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.
ngus1983 says: (1262)
November 28, 2013 at 8:41 am
Coatbrigbhoy – The CW situation was different – he bought the existing company/club rather than starting a new one.
================================
Charles Green offered £8.5m to rescue RFC 1872 by CVA, if he had succeed that would have kept RFC 1872 in the SPL,
He would have bought a going concern, but we all know he failed to rescue the business,
is back up plan was to purchase the assets for £5.5m,
what did Green, NOT get for the £3m he saved,
if Football clubs are eternal ,why do administrators bother to try rescue debt stricken clubs by a CVA, what does that achieve,if a company can just carry on trading,after abandoning it’s debt and those owed the debt
before the word NEWCO became fashionable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_club_%28association_football%29
If a “phoenix” club is created though, entry into European competition the following season would be affected. Transferring a membership is forbidden.
UEFA regulations state that a club must have been a member for three consecutive years in order to be eligible for a license. Any “phoenix” club would be considered as a new entity and would begin a three year wait from its inception before being eligible to play in Europe.
coatbrigbhoy says: (15)
November 28, 2013 at 5:31 pm
As you can see by the list contained within that webpage, newcos like Leeds, Portsmouth, Middlesbrough and Rangers are not considered “pheonix clubs” according to the definition wikipedia editors have employed.
Note the clubs that are listed all have new, different team names or many years between old and new club.
bryce9a,
[how many bryce logins are there at same club HQ? enough to work around the clock?]
You are right in the sense that legally it is a new entity and there is no debate over that, other than whether – if we’re taking a legal point of view – it is right to call it a new “club” at all. We know the legal entity in question was actually a company, that happens to operate association football teams, but just because “X” does “Y” doesn’t mean it IS a “Y” in terms of a legal category of entity. “Clubs” to my knowledge are defined as unincorporated associations by the law, so in legal terms it’s a new “company”, not a “club”.
Thanks for acknowledging that I’m right to view Rangers as a new club according to the law of the land. The legal entity that went bust was a company that was an Association football club in Scotland.
Your following paragraphs confirm the context that I was referring to – that the debate is separate from the law of the land – and revolves around interpretation of the rules/laws of the SFA.
I wouldnt trust them to be getting these right in an unbiased, or transparent or unconflicted or straightforward/competent fashion.
The debate really focuses on two other areas, what the status of the club is in the eyes football authorities, and personally what you consider a football club to be – whether it would be the same or new to yourself, regardless of what an authority said.
Leaving the former for now, my insistence with regards the latter is that if you were to look at this objectively ie. as you would in the case of other football clubs, where you state “*something* that is a recognisable entity has continued” I would say that ‘something’ is SUFFICIENT to be identified as a football club.
Re Rangers specifically – there is more than sufficient assets being used by the current club for me to clearly recognise them as *a* Rangers. The view that they are indeed the same club would be taken by those who are uninformed andor unduly sensitive about the end of the last club.
To illustrate, if you can imagine never having been aware of this saga that’s affected your rival club, I seriously doubt you would look at, just one example of the numerous, the asset sale from Pompey oldco to Pompey newco that occurred a few months ago and say it killed the club/ended it’s history etc. You wouldn’t be asking “well how much did creditors get in return for those assets?”, the football team Portsmouth FC playing out of Fratton Park would be SUFFICIENT for you to identify a continuing football club, albeit new owners/new corporate entity.
I haven’t looked at that asset sale, since it was not close enough to home. if I ever take the time to do so, I will get back here with any insight I might provide. Currently I am uninformed, and so am not in a position to compare. I would guess, though, that the asset sale agreement doesn’t list ‘Portsmouth FC’ as one of the assets, or specify which assets might constitute ‘the club’ (as a recognisable entity without legal personality capable of being bought or sold – like an asset). I figure that is because it could lead to a legal claim that this ‘starting again as a newco having bought the assets’, is simply a way of ditching creditors and liabilities.
Also, if the debate is around Rangers status as OCNC, then stick to at least the same FA.
I’m entirely confident I’d have thought that pre this saga. I think most would and, evidently, most still do when these other asset-sale-to-newco examples are brought up and apparent club=company folk are falling over themselves to avoid having to say “yep, [Palace/Leeds/Pompey] , that football club didn’t exist 10 years ago”. It goes against every grain of common sense.
If one were informed on the law regarding insolvency, and one were not emotionally involved or shackled to OC or NC, then one would agree that newco = newclub, in my view. It doesnt go against common sense – on the contrary, it goes against any common sense of justice to think nothing of a club shedding its responsibilities and liabilities and continuing unchanged (PS it seems that Rangers want not only to do just that, but also want to claim they are hard done by at the same time).
OCNC status of Leeds/Portsmouth/Palace doesnt influence the OCNC status of Rangers in any way. Its a non-sequitur. One could be same club whilst another could be new club.
I also note that by implication – since you shift the debate off of the legal areas, and even off of the Association rules, on to the ‘common fan viewpoint’, if I may call it that – you show that fans generally need to take some kind of charitable or kind view of these clubs that went bust, in order to see tham as the same club.
Almost in a kind of ‘come on lads – we all know that everything went t1tsup at these clubs, but theyre still good old clubX FC really, arent they’ way.
Well, thats fine until you scratch the surface of the whole situation. I’d point out that the spivs’ success is dependant on ordinary punters looking the other way or remaining uninformed.
I’d also argue that where football authorities prop up an entity that is no more, as though it hasn’t ended, in some kind of ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’ fashion, also does nothing but assist the continued presence of these spivs in our game – maybe benefits them to the tune of many millions of pounds.
Any before someone replies with “yes but legally it’s a new entity”, I acknowledged that already, so that point does nothing to refute my case.
Glad you headed everyone off with that – no doubt thousands of fingers were at the ready worldwide, poised above keyboards. 🙂
One of the most annoying new/old arguments is the one where UEFA recognise them when it’s actually the pay to be a member European club association. That annoys me nearly as much as Rangers (old) fans who have invented a mythical semi final in the two group stage Champions League in 93′
bryce9a says: (45)
November 28, 2013 at 5:14 pm
Do you mean included Newco co efficient points rather than added?
Newco have not played in Europe to earn any points.
I’m not persuaded by the co efficient argument and looking at the table
============================9/10=10/11=11/12=12/13=13/14 Total
86 Rangers FC Rangers FC SCO 6.533 12.720 2.050 0.860 0.650 22.813
That looks to me that the last two columns for 12/13 and 13/14 can only relate to country points and the total is simply a sum of the 5 years, not evidence of continuity from a UEFA perspective. Were the country points not added and the entries were zero that would certainly suggest that a clean break occurred but perhaps the very existence on the table means country points are automatically added.
The continuing presence of Unirea suggests the row for that club will simply not be removed until 5 years have elapsed and perhaps not even then.
http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/club/
Apologies for the simpleness of the question but how can a club incorporate into a company but remain a separate entity from said company? it’s a bit of a schizophrenic position is it not?
As a follow-up daft question, if a football club is an ethereal “thing” and an enduring Symbol only with no legal personality, then surely it is the company that wins football games, cups and championships in the name of the symbol. After all, the players are contracted to the company, are paid by the company and are insured by the company?
My head is bursting now.
bryce9a says: (46) November 28, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Whether individuals on here like me personally or not is not my concern, and when that reference to another forum was dug up spitefully (oddly whilst the rest of us were expressing our sincere condolences and how football discussion pales into insignificance during such times) I was happy to let it slide. I know personal sniping back and forth is NOT what this site is about. Far from it.
—————————————-
I posted a link to the Hearts forum simply because of your failure to respond to at least three requests to explain your WATP reference in your tweets. I do not agree with the JKB administrator’s decision to allow you to continue posting there but I accept it.
There are numerous links to what people have said in Tweets, Newspapers, Videos, Blogs that are used both to question or to support their motives and thoughts. That equally applies to posters on this blog, whether that is Phil Mac, Stuart Cosgrove, the sadly departed Paul McC, easyJambo, bryce9a or anyone else.
With reference to the implied poor timing of the post, I actually submitted it around 12 hours earlier than the timestamp on the post, i.e. before the news of Paul’s death was posted here. I have no idea why it was not posted at the time. TSFM should be able to verify the original submit time.
The in fighting continues!
Thursday, 28 November 2013 17:45
Board Statement
Written by Rangers Football Club
WE CONTINUE to be deeply concerned at the unsubstantiated allegations being promoted by the requisitioners.
These men, in particular Paul Murray and Malcolm Murray, portray themselves to our loyal fans as potential guardians of corporate governance, yet every action they take threatens to destabilise our club, could further influence the share price and may hamper the club’s ability to attract additional commercial partners in the future.
The requisitioners are appearing at a public meeting in Glasgow this evening.
We challenge them to prove their allegations but if all they can provide is rumour and hearsay they should now cease causing further damage.
We note that the requisitioners had the opportunity to put 1,000 words in the AGM pack – they chose not to do so yet.
Instead they have decided to wage a campaign in the media using fans to further their own agenda.
Any statement issued to shareholders by them will now increase the costs on the club.
Instead of putting forward their views to shareholders, fans, players and corporate partners through a letter included in the AGM notice, the requisitioners have chosen to mount personal attacks on individuals.
We are surprised that an international businessman of Jim McColl’s standing would lend his name to these crude tactics.
We believe that fans do not want to go back to the days of administration, relegation, boardroom strife and infighting which will ultimately prevent Rangers competing once again at the highest level.
We believe that this could be a result of what McColl’s group is offering.
Lastly we note that Malcolm Murray was present during the course of all the things complained of in yesterday’s statement – therefore the resulting press articles are in fact an attack on the requisitioners themselves.
Rangers Chairman David Somers said: “We are now on board and the fans can rest assured that costs incurred by previous directors prior to our appointment have already been thoroughly examined by a forensic accounting exercise and there is no evidence of any financial irregularity.
“The Company’s auditors have also provided an unqualified audit report.
“The fans and the media need to understand that the assets were bought out of administration – the cost of equity was therefore going to be much higher, given the risk, with no football licence, the lower league issues and the fact that previous poor corporate governance of the club added to the costs of an IPO.
“Mr McColl may claim that the normal IPO costs are 5% but, despite his lack of experience in the sports world, even he must understand that the behaviour of some of his proposed directors contributed to those costs.”
bryce9a says: (46) November 28, 2013 at 5:14 pm
As Kassies (an amateur who some observers seem to mistakenly think is an authority on the rankings) has oddly done in ‘going rogue’
—————————————————-
Sorry to disagree with your negative assessment of Bert Kassies. I have always found him to be a excellent resource for accurate information regarding rankings and extremely courteous in dealing with any queries.
The broadcast media also seem able to trust and quote from the information on his website.
On an alternative subject to OCNC but nonetheless relevant, I think
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/10481345/Football-match-fixing-World-Cup-matches-may-have-been-rigged.html
Hmmm. I wonder if the SFA would like to look into this? Presumably not.
shawfieldtoteboard says: (9)
November 28, 2013 at 6:08 pm
1 0 Rate This
Apologies for the simpleness of the question but how can a club incorporate into a company but remain a separate entity from said company?
————
Not much I can say that seems of any consequence, in light of recent events. I’ll repeat what my auld maw has said on many an occasion, ‘May God rest his soul’.
But I suppose our late friend would want the debate to continue.
So, a response to you bryce9a, since you ask sensible questions.
If ASDA, Tesco or Sainsbury’s had bought that which Charles Green claims he purchased, then created flats, a supermarket and financed football at a re-structured Ibrox, renamed the ‘club’ ASDA United, Tesco Rangers, or Sainsbury Celtic (stay with me), then changed the strips to a pink colour — would that be the same club? The same history?
If, at the same time, a supporters group had got together, pooled their ST monies, created a junior club called, say, ‘Rangers of Glasgow’, played in blue with a crest not dissimilar to the RFC, rented either Firhill, Hampden, or Parkhead, gained the support of former players and sympathetic supporters of other clubs in their venture, and started on a path they hoped would see them enter Div 2 at some point, which one of these two ‘clubs’ would be the ‘same’ Rangers?
Rhetorical question, of course. The answer is, for me at least, neither of them.
However, a non-rhetorical question: Which of the two could lay claim to the legacy and heritage of the former club?
shawfieldtoteboard says: (9)
November 28, 2013 at 6:08 pm
Apologies for the simpleness of the question but how can a club incorporate into a company but remain a separate entity from said company?
——
Simple question, simple answer. It can’t and doesn’t.
I am, however, unable to resist waffling. Which is not a good thing because, being from a scientific background, I was always taught to be as concise as possible. 🙂
A “club” is an “association” of people who come together with a common interest. Should those people wish to limit their personal liability in pursuing their interest, they formalise their “club” by turning it into a company. This is not just legal jargon – it’s how it works.
A purely emotional attachment to the original “club” may well exist, but it is just that. If the company goes out of business, the company goes out of business. The original “club”, as such, ceased to exist at the moment of incorporation.
Thus, the inclusion of the word “Club” in the name of any incorporated football business is not to be understood in terms of its dictionary definition. It’s merely part of a name, which usually harks back to the company’s origins.
You may enjoy sailing model boats. Pay someone a tenner – or just ask -and you can be a member of the local Model Boat Club.
Conversely, you may support Hibernian Football Club, but you are not a member of it. That’s because it’s not a club. You may actually play for Hibernian Football Club, but you’re still not a member of it. You’re an employee. Because “Club” is only a part of the name of the company, and nothing else.
Meanwhile, pantomime season continues at Hampden.
You may recall Nadir Ciftci of Dundee United was, on Thursday, 31 October 2013, “Fast Track Player Referenced” by Vincent Lunny for allegedly breaching Disciplinary Rule 201 by Excessive misconduct at a match by seizing hold of an Assistant Referee, namely Gavin Harris, by the throat. The Principal hearing date was given as Thursday, 21st November 2013, hardly ‘fast tracking’.
Anyway, that hearing was then cancelled, due to witness unavailability, and a new hearing date set for today, Thursday, 28 November 2013.
So today’s Outcome: “Case adjourned until Tuesday, December 3, due to the unavailability of witnesses.”
A full five weeks will have elapsed since this very serious charge was made against Ciftci by the new hearing date of Tuesday 3rd December. Keep in mind two other charges against the player have been reduced or not proven since the match on 29th October 2013.
“Fast track” system? Justice?
Wonder when Ogilvie’s going to make a statement about this farce?
easyJambo says: (585)
November 28, 2013 at 6:15 pm
I posted a link to the Hearts forum simply because of your failure to respond to at least three requests to explain your WATP reference in your tweets. I do not agree with the JKB administrator’s decision to allow you to continue posting there but I accept it.
There are numerous links to what people have said in Tweets, Newspapers, Videos, Blogs that are used both to question or to support their motives and thoughts. That equally applies to posters on this blog, whether that is Phil Mac, Stuart Cosgrove, the sadly departed Paul McC, easyJambo, bryce9a or anyone else.
With reference to the implied poor timing of the post, I actually submitted it around 12 hours earlier than the timestamp on the post, i.e. before the news of Paul’s death was posted here. I have no idea why it was not posted at the time. TSFM should be able to verify the original submit time.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As the administrator of this site said when removing the earlier post abusing me, “Play the ball, not the man”. What part of that do you not understand?
This site has rules and I expect my posts to be subject to them as equally as anyone else.
I’m not here to disrupt/antagonise anyone. I’m here to offer a perspective on an issue/discussion that I happen to enjoy participating in, and which seems to be of recurrent interest to quite a few on here, as the original article seems to indicate. I have no agenda other than to put across my arguments in the most articulate and rational way I can, whilst abiding by the site rules and respecting other posters.
BigGav says: (83)
November 28, 2013 at 11:25 am
jimlarkin says: (661)
November 28, 2013 at 10:17 am
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/250617-shareholders-serious-fraud-office-called-over-rangers-payments/
I wonder . . . The alleged fraud – would it be anything to do with the alleged stealing from the rangers charity foundation – did the money not get put into the PLC or rather the business arm of the rangers / rangers / sevco 5088/ sevco scotland or whatever their name is / was / will be
————————————————
Since the story talks about payments “allegedly made to certain shareholders”, I think it is more likely to be about the alleged “return of capital” that Charlotte (in her various guises) has mentioned on several occasions. Basically, this involved certain pre-IPO shareholders who had bought in at £1 per share being refunded to compensate for the IPO price being only 70p per share. In the accounts, these payments were allegedly massaged to appear as ‘fees’ or such like, rather than return of capital (which is illegal).
—————————————————
I think the first time that this ‘refund’ to shareholders who had paid more than the 70p flotation price surfaced was with Laxeys.
The intriguing thing about that was the shortfall between the £1 paid by Laxeys and the flotation price was made good by personal shares being transferred from Charles Green to Laxeys. That share transfer was late in being notified to AIM and from memory the actual handover takes place on 7 December 2013.
But why did Green ‘pay’ the difference using his own shares and has that pratice been followed with other shareholders or were they actually paid in cash from the Company in whatever guise whether that be TRFCL or RIFC Plc. Afaik Companies House still haven’t received a complete Annual Report for TRFCL which should reveal who else got shares in lieu of a cash payment to make up the 30p a share shortfall.
scottc says: (371)
November 28, 2013 at 6:28 pm
On an alternative subject to OCNC but nonetheless relevant, I think
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/10481345/Football-match-fixing-World-Cup-matches-may-have-been-rigged.html
However, during the course of the conversations about English matches, the fixer also said that he could rig matches “all over” the world, except in Singapore where the penalties are very high.
“I do Australia, Scotland. Ireland. Europe. World Cup. World Cup qualifier,” he said.
Hmmm. I wonder if the SFA would like to look into this? Presumably not.
===========================================================
And that just highlights how pathetic the SFA has become: a thoroughly discredited organisation.
If there is any substance to the above story, you could have the corrupt SFA, [with Ogilvie & Regan], effectively making, [or contributing to], judgements about alleged, corrupt individuals in Scottish football !
Laughable, if it wasn’t so seriously detrimental to Scottish football. 🙁
scottc says: (371)
November 28, 2013 at 6:28 pm
8 0 Rate This
On an alternative subject to OCNC but nonetheless relevant, I think
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/10481345/Football-match-fixing-World-Cup-matches-may-have-been-rigged.html
However, during the course of the conversations about English matches, the fixer also said that he could rig matches “all over” the world, except in Singapore where the penalties are very high.
“I do Australia, Scotland. Ireland. Europe. World Cup. World Cup qualifier,” he said.
Hmmm. I wonder if the SFA would like to look into this? Presumably not.
============================================================
Allegedly, Ian Black is reputed to have opined
. . . I bet they don’t !
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the argument being put forward now, is that whoever purchased “the assets out of administration” 😀 also somehow managed to acquire an immortal entity called “a club”
Now had this been a property company, or as has been suggested a supermarket, would they be the owners and operators of the club, assuming that is they wanted to get involved in football
The whole idea is ludicrous
if they didn’t know match fixing had taken place at the time, then it didn’t happen.
isn’t that how it goes Sandy??
Fans meeting with requisitioners, live on YouTube now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBiiEzhxu5E
jimlarkin says: (663)
November 28, 2013 at 7:22 pm
4 0
Rate This
Hmmm. I wonder if the SFA would like to look into this? Presumably not.
============================================================
I imagine anyone calling the SFA hotline on this subject might well be met with a pre recorded message along the lines.
“The Scottish FA has no jurisdiction blah! blah! blah! however through the Professional Game Board, we can provide a forum for debate on matters such as league reconstruction.”
Paul Murray thinks they were a very successfully run club when he was there.
That would explain the administration and liquidation then.
Not got the facts to back this up yet but apparently the board of Sevco have been openly talking about an admimistration tonight? Anyone know what they said?
Taken from a well known Celtic website pinch of salt or more to it thoughts
If TRFC are indeed the same club as RFC, why did they not take action against the SFA and SPL when they were refused entry/continued membership of the SPL? Surely a loud mouthed, belligerent individual such as Charles Green would have challenged the decision, at the very least, in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, even the Court of Session (he has previous) but no real effort was made to challenge the authorities. Lots of rhetoric, and ‘tint fair’, from the Green mouth, lots of support from the MSM, but no proper effort to be reinstated to their ‘rightful’ place at the top of Scottish Football. As far as I am aware, no ‘football’ reason was given for the expulsion, so, if the ‘club’ that finished in second place in the SPL is still in existence, why were they expelled? Has anyone ever read, or heard, an explanation other than the liquidation of Rangers?
Something else for the ‘old club’ supporters to consider. Once the dust has settled and Green and co have left for good, but TRFC are left in a mess, I suspect it will be a re-run of ‘it was all Whyte’s fault; he lied to us; he stole our money etc etc’. If I recall correctly, it was this constant liar, Green, who came up with the newco = old club idea; never ever tested in a court of law; but accepted by all connected to Rangers* as an undoubted truth. I doubt that anyone in the history of football (well David Murray over a longer period maybe) has told so many bare-faced lies as Green did to shore-up his TRFC regime. Why would anybody think that this, most necessary proclamation of all, would be his only truth?
*The list is too long for this post but includes many who should be neutral
No1 Bob says: (60)
November 28, 2013 at 6:21 pm
6 0 Rate This
The in fighting continues!
======================================
Yet the MSM have decided beyond doubt that the ‘real’ i.e ‘no surrender’ men are the only way ahead. What a strange wee world they inhabit.
borussiabeefburg says: (200)
November 28, 2013 at 6:52 pm
———————————————-
United had asked for toay’s hearing to be postponed, what with them having a match against Killie tomorrow…trainIng today…
The SFA magnanimously agreed to postpone the hearing……until 5pm today!!!!
Now it’s put off again becaus of the unavailability of witnesses.
You’d have thougt they’d have checked…..oh, wait a min, it’s the SFA… 🙄
On Old Club/New Club – a case study of how we dealt with the last club that died: Gretna
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/68388888072/same-club-new-club
It is very much worth noting that Gretna entered administration later in the season that Rangers. Gretna 2008 FC was set up prior to NewCo Rangers and was able to play football earlier than Rangers could. As such, one would perhaps suspect they were more capable of starting a season than Rangers were in Summer 2012 – not that they were ever allowed the chance.
Thought I heard Murray say “Dave King is an upstanding citizen”, couldn’t see if fingers were crossed or if tongue was firmly in cheek! 😆
Part two of the Fans meeting with the requisitioners.
Still waiting to start as I post this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzO4uKsWhEw
campsiejoe says: (601)
November 28, 2013 at 7:25 pm
………………………………………
Or why the club that was liquidated had a VAT and Company registration number?…that no longer exists?…which one would think they would still exist if it was the same outfit?
ecobhoy says:
November 28, 2013 at 7:12 pm
But why did Green ‘pay’ the difference using his own shares and has that pratice been followed with other shareholders or were they actually paid in cash from the Company in whatever guise whether that be TRFCL or RIFC Plc.
——-
Charlotte’s last reference to the subject certainly referred to a cash repayment. The scribd document has since been removed, but from memory, I think it referred to shareholders Richard Bernstein and Eurovestech plc.
(A related post here: http://www.tsfm.org.uk/2013/10/beware-the-angry-shareholders-they-might-just-demand-an-answer/comment-page-66/#comment-74004)
I also recall an earlier Charlotte revelation on the topic (again involving a ‘refund’) which I think concerned shareholder Alan Mackenzie.
Started
from the meeting tonight
IPO normally 5%……Rangers at 27%.
Green’s seriously harmful effect on Sheffield United.
Stockbridge remains from the original cabal..he is the gatekeeper.
Over £100 million gone from club over 30 months.
Need to get a Board we can trust.
Requisitioners will work without payment to get club back to where it belongs.
Fans saved club not Green.
Requisitioners have all received threats.
Thanks for putting that up tiff, but I’ve boaked into my mouth a couple of times already (rangers room in his hoose, and the free thinking Presbyterian) so I will let them have this , all of a sudden get into bed with the baddies meeting, all to themselves. Hope smudger doesn’t plan on bussing it home after his we dig. And another thing, all the questions they could be asking that moron, but no doubt the request for an orange tap will come up…….. aye, enough.
Bears being buttered up for more money, hell mend them.
Paul Murray is claiming that when he was there they ran the club on a break even basis based on domestic income.
They treated European income as an “investment fund” and to bring down debt.
That is simply a lie. For years Rangers could only break even based on European income, as soon as they lost it they were in the red by £12m or so.
Malcolm Murray reckons with the global market they should sell 1,000,000 kits at least.
He then says that’s £35,000,000 merchandising turnover with a high profit margin before anything else is sold.
Oh great.
A supporter has just made a paedophile “joke” and the entire top table laughed at it.
Absolutely appalling.
BigGav says: (84) November 28, 2013 at 8:47 pm
Charlotte’s last reference to the subject certainly referred to a cash repayment. The scribd document has since been removed, but from memory, I think it referred to shareholders Richard Bernstein and Eurovestech plc.
(A related post here: http://www.tsfm.org.uk/2013/10/beware-the-angry-shareholders-they-might-just-demand-an-answer/comment-page-66/#comment-74004)
I also recall an earlier Charlotte revelation on the topic (again involving a ‘refund’) which I think concerned shareholder Alan Mackenzie.
——————————–
I kept a copy
http://www.scribd.com/doc/187843260/2013-01-10-Share-Refunds
Jack Irvine on a £40K a month retainer and a £100K bonus if the current board is retained, according to Scott Murdoch.
Over £100m taken out the club in 30 months
How can that be ,the club ,owns nothing ,is responsible for nothing ,do not enter into contracts for anything ,has no peepil on the payroll .
How did this club he talks about have £100m for anyone to take out of it .
Funny when the mask slips but then again it isn’t wise to say company when your addressing the gullible .
The best though, is they no longer care how stupid they sound because they are now convinced the peepil believe the GREAT MYTH .
Tif Finn says: (904)
November 28, 2013 at 9:08 pm
Rate This
Quantcast
Malcolm Murray reckons with the global market they should sell 1,000,000 kits at least.
He then says that’s £35,000,000 merchandising turnover with a high profit margin before anything else is sold.
———————————————————————————————————————
Is it a free bar over there 😆
One million Kits eh.
That’s only one for every 500 fans.
Surely they could do better than that 😉
fergusslayedtheblues says: (259)
November 28, 2013 at 9:31 pm
3 0 Rate This
Tif Finn says: (904)
November 28, 2013 at 9:08 pm
Rate This
Quantcast
Malcolm Murray reckons with the global market they should sell 1,000,000 kits at least.
He then says that’s £35,000,000 merchandising turnover with a high profit margin before anything else is sold.
———————————————————————————————————————
Is it a free bar over there 😆
=================================
How come when they were able to plunder millions on players and were regularly in the CL they didn’t shift 1,000.000 kits, but somehow will now?
Well, that was awkward 😕
Second Return of Capital document
http://www.scribd.com/doc/187848062/2013-05-08-Return-of-Capital
Tif Finn
Ah but you forget
CG found 500 million fans when on tour . 😆
Part 1 of that meeting was interesting with some pretty decent questions to the wannabe board.
Part 2 (after half-time refreshments?) was a bit embarrassing. I could’t believe that they all laughed at the drunk who made the paedophile joke. Then Peter Lawell came in for it — running the SFA now, by the way — and general outrage at people taking money out of their club. Tut tut, financial wrong-doing, utterly outrageous. They very nearly broke out into the Billy Boys at the end due to someone repeating ‘hello’ into the mike. Slightly comic, mostly sad that. Isn’t there something in the good book about the leopard not being able to change its spots?
It was otherwise the club, the club, the club, no real mention of the company that runs the club. Makes you wonder if they realize that there actually now is a separate company — and this time it’s not just some made-up guff to preserve the same club myth.
PS Forgot the wee mention of Charles Green turning up at some shareholder’s door last week. Crivvens.
Well, I hope anyone who heard him tonight and ever doubted that Gordon Smith could have been anything other than an honest, competent and wholly impartial CEO of the SFA will now admit how wrong they were and hang their head in shame.
bryce9a says: (47)
November 28, 2013 at 4:06 pm
A common misconception – it says no such thing.
It states that, within the Articles, the words “Club” and “Company” can be read to be synonymous only “where the context admits of it”, ie. where the context requires no distinction.
That is not a Club=Company declaration in any general sense.
The Articles state how “property and assets” or some such phrasing must be purchased by/transferred to the new company in order to carry on the Football Club.
A football club continuing through/transferring to a new corporate entity, by way of purchase/transfer of assets…? IMPOSSIBLE!
————————————————————————————————————————————-
” A common misconception – it says no such thing”
Depends how you look at it I suppose! It could mean;
The footballing side of the operation was Rangers FC – the ‘Club’
The financial side of the operation was Rangers FC Ltd – the ‘Company’
Both the same, but for the purposes of the Memorandum, the club can be called the company or vice versa.
The ‘property and assets’ you refer to is that the company could use the funds generated through incorporation to buy or lease such things as houses and shops and build terraces, stands etc for the club should they be required.
Nothing unusual in that, it still happens today.
The assets were not transferred, the club already had them.
So Media House are on £40k a month and on a promise of a £100k bonus if the spivs win the AGM votes.
How much of that money is being spent on OldCo / NewCo squirrels?
StevieBC says: (904)
November 28, 2013 at 7:19 pm
“I do Australia, Scotland. Ireland. Europe. World Cup. World Cup qualifier,” he said.
Hmmm. I wonder if the SFA would like to look into this? Presumably not.
——
Well, I’d be looking at teams that appear to be losing or drawing up till the last couple of minutes of a game, but make a habit of equalising or scoring a couple of goals in added time … 😉 🙂
Or, indeed, their opponents in such games.
I’d also be looking at teams apparently streets ahead of other teams in their league who appear unable to score in the first half of games, but then pop 4 or 5 in after half-time.
Tif Finn says:
November 28, 2013 at 9:09 pm
Oh great. A supporter has just made a paedophile “joke” and the entire top table laughed at it.
Absolutely appalling.
__________________________________________
And the one who was guffawing most was none other than the former CEO of the SFA. The top table had the meeting recorded for posterity, hence it being on YouTube. They should have known better. Before the proceedings commenced, Gordon Smith appealed to the audience for dignity. When the child abuse remark was made from the floor Smith should have immediately interjected that “such comments have no place here or anywhere else at Rangers”.
I sincerely hope that a complaint regarding Smith’s conduct has winged its way to Pacific Quay with a copy of the recording. Surely BBC Scotland cannot now employ this individual after his behaviour this evening?
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1039)
November 28, 2013 at 8:59 pm
from the meeting tonight
IPO normally 5%……Rangers at 27%
===============
The procedure of transferring monies through the brown envelope method is far more expensive than the electronic way. People were obviously paid huge amounts of cash to convince institutional investors that it was a good idea to part with their clients funds.
I briefly watched McColl and Co earlier this evening. It was like watching a car crash.
I had hoped that these ‘Rangers Men’ would have learned something over the past 2 years but the supremacist sense of entitlement was right to the fore. And sadly. the fans who will soon be asked to put their hands in their pockets again, just tugged their forelocks as they looked on in awe at the ‘Rangersness’ on the top table.
The only positive thing that I can say about the Rebels is that they must be true fans because they certainly did not enhance their business reputations tonight. If I had any investments or business relations with these guys I would be asking serious questions about their judgement making skills.
I watched the the Rangers fans forum on youtube this evening and could sense the fans awakening fear at the plight of their company. It was interesting to hear Paul Murray state that Ibrox stadium would be put into trust so that it was no longer in danger of being sold.I wonder how it would be possible to raise money for a company that no longer had control of its assets or indeed how the current shareholders would view such an action.Paul Murray advocated a spend what we earn policy but does the fanbase appreciate what this might mean to the fayre on display? Towards the end there was the predictable fall out over the Judean Palestinians Front but perhaps more disturbingly and yet still somehow predictably the threats emerged regarding rivals and we can only be pushed so far etc.I believe that the requisitioners are more interested in rescuing The Rangers than the current board are, however it is difficult to see a credible business plan that does not involve radical cost cutting and substantial and expensive borrowing in the short to medium term.A number of years of pain ahead but if supporters are constantly briefed and honestly informed then a core of 15-20k might see them through, providing they don’t have to pay rent for their ground.
easyJambo says:
November 28, 2013 at 9:23 pm
I kept a copy
———
Nice one, EJ. 🙂
The simple fact of the OC/NC farce is that everyone involved in it has a vested interest in pretending the old club still survived .
The SFA.SPL ,Sevco 2012 ,MSM ,hell even the SFL had a vested interest when the new club was accepted into the bottom tier . You just have to look back to the reaction of the SFA when their atrocious attempt to place Sevco 2012 into the TOP tier failed .
We were treated to the Armageddon shouts and the fact that everyone needed to see the big picture and admit them into the first division before it was too late .
So forgive me for treating anything the peepil in charge facilitated and declared during this time with the distain it deserves .
With all the rule changing , breaking and re writing that went on Regan still could not state that it was the same club when asked in an interview ,instead he waffled on about it being up to the fans .
Since the myth began we have had the company not the same as the club tale ,then we had there is no such thing as a club (if we can’t have one no one can ) now we seem to have the ,club is so separate from the company that they can NEVER die ,they are immortal .
I think Benjamin Franklin once said “‘In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”, seems he was wrong ,as both don’t seem to apply to a certain football club according to some .
As for the SFA rule book giving the SFA discretion to do almost anything they want ,well IMO that is exactly what they have done ,WHAT THEY WANT and because of this they have strengthened the view of most on here that the SFA were giving preferential treatment to one member club and have followed that trend with it’s tribute act .
IMO there was a concerted campaign by peepil involved with Sevco 2012 to convince Scottish football fans that the SFA were dealing harshly with Sevco 2012 when all the evidence pointed to the exact opposite and the fact that the SFA did nothing to dispel this myth leads me to think they were willing participants in the charade .
I am convinced that Scottish football will never be the same again after what has gone on in the last 2 years ,not because Ragers died but because of the way the peepil in the corridors of power in our game dealt with it
I watched two things tonight which can only be described as car crash television.
The first one was BBC Question Time,which closely resembled a scene from The Steamie- off topic and irrelevant to TSFM.
Secondly,the Rangers fan forum,which again was of no real relevance……….to anything really.
Smugas says: (566)
November 28, 2013 at 1:52 pm
” (we lent on the basis of a one word answer in a money laundering questionaire – aye right!)”
“Especially if party A were in on it right from the start!”
—————————
Two very insightful comments for me. It conjures up the image of Russian dolls, one inside the other. Ticketus pursuit of Whyte could leave them with any potential Sevco 5088 claim over the properties.
Now where would Laxey’s fit in I wonder?
shawfieldtoteboard says: (9)
November 28, 2013 at 6:08 pm
“After all, the players are contracted to the company, are paid by the company and are insured by the company?”
——————————–
I read it like you shawfield. If the club has no legal personality then it can’t form contracts with players. Your logic that the company therefore holds title to the trophies appears the logical conclusion. I understand that the company in question is currently undergoing liquidation.
Jeezo – what does Gordon Smith bring to the table ?!
The same Gordon Smith who was a director at RFC under CEO Whyte – yet Smith claimed repeatedly after Admin. that he “knew nothing about anything” !
Nothing has changed IMO : the club / company is still going down the toilet.
From today’s online edition of the Guardian –
“The fixer caught on camera by the Telegraph’s investigation reeled off a list of countries in which he said he could influence results: “I do Australia, Scotland, Ireland, Europe, World Cup, World Cup qualifier.” Closer to home UK bookmakers earlier this year stopped taking bets on a number of non-league teams amid fears about suspicious betting patterns.”
Interesting that they mention Scotland in the first sentence, then in the second say “closer to home” in the UK. Are they assuming Scottish independence? Or perhaps just don’t even recognise Scottish football?
Watched the ‘rangers fan forum’ oh dear 😆 mr McColl began to look very uncomfortable early on and by the end had made a decision in his own head ( I maybe wrong but his body language spoke volumes ) and the paedophile ‘joke’ pretty much summed the meeting up ……. Pathetic!!
StevieBC says: (905)
November 29, 2013 at 3:11 am
6 0 Rate This
Jeezo – what does Gordon Smith bring to the table ?!
===========================================
For me he brings a reminder that the SFA, and the Scottish media can never be regarded as anything close to neutral. The fact he was welcomed back into the fold despite being part of the Whyte regime says everything. I am reading today he also laughed heartily at a sick joke about Celtic at a fans forum last night, which was broadcast on Youtube. I did not see it myself, but if he did and the media let it pass without comment, what does that say? If they are going to be outraged to the level they were about Peter Lawell’s fairly harmless Rory Bremner quote, then surely they must demand high standards from those who seek to gain power at Ibrox.
gunnerb says: (6)
November 28, 2013 at 11:22 pm
30 0 Rate This
“Towards the end there was the predictable fall out over the Judean Palestinians Front”
———-
Was that the comment about ‘our anthem(s)’ answered by Paul Murray in a stuttering kind of way? I guessed it was some kind oblique reference to certain musical renditions. If so, then I’m afraid the political banners at the Milan game played right into the hands of people like this.
Listened to all of the Fans Forum thing.
Amazing how Paul Murraty basically kept repeating what a great guy, what a superb citizen, what an independent thinker, what a true Blue Rangers man Dave King is. Baffling. Clearly Mr King does not have his troubles to seek, or indeed anywhere to hide when it comes to certain matters of reputation.
Any mildly competent individual would have course steered clear of trying to provide endorsements to Mr King. So it was no surprise that Mr Murray continues to try and pedal the myth that everything was going great when he last wore the brogues and blazer.
He really is quite a strange man.
Being as I do not wish to watch the Youtube videos, can someone transcribe what was said with regard to paedophiles, please, with an objective summary of the top-table reaction?
Or provide a time in the video where I can watch the relevant bit myself without having to sit through the rest of it?
Thanks.
Gordon Smith – does anyone know what was said about paedophiles/Celtic, at which they all laughed to basically endorse what was said?
Regarding the rest of the forum – all businessmen, who obviously are ignorant of business law.
”Charles Green bought the club” !
Administration was mentioned, but glossed over. . .Liquidation was never mentioned Once !
Ally Mccoist has been duped by Charles Green as was Walter, to sell season tickets!
We know and Ally knows his wages are a bit excessive for the division and Ally himself admits that.
Ally is a great guy, a Rangers Fan, the Club Manager and a major shareholder!
No shit, Sherlock.
One thing – they are all in denial. It is A NEW CLUB and a new Company.
They’re still in-fighting about what happened and who was to blame.
They would be better starting Rangers mark 3 and actually admitting it is A NEW CLUB.
That is the only way they will ever get to a situation where they want to be – regarding a football club and not a business.
Unbelievable denial of the Truth !!!
From the Daily Record online today, talking about Brian Stockbridge
“Brian Stockbridge in the firing line”
“he can expect a hostile reception”
“Jim McColl and his rebel group put a target on Brian Stockbridge’s back”
“And now the Rangers fans are set to take aim.”
Emotive language, and given the context of a man apparently recently under threat of actual physical harm, potentially irresponsible too. Gutter press.
Tartanwulver says: (460)
November 29, 2013 at 9:31 am
Emotive language, and given the context of a man apparently recently under threat of actual physical harm, potentially irresponsible too. Gutter press.
**********
The Daily Record was washed out of the gutter, down the stank and onwards to the Sewage Works over 10 years ago.
Castofthousands says: (19)
November 29, 2013 at 1:24 am
Smugas says: (566)
November 28, 2013 at 1:52 pm
” (we lent on the basis of a one word answer in a money laundering questionaire – aye right!)”
“Especially if party A were in on it right from the start!”
—————————
Two very insightful comments for me. It conjures up the image of Russian dolls, one inside the other. Ticketus pursuit of Whyte could leave them with any potential Sevco 5088 claim over the properties.
Now where would Laxey’s fit in I wonder?
=================
Thank you. I didn’t consider the £18m comment particularly insightful as such. Just a simple statement of fact that seems to pass the MSM by. £18m went into the hole. £18m + interest didn’t come back out despite the fact it was supposed to. And we were supposed to believe that that was OK just because it was the Rangers. The simple problem of course is that the 18m went to pay off debt, thus RFC have nothing to show for it. Begs the question what the original drawdown of the 18m from the bank went on? Its not as though Paul Murray’s excellent leadership was loss making now was it…
Laxey’s? Not sure, Debt recovery agents for Octopus would make a lot of sense.
As for last night, I am amused at the coverage this morning of the threats that the rebels have received. Ah so suddenly threats are a bad thing and worthy of coverage are they?
Angus 1983,twenty minutes into the video/part 2. It doesn’t make for pretty viewing.Predictably ugly.
I was right not to watch part two then.
From what I did see, PM was asked will his hands be tied again if voted back on, which sounds to me like some bears have him sussed. And the other one MM portrayed that he owned MUFC. JMcC said he was there to do anything that wasn’t going to cost him money. One was there cos he had a rangers room in his gaff. And another ran a business before. Smudger acted as tea boy as per. But together bring no money and nothing different than the crowd in situ.
I hope they get in.
Guys (and girls), has the appropriate paperwork been sent to the shareholders for the AGM on the 19th?