
I’m Agnes Ogilvie. Campbell’s mum. There, you have it. The speculation can now cease.
Bryce
You can’t divorce the two, though I can see why you would want to. For decades, there was a culture of nodding and winking at the sort of practices beloved of Rangers in the Murray Years.That culture has gone, if you don’t believe me, just ask the execs from Amazon, Starbucks etc etc who have been publicly humiliated by the PAC at Westminster.
It is the lack morality in Ranger’s business practices which has destroyed them, Karma, as they say, is a bitch
Hey Bryce, you’re back posting, but still ignoring the question of did you sign off on a tweet to a fellow RFC* fan with WATP and mean it? Are we going to get a yes/no answer?
Without contrition and an end to the ramping of WATPness for commercial and hoarding purposes. The constant reminders of the cheating and manufacturing of truths will add to the hurt you seek to relent.
Otherwise why bother with the legal conundrums and deflection, that’s flawed, and if it is not, prove it.
If its only about opinions why would that bother you, unless the educated reasoned debating is a front. And in that case, blame the schools.
bryce9a says: (37)
November 26, 2013 at 1:39 pm
They have not been liquidated.
Apologies i cant give every inaccuracy you stated the same attention, but smartphones are a birch and lunch hour’s limited, so ill take just one if you don’t mind.
******
If you are indeed doing all this posting and analysis during your lunch hour using a smart phone then I will concede that Chick Young is indeed a St Mirren supporter!
From the Tweets you were doing to Father Paul/Auldheid and many others for the past few weeks/months on Twitter with the same arguments being produced here, I’m hoping you are not just recycling your tweeterings and remembering to discard all the ones that were proved incorrect.
Precisely, so the authoritative power, the ones who thought they were paid big bucks to be at the top of the tree but now discover that they are actually paid to be last man standing need to toss morality, ethics and emotion to one side and tell it how it is, preferably, one would have rationally thought, erring on the side of caution from a legal standpoint to avoid getting its proverbial ass sued off.
One would have thought.
scapaflow says: (1181)
November 26, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Well it has been noted by a gentleman on the SFA Board – so you never know. 🙂
Auldheid says: (1050)
November 26, 2013 at 2:21 pm
I am always open to the possibility that a sinner may yet repent 😀
scapaflow says: (1183)
November 26, 2013 at 2:15 pm
It is the lack morality in Ranger’s business practices which has destroyed them, Karma, as they say, is a bitch
+++++++++++++++++++
It is the way it turned up in Malmo and Maribor strips that got me.
Its as if it was watching with disbelief at the 2011 shenanigans and thought
” Sod this, I’m getting stripped”
bryce9a
I haven’t forgotten about Article 6 – but the reply is quite long and I haven’t time for that now.
In relation to Clubs in England that have transferred their share to a new legal entity. Is the new entity the same Club?
http://www.thefa.com/thefa/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Rules_Regs/Rules_of_the_association_pg91-127.ashx/Rules_of_the_association_pg91-127.pdf
People often mistakenly believe that the FA acknowledge the new Club as a continuing entity. Actually, they don’t.
The existing and future member clubs are tied in with the legal form (in most cases companies) and the transfer of membership creates a new Member Club – because it is a new company.
You, like many others use the term Club as a synonym for brand ownership.
Technically in England, as in Scotland, a transfer of FA membership between two companies creates a new Club.
Returning to CO’s media piece: the oldest footballing rivals should grow up…
When I calmed down I was on reflection impressed with the quality of the spin in the statement – although I remain angered by CO’s intervention it was beautify crafted. Which leads me onto the question was the statement the work of the SFA media dept or did CO get some outside (Media House) help?
Long Time Lurker says: (669)
November 26, 2013 at 3:03 pm
‘…Which leads me onto the question was the statement the work of the SFA media ..’
———–
I suspect it was drafted by JI’s people , and perhaps discussed over a cheap EBT-level dinner with Regan and his boss, in the interests of ‘statesmanlike’ balance and good sense.
But, as happens frequently with duplicitous media spin, it has triggered off more negative reaction than would have been the case if it had not been made.
Because it is seen for what it is: more propaganda for the ‘BIG LIE’, cobbled up out of nothing except a desire to pretend that a failed President has any moral authority whatsoever ,never mind the authority to say that his old cheating club did not die.
It gars me greet how wicked some people can be.
bryce9a says: (37)
November 26, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Briefly, I’m reading quite a few posts about the apparent amorality of my position. The thing is, morality is entirely irrelevant to the OCNC debate and shouldn’t be conflated as such.
Of course, you can say..
– “well they seem sorry so ill let them be the same club.”
Or…
– “they’re arrogant remorseless so and so’s, therefore ill declare them a new club” (slightly more ubiquitous, this one…!)
…but in doing so, your resigning from the rational debate and admitting that a club’s existence is a function of how mean or nice they/their fans are – need i explain the problem with that!
_______________________________________________________________________________
Hear what you are saying but the problem is that no-one is clear where the lines in the sand have been drawn.
As discussed earlier by yourself and others, if its all about rationality, business and law then lets stick to that and keep the morality aside for a minute.
The original ‘club’ was incorporated way back thus all its actions are linked to the company that operate it at any one time.
The company that previosuly operated ‘the club’ is on the liquidation deathbed.
The Scottish Football Authorities had no mechanism at the time of the failed CVA to give rebirth to ‘the club’ therefore against all precedent (because what happens elsewhere is somewhat irrelevant) it fudged a solution that, in the opinion of many, would not have been offered to any other club in Scottish Football.
No-one from the Scottish Football Authorities (including all the lawyers) can explain that situation in clear language.
By following what we know of the rational rules of the Scottish game a team called Rangers should now be plying their trade in the Juniors or some other lower division subject to having been accepted.
Either that or someone could have bought out another senior club and asked for permission to rebrand and moved them to Ibrox.
If we are talking morality then:-
If the company side of things is ‘just business’ then ‘the club’ must therefore have an ethos that is not fully related to business. It must have another set of rules by which it lives, which forms the spirit of ‘the club’ and provides it with a conscience. These must give ‘the club’ its moral backbone.
When the actions of the ‘business’ side of the operation act in a different manner from ‘the club’s’ ethos then what is ‘the club’ supposed to do about it?
As far as I can see ‘the club’ was happy, for years, to go along trying to rub people’s noses in it in the style of Harry Enfield’s Loadsamoney character.
‘The club’ in the embodiment of the likes of Smith and Advocatt were happy to run ‘the club’ in an unsustainable manner.
When ‘the club’ got found out everyone else was blamed.
‘The club’ seems to take offense at every single little perceived slight.
‘The club’ seems to want to boycott all and sundry at every opportunity
‘The club’ just can wait to get back to where it rightly belongs so they can get back to rubbing people’s noses in it.
An thus the cycle is complete.
I’m just wondering regardless if it is old or new – in terms of morality just what exactly does ‘the club’ stand for?
wottpi it’s the idea of the club as a palimpsest that I am struggling to get my head around.
bryce9a says: (37)
November 26, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Can you tell him he’s a very naughty boy then, please?
I don’t really follow your comment that the speculation can now cease – I didn’t see anyone trying to work out who you were. Another case of RFC* narcissism and feeling you are more important than you are?
Still not answered the WATP question!!
scapaflow says: (1185)
November 26, 2013 at 3:39 pm
As someone said the other day its a bit like Doctor Who and time travel etc. Think too hard about it and you meet yourself coming backwards!!
If Rangers are still the real Rangers (then now and forever) who is the real Clydebank?
scapaflow says: (1185)
November 26, 2013 at 3:39 pm
Its the idea of what “palimpsest” means that I am struggling with. 🙂
Thank God for Google revealing a great simile.
The delicious irony in the whole fiasco, is that the SFA/SPFL (as is), and the MSM, in creating and selling the same club myth to the gullible, actually provided Charlie and his mates with the means to fill their pockets with as much money as they could get their hands on
The same MSM and supporters, having been shown up for the fools that they are, are now the ones crying foul
A question to those who know about such thngs.
Can anything be read into the figures provided in the AGM resolution related to Relevant and Equity Securities
9. “THAT the Directors be and are hereby generally and unconditionally authorised in accordance with section 551 of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”) to allot Relevant Securities (as defined in the notes to this resolution):
(a) up to an aggregate nominal amount of £217,000; and
(b) up to an aggregate nominal amount of £66,000 to employees and directors in accordance with the rules of any share option scheme approved by the Company; and
(c) comprising equity securities (within the meaning of section 560 of the Act) up to an aggregate nominal amount of £434,000 (after deducting from such limit the aggregate nominal amount of any Relevant Securities allotted under sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above) in connection with an offer by way of rights issue to holders of ordinary shares of one pence each in the capital of the Company (‘Ordinary Shares’) in proportion (as nearly as may be practicable) to their existing holdings and to holders of other equity securities as required by the rights of those securities or, as the Directors otherwise consider necessary, but subject to such exclusions or other arrangements as the Directors may deem necessary or expedient in relation to treasury shares, fractional entitlements, record dates, legal or practical problems in or under the laws of any territory or the requirements of any regulatory body or stock exchange,
and such authority shall expire on the date of the Annual General Meeting of the Company to be held in 2014 or, if earlier, 19 January 2015, but so that the Company may, in each case, before such expiry make an offer or agreement which would or might require Relevant Securities to be allotted after such expiry and the Directors may allot Relevant Securities in pursuance of any such offer or agreement as if the power conferred hereby had not expired. This authority shall be in substitution for any previous authorities granted in this regard by the Company, but without prejudice to any allotment of Relevant Securities or grant of rights already made, offered or agreed to be made pursuant to such authorities.”
bryce9a says: (37)
November 26, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Briefly, I’m reading quite a few posts about the apparent amorality of my position. The thing is, morality is entirely irrelevant to the OCNC debate and shouldn’t be conflated as such.
Of course, you can say..
– “well they seem sorry so ill let them be the same club.”
Or…
– “they’re arrogant remorseless so and so’s, therefore ill declare them a new club” (slightly more ubiquitous, this one…!)
…but in doing so, your resigning from the rational debate and admitting that a club’s existence is a function of how mean or nice they/their fans are – need i explain the problem with that
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What you appear to miss completely is not that we think RIFC arrogant or remorseless or any other behavioural judgement that might be laid against them -as you say who would be free of that charge – its because we think your club (as was) won titles and trophies by cheating and you are doing your best to deny it.
Admission is so important to our game and supporters of all other clubs because why would we want to allow a club or company or clumpany (or even a Curly Wurly ), who appear incapable of accepting that they have cheated, to be part of our game when we perceive them as incapable of playing by the same rules because those rules are twisted curly wurly as suits their cause?
That is the link between morality and the rules and why every time you put forward the same club argument you will get denials in response because your argument, even if the rules supported it just tell us you have learned nothing.
wottpi says: (1287)
November 26, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Glad you asked. I was wondering the same.
Just how did discussion on the board end up being about Bournemouth, Luton and Rotherham instead?
I knew there was another section in there. 🙄
http://www.thefa.com/thefa/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Rules_Regs/Rules_of_the_association_pg91-127.ashx/Rules_of_the_association_pg91-127.pdf
wottpi
Now there’s an old saying from over a year ago ,remember when Charles drew the imaginary lines in the sand at the time of the season ticket sale and Ally was to get the rest in his war chest off when this was crossed ,he must have meant to say double crossed
blu says: (451)
November 26, 2013 at 4:39 pm
Bryce has been teaching a course entitled “Sophistry by Example”