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.
Tif Finn says: (939)
December 2, 2013 at 1:47 pm
————————————————
Assuming RIFC and TRFC is a single entity and the intention is to save both, then it’s simply a case of they have run out of money and mainly owe themselves (assuming no other mug is giving them credit and they are up to date oin their leccy bill/rates/taxes)
So, admin might be a way to cut the £7m wage bill.
It might be seen as a way to properly restructure the club on a reduced cost basis.
However, if they are out of cash, new cash has to come in – so can they “write off” season tickets and force customers to pay at the gate again – and if so, would they?
Alternatively, the option is to sell off assets to raise capital – sale and leaseback?
question is who buys?
I guess that question becomes a lot easier if you treat RIFC and TRFC as seperate entities. TRFC mostly owes RIFC (£16M in last accounts?) So, RIFC might simply take the assets to settle their debts (are RIFC debts sercured on anything?) and put in place a long term lease agreement with TRFC – but then any other creditors would want their say in a CVA – so they’d want to make sure they don’t owe hector more than 25% of the debts again!
At the point of the CVA, there would be fresh capital injected to cover running costs, shares would be transferred to new owner (for how much?) and they would have to rent ibrox/MP from RIFC
The admin process may be used to breach expensive contracts, offload expensive players/staff
so, then that leaves someone shelling out to pay off the spivs to get their shares, putting in enough to grant a CVA and picking up a club with reduced cost base (no players) and an opportunity to start again – though this time, they are renting Ibrox, can’t borrow against it, can’t even have it on the books to offset any “paper” losses a shadow of a team and still £1M per month costs to run the place – with little likelihood of the fans stumping up £5M to get them to the end of the season
I honestly can’t see this as a sustainable business. Owning Ibrox and renting it back to “the club” doesn’t look like a long term income stream so the spivs will want their cash sooner rather than later.
I reckon once the well is empty they’ll sell on for a nominal amount but retain some contractual interests.
bryce9a says: (65)
December 2, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Once again you are clinging to an interpretation (your own interpretation) of a rule that does not substantiate your argument. That section you quote is not saying the club and company are separate, rather it is blocking the defence from an increased penalty in the event that new owners own ‘the same club’ ie one that came out of administration but subsequently sold on to new owners. I think it has been tried before (in England?) that a club, falling into administration for a second time (but never being liquidated) has appealed the increased penalty on the grounds that it is a different ‘company’ that has gone into administration. I think the FA response would have been along the lines of ‘no, you are the same company, with the same company number, therefore, you are the same club!’
I do see, however, it being interpreted by an expert such as Sandy Bryson along the lines of ‘as we were unaware at the time…’ in whatever way suits those in charge at Ibrox.
It would be very interesting, however, to see what penalty is imposed, and how it is accepted, should the difference between the figures represent promotion or stagnation!
Keep searching, though, Bryson, until you find that rule that categorically states that the company is separate from the club. It’s bound to be there, if it is indeed the case! It is, after all, a very important matter, ever since professional football came into existence and, after over 100 years of insolvency events amongst our clubs, if there was ever any question of the position, legal and sporting, it would surely have been cleared up long ago!
bryce9a “= oldco/newco distinction within the rules was established beyond doubt by LNS anyway”
Ooh you are a card Bryce, dangling your little worm like that, hoping to spark a feeding frenzy amongst the big fish on here.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZIqmSmCYAA3SJK.jpg:large
Tif Finn says: (939)
December 2, 2013 at 1:47 pm
I didn’t say I thought a second insolvency was inevitable, as “Not The Huddle Malcontent” bizarrely misrepresented, nor am I waiting for such an occurrence to prove anything – the status quo regarding my club’s official status suits me down to the ground as it is.
Should such an event happen, the mechanisms are in place for the club’s survival under a new “owner and operator” as the rules describe, and the same could be said of any club that might enter administration. Examples of multiple-newco-ing of continuing football clubs exist in England – Portsmouth & Palace have had 4 different corporate incarnations each. The precedent has been set here, which of course includes being drop-kicked down into the 4th tier, making such an occurrence something to be avoided at all costs for anyone having the club at heart.
The problem for Rangers is the continuing fears that the club is being held hostage by spivs and chancers who couldn’t care less, and until that situation is remedied beyond doubt, the future is not ours to see, so to speak. The fans however – united by calls for current spivs like Stockbridge to be rooted out – are showing abundant evidence of not allowing themselves to be hood-winked again, and that can only be a good thing going forward.
bryce9a says: (65)
December 2, 2013 at 12:18 pm
4 26 Rate This
Although it is an anathema to the majority of posters here, the fact is that the SPFL rules distinguish between the the football club (ie. Rangers Football Club) and the company (owner & operator) that is the legal representative of that club (TRFC Ltd).
==========================
Strange that we can find no official entity, company or otherwise, currently called “Rangers Football Club”.
There is a holding company called, “Rangers International Football Club PLC” which is the holding group for a company called “The Rangers Football Club Ltd”.
The rules concerning reuse of a company name are quite strict and I would hope that at the time of the asset purchase from RFC (IL), the purchaser acted correctly according to Rules 4.228/29/30 of the Insolvency Act…
What shift are you working today Bryce?
Job done Campbell.
Scottish Cup fifth-round draw
Alloa Athletic v Dumbarton
Clyde or Stranraer v Inverness Caledonian Thistle
Hibernian v Raith Rovers
Albion Rovers v Stenhousemuir
Brechin City or Forfar Athletic v St Johnstone
Celtic v Aberdeen
Dundee United v Queen of the South or St Mirren
Rangers v Ayr United or Dunfermline Athletic
Para Handy says: (17)
December 2, 2013 at 2:09 pm
Strange that we can find no official entity, company or otherwise, currently called “Rangers Football Club”.
I take it from that you haven’t checked the SFA’s ‘Club Directory’ document, listed among the offical publications for 2013-14, where the details, including name, of their affiliated football clubs are listed.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2013-14/Club%20Directory.pdf
For your information, “Rangers F.C.” is the entity listed.
There are no signs of any other club names being foreshortened, such Inverness Caledonian Thistle F.C or Heart of Midlothian F.C, in case that is your explanation of the entity being called within the list, solely, “Rangers F.C”.
jockybhoy says: (280)
December 2, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Just stuck this on the LSE site (yeah I know, not that LSE site….) regarding the whole selling off assets thing. My question may have been answered already, in which case can someone point me back to it? What I am trying to establish is “Was what was said at the “FANS MEETING” even possible? Let alone plausible?
Did I not read that one of the groups vying for control was talking about putting Ibrox and Murray (?) Park beyond the reach of asset strippers, presumably by putting them in trust of some sort. With independent trustees.
I am an investor and general “on-shore” kind of guy but would that even be possible? After all, you aren’t selling the assets, but equally you are moving them off-balance sheet and that would of course affect the price of the company…
========================================================================
RIFC can decide where to place the assets at any time. They wholly own TRFC (unless CW has something up his sleeve) where the assets were last reported to sit.
A number of us have speculated that RIFC might transfer the assets to themselves in lieu of outstanding debt. The asset revaluation in the annual accounts – with a suggestion that there was scope for a similar event taking place next year – surprised me as I felt the transfer would take place before such a revaluation.
In any event a transfer could take place at any time either to RIFC or some other entity. As you rightly say there would likely be a detrimental impact on the value of RIFC if the assets were placed in a position from which they could not be sold.
How would institutional shareholders view such a diminished value for their shareholding? Probably not happily.
Using the transferred assets as collateral for borrowings would also place them in jeopardy if the loans were not repaid so one would expect that option to not be allowed either.
It all sounds like bluster aimed at the hard of thinking.
Scottish Football needs a strong Hearts.
manandboy@ 8:07
What did the thermal camera show?(apart from Ogilvie’s riddy)
Cheers RedLicthie.
How would institutional shareholders view such a diminished value for their shareholding? Probably not happily
Rightso, and ultimately most or the shares in RIFC are in the hands of the insti investors. They aren’t going to do anything that adversely affects the shareprice or the ability of thre company (RIFC who wholly own TRFC), so this is basically the biggest bunch of wind and orang-utan pish to hit anyone’s face since the ship sinking scene in the “Life of Pi”.
Got it.
In seperate news I have had a couple of my colleagues down here in Angleterre saying “you must be so pleased with the 7-0 shellackng of Hearts” – I lived most of the Scottish part of my life and have a lot of Hearts-supporting mates and I agreed with what another Celtic fan posted when I told them “it’s a crying shame that the financial mismanagement, which goes even further back than Vlad the ex-sailor, brought what should be one of the powerhouses of Scottish football to its knees. We ran riot, sure, but against a bunch of kids.”
Scottish football needs a strong Scottish football (c. acknowledged)
OK here’s the real challenge.
Assuming Stockbridge is thrown off the board.
Assuming the current shareholders decide to say nothing and just let the new board do whatever it wants.
Assuming some or all of the requisitioners are elected.
I think that is a best case scenario for the rebels.
What do they do to turn the business around. What changes to make the business a break even concern. How are the £14m losses (over a 13 month period) cancelled out.
That’s the thing that they didn’t answer at the “forum” in spite of being asked it directly. It’s the thing which none of the fans seem to want to face up to. Nebulous phrases like “better corporate governance” are bandied about. However no-one seems to have an actual plan.
Of course one of the problems with having a self confessed highly conflicted office bearer in an organisation is the resultant lack of trust in their abilities to carry out their functions without fear or favour.
In the case of today’s cup draw and the choice of semi final venues so far in advance than in previous years, this lack of trust is again centre stage.
Did i miss the announcement from the SFA that the president is no longer highly conflicted? ( or why this might now be the case)
Why such a continuing national disgrace is still countenanced is beyond me. The Scunner Campbell must go. Until then, and until the whole of the SFA clean house, we cannot move on, and every act or decision will be regarded as highly suspect.
Scunnered.
bryce9a says: (67)
December 2, 2013 at 2:06 pm
The precedent has been set here, which of course includes being drop-kicked down into the 4th tier
————————————-
Can you explain the exact mechanisms, rules, regulations or penalties that led to Rangers being drop-kicked to the 4th tier?
bryce9a says: (67)
December 2, 2013 at 2:24 pm
And which one of TRFC’s supporters in office at Hampden arranged for that entry? Do you honestly think that there’s anyone left on here thinks that the cheating, the lies, the deceptions, on behalf of your club, have finished?
I’ve asked you before! Do you honestly think, for one minute, that if Charles Green, or anyone else at TRFC, genuinely believed that TRFC and RFC were one and the same club, that they would have accepted, so meekly, their expulsion from the SPL, withholding of prize money, de-seeding in the Scottish Cup etc when they so readily went to the Court of Session (and won) over something much less catastrophic? If they are the same club that won all those cups and league titles then there is no way anyone could have legally denied them these things they had won the right to. On what grounds, other than liquidation, were these things denied to Rangers (or TRFC)? Remember, Rangers were not relegated, they were kicked out. How could that happen to a member club without an enquiry, even bigger and more far reaching than LNS? What you now consider to be Rangers would not now be in the league if they hadn’t been voted in, under much duress, by the clubs in the SFL. Despite all their misdemeanours, do you think that, had Rangers achieved a CVA, and so, beyond doubt remained the same club, they would have had to suffer expulsion from the league? In fact, I may be wrong there. Maybe it’s the case that they weren’t expelled, as I don’t remember such an announcement. If I’m right on that, then it must have been the case that they just disappeared from the league, were no longer there. Puff, gone! The ‘club’ Charles Green started had no legal basis to claim RFC’s membership, license, prize money, league position, and no right to claim the titles. Forget digging up rules that a friendly interpretation might twist to suit your claims, try looking at what we know happened. Try finding an explanation as to why, or how, it came about that a member club could, without some sort of tribunal, disappear from the whole of the Scottish League, without having a strong case for an automatic return to it’s positioned gained on the field of play.
Finloch 2.16pm
What shift’s are you working today Bryce.
Fixed that for you
bryce9a says: (67)
December 2, 2013 at 2:24 pm
http://www.rangers.co.uk/club/information/contact-us
bryce9a says: (67) December 2, 2013 at 12:18 pm
…… (although the club = Rangers, company = oldco/newco distinction within the rules was established beyond doubt by LNS anyway)
——————————————-
The LNS “Reasons” decision was published in September 2012, while the 5-way agreement was signed in July, therefore a number of positions within the football authorities had already been established, without input from LNS.
In true “Yes Minister” fashion, you do not commission an inquiry (independent or otherwise) without having a view as to acceptable outcomes. For the SFA and SPL, it is inconceivable that LNS would question the status of old/new Club v Company set out by them in the 5-way agreement. I therefore believe that LNS was briefed accordingly and an acceptable outcome managed as a result.
There is an oft misquoted statement that LNS determined “that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.” He didn’t.
He said that the SPL defined a “club” in two different ways in their rules (Article 2, and Rule 11) He then states “Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated”. So it was the SPL and its members who made the determination, and not LNS himself. LNS then took the SPL’s ambiguous definitions of a club and proceeded to justify one of those definitions that the “club” could be separate.
This all goes back to my early point about LNS having been briefed and would not question the SPL’s position set out in the 5-way agreement a couple of months earlier.
Allyjambo and Madbhoy,
Here is my interpretation of the timeline…
A football club can only compete in football competitions by holding a membership of the particular leagues/associations. That contract is, where a club is incorporated, registered to the company which legally represents the club and assumes all liabilities on its behalf.
The liquidation of that company, and the resulting sale of the assets comprising the football club to a newco, required the authorities to sanction admittance of that new company operating Rangers FC into their associations.
Following a vote of its members, the SPL chose not to sanction this. The SFA board did. Following a vote of its members, the SFL did admit Rangers to their league, albeit at the lowest level.
That’s it. None of the above seems at all controversial, far-fetched in light of the many other instances of clubs transitioning between corporate entities, as Hearts did in 1905 when they already had 3 Scottish Cups and 2 League Championships to their name (honours their supporters would never dream of claiming of course!)
Essentially in that view (adopted by Jambos still claiming the 1874 founding date despite their oldco liquidation, and anyone else who thinks club’s like Leeds/Palace/Portsmouth today were indeed in existence 5-10 years ago) the definition of a football club is not restricted to X particular legal entity, but comprises the people/emblems/property owned and operated by such legal entity, no less the team running out on the pitch winning the trophies, making the tackles, scoring the goals, that is called…. X Football Club.
“Rangers Football Club” in my case, as the SFA’s Club Directory shows.
I can’t believe the poor TRFC fans can’t even call them without paying extra! (Okay I can and other clubs probably do similar) For any looking in though
Rangers FC
0871 702 1972
0141 580 8500
Rangers FC
0871 702 1972
0141 580 8819
COMMUNITY football coaching
Ticket Office
0871 702 1972
0141 580 8501
It has to be borne in mind that the SFL and the SPL were different leagues at that time.
The only way an SPL team could join the SFL was by relegation from the SPL to the SFL1.
There was no mechanism by which a team could be “relegated” from the SPL to SFL3.
There were only two ways into SFL3, relegation from SFL2, or an application to join the SFL.
They applied to join it, and were voted in by the members of that league. The SPL members had already rejected their application to join that league.
Stories of Rangers being “relegated” to SFL3, or “demoted” to SFL3 are simply wrong. It’s not just a case of it not happening, it couldn’t have happened. They applied to join the SFL, relegated clubs don’t apply to join a new league/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18707522
bryce9a says: (67)
December 2, 2013 at 2:24 pm
0 4 Rate This
Para Handy says: (17)
December 2, 2013 at 2:09 pm
Strange that we can find no official entity, company or otherwise, currently called “Rangers Football Club”.
I take it from that you haven’t checked the SFA’s ‘Club Directory’ document, listed among the offical publications for 2013-14, where the details, including name, of their affiliated football clubs are listed.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2013-14/Club%20Directory.pdf
==========================
Apologies, I was lax in my terminology. I should of course have used the word “legal” rather than “official” as there are many kinds of “official”.
I checked the SFA listings and you are correct, the football team playing at Ibrox is listed without a “the”. I also looked on the ECA and UEFA sites and they both seem a little confused with their club rankings as, although they have a Club called “Rangers FC” listed, it would appear to have lost the coefficient points gained from its recent European success as of season 2011/12!
I will leave it to you, as the champion of the TRFC = RFC association, to point out to UEFA that the stripping of such things as being Cup runners up is against all precedent and must be corrected to accurately reflect the history of “Rangers Football Club”.
Carefull Bryce
You are teetering on the brink,deep breaths now ,slow,slow deep breaths .
ps guys I might be wrong but was there not a more significant phone number in the past to call .
Leeds, Crystal Palace and Portsmouth all had their fair share of financial troubles but none of them were ever liquidated.
bryce9a says: (67) December 2, 2013 at 12:18 pm
…… (although the club = Rangers, company = oldco/newco distinction within the rules was established beyond doubt by LNS anyway)
Scottish Football has allowed oldco/newco to carry on regardless, not only for economic reasons, note Regan’s words in July 2012
“I think if you look at the huge fan base Rangers have in this country, to contemplate a situation where those fans don’t have a team to support, where those fans are effectively left without a game to follow – I just think that could lead to all sorts of issues and all sorts of problems for the game. Tribalism in football is really important, a part of the game.
“People follow their club with pride. It’s passed down from generation to generation and there are thousands of Rangers fans whose fathers have been Rangers fans and whose grandfathers have been Rangers fans.
“You can’t contemplate a situation without that and if Rangers weren’t to exist I think that could have real dire consequences.”
Regan, who had earlier addressed the SPL clubs after their historic decision, went on: “There’s really only one decision for the game now – that Rangers come into football in the first division.
As for the same club brigade, the SFA have advised that Rangers applied for the transfer of the SFA membership held by Rangers. Why was this required?
bobferris,
Yes they were – all underwent asset transfers to newcos, leaving a trail of dissolved companies (leeds oldco is still officially “in liquidation”) behind them. I know, because I’ve researched them myself. Indeed, Pompey/Palace have together spanned 8 different legal entities in the last 30 years between them.
The fact so many, like yourself, are blissfully unaware of this shows how absurd it is to claim (in any instance outside of this saga) one defines football club’s according to their particular legal form.
Does it happen in any other sport? “I define X Rugby Club by their legal entity”. “I define X County Cricket Club by their legal entity”. A bizarre notion to me.
bryce9a says: (69)
December 2, 2013 at 4:55 pm
———-
Could you give the dates for the liquidation of (i) Portsmouth and (b) Crystal Palace.
You’ve done the research better than I, obviously.
Just the dates, that’s all.
bryce9a says;
“Following a vote of its members, the SPL chose not to sanction this.”
Can you explain why when Charles Green’s “Sevco” club applied to join the SPL, the soon to be dead RFC club had a vote on their acceptance. Votes 10 against, 1 for (Rangers) and 1 abstention (Kilmarnock). Further proof positive that they were and are two separate clubs!
If I remember correctly HMRC contested Portsmouth’s CVA, and the matter went to Court. Portsmouth’s administrators won and the CVA was allowed.
The club was eventually sold, to a supporters trust.
It’s not dissimilar to what the Hearts supporters are trying to do if I understand it correctly.
Co-incidentally I believe BDO were the administrators and Bryan Jackson was part of that team.
Hearts fans can maybe take … heart … from the story.
Bryce, as you said
The liquidation of that company, and the resulting sale of the assets comprising the football club to a newco, required the authorities to sanction admittance of that new company operating Rangers FC into their associations.
They don’t admit companies into their association, they admit clubs.
A brand new club applied and was admitted.
You know that though.
Bryce, you are out of your depth with the erudite, honest and dignified posters on here.
What does this headline from The Telegraph actually mean? Saved from liquidation, therefore 105-year-old club saved from going out of business ?
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/jun/01/crystal-palace-saved-liquidation-cpfc-2010
Off topic, I know.
Just been listening to the news.
It would appear that Amazon have just developed the first drone squirrel.
Despite the required suspension of disbelief, intellect and reality to enable Bryce to be plausible, I have to admit that he is playing a stalwart role for the OC tendency, he deserves some credit for his tenacity and creativity. It is however, even if the arguments were not easily shot down, still sophistry.
I think it is one thing to say that the SFA have tacitly – although never explicitly – accepted TRFC’s OC status. It is quite another to have us accept that the ridiculous contortions enacted to arrive at this situation were routine.
Had that been the case, there would undoubtedly still be a Third Lanark, a St Bernard’s and a host of others playing in Scottish football. The fact is that no matter which side of the argument you find yourself on, TRFC (formerly Sevco Scotland) have been treated in a different manner than another club whose fate (that of liquidation) they shared, Gretna. Gretna are now defunct, although a new club (Gretna 2008) play in the EoS League.
The differential treatment has been brought about simply because of the fear that tens of thousands of paying customers would be lost to the game. The irony is that any significant benefit that derives from those customers goes to TRFC and there is no significant benefit to any other club in the country, no trickle down enrichment of the hoi polloi .
I have never been big on the question of OCNC. It doesn’t really matter a great deal to me in the grand scheme. I agree 100% with Barcabhoy’s notion that the emotional identity is of a club is key. But I am really pissed off that there are people on this planet, gifted with cognitive skills barely above that of a carpet tick, who expect me to belittle my own intelligence, abandon the bleedin obvious and nod my head whenever the “New Club” mantra is intoned.
Why not just say, “We know it’s a new club, but we want the Rangers fans to be happier than the Gretna fans and the Third Lanark fans – because there are exponentially more of them. For that reason, we have decided to award TRFC with all of Rangers history”? At least it’s honest, and I wouldn’t feel quite as if someone had been sucking the IQ out of my head through my ears.
And here is the crucial point. It is not about their status s a new club or old club. It is about the new club’s ability to claim the honours of the old. If the 54 titles were not on the table, this would not be a conversation today. The real problem is in how the new club brands itself. The notion that it has not won as many league titles as Dundee United or Aberdeen is simply not acceptable to fans of Rangers. However having no titles is the inevitable consequence of mismanagement of finances by individuals which is borne by blameless fans – much in the same way as Georgios Samaras’s mismanagement of a penalty kick two years ago resulted in consequences (deep despair and anguish) borne by a completely innocent yours truly when RFC won the league. Shit happens – and in football the fans live either in ecstasy or agony, but vicariously, as the actions of others dictate.
There is of course another – and even more satisfactory answer. Why not say, “we will award TRFC, the history of RFC when they have paid off the debts of RFC as TRFC have agreed”?
Now that would be dignity. That would be class. I for one would applaud it.
It is however the least likely thing, ever, to happen in human history.
I do not accept that the Scottish Football authorities have accepted Rangers as the same club, tacitly or otherwise. In fact quite the reverse, by their action they have acknowledged that it is a new club.
By the transfer of the membership, by the application for a place in the SFL, by them competing in the early stages of both cup competitions, in spite of the old club being second in the SPL the previous season.
Everything I have seen from the Scottish footballing authorities has confirmed that it is a new club, they even had a “conditional” membership of the SFA originally. Why would they need that if they were still the same club. Why did any of these things happen if it was the same club.
I agree with people who say that if the fans want to say it is the same club in their hearts and emotionally, fair enough, it is fine, carry on. However don’t try to convince me that it’s the same club. It isn’t, not legally and not in football terms.
CO has came out today and spoke about the most important issue in Scottish football.
No more flares at football.
Thanks Campbell you really are a president that deals with important issues.
Oh by the way Campbell did you get to read the banner the dons fans displayed at Hampden. If so what does it mean.
Just a wee update on the Dons flag yesterday. I believe they unfurled it for a while at half time and then it was confiscated by the Stewards.
On another note, Bryce, please change the record, getting very very boring.
Please do not interact folk.
bryce9a says: (70)
December 2, 2013 at 4:08 pm
Bryce,
That reference to Hearts liquidation in 1905, is news to me, can you elaborate?
Your first paragraph is correct, a football club can indeed only compete in competitions if it holds membership of a league/association. That’s it, ‘The Club’. If a ‘Club’ holds that membership it can’t, one would suspect, just lose it without either being voted off for some major misdemeanour (we all know that should have happened but for something else) or leaves of it’s own volition or it ceases to exist. You like looking up the rules, can you find the one that allows either footballing body to expel a member club without due cause and investigation, or one that says if it fails to achieve a CVA it has to be voted back into the league?
You see, I think the reason there is no definitive rule covering insolvency within the footballing rules is that, until now, it was consider adequate to accept the law of the land’s definition, which is that the club and company are one and the same. Any deviation from that within the SFA, and SPL, rules would have had to be totally unambiguous and not open to/requiring interpretation.
Others, far more able than I, have covered the legal argument, and the football authorities own rules, and I know you are not going to accept anything other than your own interpretation. As I have said to others before, my club is not out of the woods yet, and I’d welcome any convincing argument that would convince me, at least, that the club lives on should the company die. I’m afraid many have tried, and sadly failed, most putting up a more convincing argument than you. So let’s try again with my question, based not on legal argument, but one of common sense and how people react when they know they are right.
It was Charles Green who stated that his Rangers were one and the same as Rangers Football Club. In a blink of an eye he’d convinced many, of a succulent lamb conviction, that this was the case and in an indecent haste they moved from their previous, law of the land, version of dead, nada, no more! Charles Green must have truly believed it himself to have convinced so many, so soon, one would think. With a spectacular victory in court already over the SFA one would have expected such a belligerent man to head hotfoot back to the courts with his cast iron case of ‘We are the same club. We’ve been denied what is rightfully ours. There is no rule in the SFA/SPL rule book that says ‘The Club’ must reapply for membership of either body just because it failed to get a CVA. ‘The Club’ not the company, finished in second place and earned prize money which has been denied to us…’ I think Green’s problem was that he would have to prove in court that Rangers had not died, and that the assets he’d bought constituted ‘The Club’. He knew he’d fail. In the end he’d no choice but to accept the 5 way agreement, probably threatening to close down Rangers if he didn’t get some of his way, at least. The SFA/SPL would have pointed out that they couldn’t categorically state they were the same club as someone would mount a challenge that would blow the idea to smithereens, and so the ongoing fudge ensued.
Bryce, why, if they were one and the same club, did Charles Green accept this disastrous situation? Why did he not take, or at least threaten to take, the SFA/SPL back to court?
Please don’t make Bryce go away.
I’m an Albion Rovers fan, and the main show at the weekend was spectacular.
But I’m lovin’ the support act 🙂
Try Again says: (1)
December 2, 2013 at 6:32 pm
Absolutely loved the show at the weekend also. 😉
The support act is jaded and paided 😀
@ bryce9a
======================
I have resisted getting involved with you a great deal and left it to others, but I find your sustained contempt for the UK public purse and the principles of sporting fair play too appalling to ignore any longer.
It appears you are of the view that a particular football club can have any amount of insolvency events, leaving the public purse and other out of pocket by tens of millions, yet still retain the right to all the good parts of its history. What’s more, you seem to believe there is no shame in that, and the right to feel superior over every other football club remains.
I assume you are a taxpayer. I also assume you are a football fan. Payment of taxes in full and on time underpins our democratic society. Winning on the park by using the money that should have gone on taxes, and instead spending it on players wages, undermines the principles of sporting fair play. Where would it leave society if every football club behaved the same way as Rangers did?
Allyjambo says: (687) December 2, 2013 at 6:29 pm
Bryce,
That reference to Hearts liquidation in 1905, is news to me, can you elaborate?
—————————————————————
It’s on the Hearts website in their history pages
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20070416/1904-1914_2241543_1011739
upthehoops says: (691)
December 2, 2013 at 6:46 pm
I assume you are a taxpayer. I also assume you are a football fan. Payment of taxes in full and on time underpins our democratic society. Winning on the park by using the money that should have gone on taxes, and instead spending it on players wages, undermines the principles of sporting fair play. Where would it leave society if every football club behaved the same way as Rangers did?
_____________________________________________________________________________
Couldn’t agree more, however we are all taxpayers and what troubles me even more, yes, more than RFCs refusal to pay their dues, is that the Scottish football establishment has effectively devised a way for football clubs to circumvent the law of the land and write what is in effect a charter for tax evasion.
“Can’t pay your tax? Don’t fret! Just apply a coat of our adhesive ‘SaimKlub'” “And even better, it’s FREE, because everyone else is paying during our introductory special offer phase”.
Why does every other club in the country sanction that? It may be RFC who were the tax dodgers, but it’s the whole of Scottish football that is enabling it. Scottish football is in effect, the Baxendale-Walker of the Association Football World, because it has put in place a scheme whereby debts can be shed and taxes evaded and avoided, no matter what the creditors say.
That is criminal in my book. They are super-tainted, corporate cheats. No matter how many of them will speak to their own financial prudence and fastidiousness, they created a fraudster’s haven. Our own wee BVH – right here in the south side of Glasgow.
If Rory Bremner happened to play the part of Charlie Chaplin in a movie ………….Would that mean Chaplin is still alive?
………………. Of course it wouldn’t. Chaplin is dead. ……..Bremner is merely an impersonator. …..
……………………..He is much better at doing ex-Football clubs.
Maybe Bryce missed my other post from last week as he only is able to read/answer this blog during his lunchtime….
From the 5 way agreement – note the company nos – please check especially the 4th one with the RFC Shares no that RFC-NIL shareholders had in the club, check it with Rangers AGM releases prior to 2011 when SDM was there and never claimed to be a “owner of a holding company that ran a club” and moreover compare it with D&P statement regarding who were parties to the folks who bought debentures in the “club” to assist the “club” to build the new stand etc. My friends who had 4 debentures and have lost them never would have bough them from MIH – only the club.
Check the 5th one with the IPO statement.
Note that no 4 played in SPL – and as Charlie admitted no 5 had never ever played there – and never would while he was in charge (one of the few things he got right!)
Also -if its the same club why is it not 4 way agreement?
Lastly – why is this so important for you to spend all your lunchtimes arguing its the same NC/OC when everything in your body and brain must be telling you its not?
AGREEMENT AMONG:
(1) THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION LIMITED, a company incorporated in
Scotland (registered number SC005453) whose registered office is at Hampden Park,
Glasgow G42 9AY (the “SFA”);
(2) THE SCOTTISH PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED, a company incorporated in Scotland
(registered number SC175364) whose registered office is at Hampden Park, Glasgow
G42 9AY (the “SPL”);
(2) THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL LEAGUE, an unincorporated association acting through its
Board having its principal place of business at Hampden Park, Glasgow G42 9EB (the
“SFL”);
(4) THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC (IN ADMINISTRATION), a company
incorporated in Scotland (registered number SC004276) whose registered office is at
Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow G51 2XD (“RFC”), acting through the Joint
Administrators (defined below); and
(5) SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED, a company incorporated in Scotland (registered number
SC425159) whose registered office is at Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow
G51 2XD (“Sevco”).
easyJambo says: (596)
December 2, 2013 at 6:58 pm
I never knew that, easy. It is, however, quite different from the Rangers scenario in that it was a voluntary winding up of the company, with debts of £1,400 (sorry, can’t copy the text from the Hearts site). The new company cleared the debts of the old, which had by then risen to £1,600 (which might suggest it had continued to trade?). There is no elaboration of how the transfer was executed from company to company and why the new company wasn’t formed before purchasing the assets (perhaps it was), clearing the old company’s debts.
It would appear that Bryce is prepared to leave no stone unturned in his quest to pull as many clubs into the Rangers’ mire as possible. Kind of research one might expect from a unit inside a PR company, perhaps?
So following bryce’s logic to its conclusion, had I purchased the assets of RFC (IL), i would also be the owner of the ethereal , immortal club
Now had I decided that I wasn’t interested in football, I could have let the “club” lie dormant, doing nothing, and nobody else could have started a club and claimed it was the same as the real one which I actually owned, as I had bought the assets
Crazy, I tell you, crazy
easyJambo says: (596)
December 2, 2013 at 6:58 pm
Allyjambo says: (687) December 2, 2013 at 6:29 pm
Bryce,
That reference to Hearts liquidation in 1905, is news to me, can you elaborate?
—————————————————————
It’s on the Hearts website in their history pages
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20070416/1904-1914_2241543_1011739
________________________________
I note that the Hearts new co cleared the old co’s debt. That’ll never catch on.
What a state our sport has come to.
Hearts, a club (yes club) financially shredded by an unscrupulous owner, left to play a bunch of boys who should have been allowed to develop in good time in a cup tie against more experienced opposition.
I remember the days of the mid eighties where they took fans all over Scotland in their quest for a double. They ultimately fell short in both attempts but the crowds were a testament to how big a support they could muster when challenging for honours.
That foreign owners are allowed to essentially destroy clubs for an ego trip or on a whim is an indictment on those who have mismanaged our sport for quarter of a century. That’s twenty five years or in other words the same amount of time RFC spent everyone else’s money.
The fact that these owners have no affinity to the clubs they buy, or possibly the sport they play, make little impact on the sports governors.
Now not every club has had foreign owners. John Boyle had a particularly bad first spell in charge at Motherwell and indeed David Murray took RFC to the brink before passing the baton to Craigy boy to finish off.
Having watched teams being diminished you would think the powers that be would grasp the nettle and drive forward financial proposals to safe guard our sport for the benefit of all.
Not a bit of it.
Flares are now the great menace to our sport. Little do these clowns know that if they don’t deal with the harsh business realities facing our sport the flares, lit within grounds, will be for the traditional distress signal to save our clubs.
Campbell for the good of our sport go. Do not wait until your tenure is up and Scottish football pass you on to UEFA where you can wreak more havoc. The Aberdeen fans should be applauded loud and long throughout the land for the banner displayed yesterday. The nail was firmly hit on the head. Well done guys.
Reilly1926 says: (198)
December 2, 2013 at 7:23 pm
________________________________________
You beat me to it! 😆
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20070416/1904-1914_2241543_1011739
‘On 29 April 1905, the present company was incorporated on the Register of Companies and the new concern picked up the debt which had increased to £1,600. Despite a problem selling all the new shares it cleared this debt within a reasonably short time’
New club? You have no right to ANY history,titles,stars on shirts etc etc.
Old club? Pay the debts you accrued.
It should be remembered that in not paying your taxes,you deprived the public purse of finances which should have gone to such trivialities as Health,Police,Social Work,etc.Sadly,as we have seen over the last few days,services such as these had to be deployed in no small measure as a result of the tragedy which occurred in Glasgow over the weekend. What if no one paid their dues?
Bryce
Can you show us a categorical statement from SFA where they confirm current RFC is exact same club as the one pre-liquidation.
I think you may find they are unable to do that for fear of any potential claims creditors of RFC 2012plc may make.
Exiled Celt says: (828)
December 2, 2013 at 7:08 pm
Lastly – why is this so important for you to spend all your lunchtimes arguing its the same NC/OC when everything in your body and brain must be telling you its not?
————————————————
Look, if your boss asks you to complete a task, even though you may or may not agree with the principal, logic or content, as long as it’s not illegal then like most of us, you just do it.
Bet you would love to know who that employer is eh?
Madbhoy24941 says: (323)
December 2, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Exiled Celt says: (828)
December 2, 2013 at 7:08 pm
Lastly – why is this so important for you to spend all your lunchtimes arguing its the same NC/OC when everything in your body and brain must be telling you its not?
————————————————
Look, if your boss asks you to complete a task, even though you may or may not agree with the principal, logic or content, as long as it’s not illegal then like most of us, you just do it.
Bet you would love to know who that employer is eh?
——————————————
Aye, but is it right he makes him work through his lunchtime, though?
With the new club / old club argument still raging it now seems to be the chain of thought that the club actually owns nothing, has no assets and pays no bills.
That is a strange belief.
Who did the players belong to that walked away?
They were registered to play for their club so who was their employer. That is the rules, I know I know, otherwise players could move freely week to week constantly changing clubs left, right and centre.
There also seems to be another belief that a club, who doesn’t employ anyone, can win trophies. How does it manage to do this. Is there a team of Caspar ghosts floating about putting the ball in the net. Nope can’t be that either because even ghosts would still have to be registered to play football. What a truly ridiculous notion.
Finally some fans seem to claim that Fergus McCann transferred the assets of Celtic to another company prior to that company floating and that therefore Celtic’s history stopped in 1994. Well if that is true then essentially every time a club changes hands its history ends. That means that when David Murray bought RFC and transferred the assets under the Murray sport group then RFC’s history ended. When David Murray sold to Craig Whyte and he transferred the assets into Wavetower, WHICH ACTUALL WAS THE HOLDING COMPANY, RFC’s history ended again. Oh and by the way Wavetower subsequently changed it’s name to The Rangers Football Group and never went into liquidation so the holding company myth is exactly that…………………….. a myth.
No the fact that a club must have employees registered to play football, and that those players had an option to TUPE over tells you all you need to know. That law exists to protect employees when companies go belly up to protect their rights as workers and they have the right to reject a transfer as some actually did.
The joke used to made on this site that ‘The Rangers’ fans were the flat earth society but the joke really is beginning to wear extremely thin now. See the light and come into reality it honestly isn’t as bad as you fear and as one wise man once said ‘You have nothing to fear but fear itself’.
If that is your fear you must be truly terrified.
justshatered says: (264)
December 2, 2013 at 7:56 pm
Also throws up the question of 3rd part ownership
That won’t matter though, as the authorities didn’t know at the time
paulonotini says: (40)
December 2, 2013 at 7:40 pm
6 0 Rate This
Bryce
Can you show us a categorical statement from SFA where they confirm current RFC is exact same club as the one pre-liquidation.
I think you may find they are unable to do that for fear of any potential claims creditors of RFC 2012plc may make.
…………………………………………………..
Since when did the SFA become the Scottish legal system?
Bryce, I don’t know where you did your research but Palace and Portsmouth have never, that’s never, been liquidated. Leeds came closest, being sold to Gerard Krasner and Ken Bates (twice). I confess I don’t know all the ins and outs of that one but given the attention I pay to English football and the regularity with which I watch SSN, I think I would remember a “Leeds United have been liquidated” story. This article explains it rather well though, if you want to believe a Celtic site, Bryce.
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=8535
On our game yesterday.
Guidi “I turned it off after 10 minutes”
Delahunt “I made it to about an hour”.
Good to see the professional pundits gearing up well for their jobs tonight. how much hurt can these idiots feel.
There are two species of squirrel found the UK namely the red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris and the grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis. The two species do not hibernate rather during milder winter they become fairly active just after dawn and return to their dreys by mid-morning.
Winter is usually a time of plenty, providing there has been a good autumn nut crop, although squirrels may succumb to bad weather.
During winter, squirrels retreat to their nests to conserve body heat and are thus not that easy to spot. In terms of appearance there is no major difference between males and females save for the sex organs.
http://uk.ask.com/question/when-do-squirrels-hibernate
Dash and blast this mild weather!!
As a footnote, I would like to point out that RFC(IL) & Leeds Utd / Coventry City / Portsmouth et al are incomparable. They are governed by different assosciations and, as such, are subject to different rules / laws (stop sniggering). Would a Sherrif accept legal precedent from outwith his judiciary?
It looks like even top lawyers have been frightened off talking about the OCNC,below is a twitter convo between Gregory Ioannidis and some of his followers,scary stuff
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
the bigman @brians1888 3h
@LawTop20 @Pmacgiollabhain even the press are scared goes to show sending bullets and bomb threats works pic.twitter.com/uE0WOtja5E
Reply Retweet Favorite More View photo
The Clumpany @TheClumpany 3h
@brians1888 @Pmacgiollabhain @LawTop20 https://twitter.com/theclumpany/status/407533748616695808 …
Reply Retweet Favorite More Expand
jon ross @jonross1987S 3h
@theclumpany @brians1888 @lawtop20 @pmacgiollabhain Don’t forget Mr Gregory himself has had a warning to lay off from someone highly placed
Reply Retweet Favorite More Expand
Steven @StevenOliver74 3h
@jonross1987S @LawTop20 @Pmacgiollabhain @TheClumpany @brians1888 is this true Gregory?
Reply Retweet Favorite More Expand
Gregory Ioannidis @LawTop20 3h
@StevenOliver74 @jonross1987S @Pmacgiollabhain @TheClumpany @brians1888 I am afraid so. More than once
Reply Retweet Favorite More Expand
The Clumpany @TheClumpany 3h
@LawTop20 @StevenOliver74 @jonross1987S @Pmacgiollabhain @brians1888 Well fair play to you Sir for sticking at it!
Retweeted by Gregory Ioannidis
Hide conversation Reply Retweet Favorite More
2
RETWEETS
2
FAVORITES Free our fansjon rossGregory IoannidisSusan (T) Burke*
4:58 PM – 2 Dec 13 · Details
Tweet text
Reply to @TheClumpany @LawTop20 @StevenOliver74 @jonross1987S @Pmacgiollabhain @brians1888
Dismiss Image will appear as a link
View more in conversation →
As a very infrequent poster, but an avid reader of the blog, it saddens me greatly to see the enormous amounts of time and energy being wasted replying to bryce9a. I understand that the blog is here for all, and alternate viewpoints are to be welcomed, but….
At what point do people realise that bryce9a can’t hear the truth because he refuses to hear the truth?
Imo bryce9a has his mind firmly made up that sevco is rangers regardless of facts or company law. He answers only the questions that he can comfortably twist to his alice in wonderland agenda, and ignores the rest. He is here to derail the blog as far as I can see.
Maybe those more intelligent than myself have a purpose in engaging with him, but for the life of me I can’t fathom it 😐
Beginning to think Bryce is Doncaster.
Bryce, I provided a link to the Rangers website contact page earlier today. I know that you’re a stickler for well sourced evidence for arguments made on here – I’m prepared to accept the official Rangers view on the club’s name, are you?
The Rangers Football Club
Ibrox Stadium
150 Edmiston Drive
Glasgow
G51 2XD
Feel free to verify at http://www.rangers.co.uk/club/information/contact-us
Stave 1
Rangers were dead to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of its burial was signed by Lord Hodge, the liquidators, Jim Traynor, Richard Wilson and the chief mourner, Campbell Ogilvie. CO signed it, and CO’s name was good upon ‘Change for anything he chose to put his hand to.
Old Rangers were as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Rangers were as dead as a doornail.
Campbell knew Rangers were dead? Of course he did. How could it be otherwise? Rangers and he were partners for I don’t know how many years. Campbell was Rangers’ sole administrator, sole friend and sole mourner. And even Campbell was not so dreadfully cut up by the sad event but that he was an excellent man of business on the very day of the funeral and solemnised it with an undoubted bargain – another EBT contribution from that that knight of the realm, Sir David Murray.
Campbell never painted out old Rangers’ name; there it stood years afterwards, above the Ibrox gates – Rangers Football Club. Sometimes the club was known as The Rangers, sometimes people new to the business called it Sevco, sometimes “Rangers”. It was all the same to Campbell……
Well, I think we know how this one ends.
With 54 apologies to Charles Dickens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k0IkDTPQWU
oldbhoy99 says: (17)
December 2, 2013 at 8:18 pm
While agreeing with your sentiment, oldbhoy, I feel that the purpose of this blog is to engage with people in an effort to get the truth out there, and it bothers me not if Bryce and co don’t get it. So far I’ve not read a post from him where he has been particularly insulting and he has given cause for us to go over some old ground, which might just refresh a few memories, and who knows, lead to some readers seeing things more clearly. So far he has not written anything that might convert anyone to his point of view, but maybe someone else, new to the blog, has read the responses and has a clearer view of the reality. In this respect trolls (and I’m not accusing Bryce of being one – hope you noticed that TSFM 😀 ) provide an unintended benefit to the site during times of slow news by giving us something to write about and so encourage new posters to join in. Should some big news hit the web tomorrow, Bryce will be ignored until things quieten down, unless he has some insightful comment to make on something to do with the latest situation
Another way to look at it is that, for a couple of weeks or so, Bryce has been our Devils Advocate 👿 giving us something to bounce our ideas off, rather than the other way round..
http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/greysquirrels.aspx
Grey squirrels can be a problem in gardens and the wider countryside. What can you do to keep them out of your backyard?
…
Remember that all these methods will only work if the squirrel cannot jump directly onto the feeder, but will have to approach via the defended route
…
How you can help
Keep those pesky creatures off your bird food^. All profits go to the RSPB’s* conservation work
(^ – blog)
(* – TSFM)
paulonotini says: (40)
December 2, 2013 at 7:40 pm
6 0 Rate This
Bryce
Can you show us a categorical statement from SFA where they confirm current RFC is exact same club as the one pre-liquidation.
I think you may find they are unable to do that for fear of any potential claims creditors of RFC 2012plc may make.
…………………………………………………..
Since when did the SFA become the Scottish legal system
Never said they were part of legal system,it’s just it would potentially be a contentious issue(after asking a lawyer about it) if SFA came out with such a statement
Bryce,
Was Green lying here, then telling the truth once the CVA failed? If so, are you in the habit of believing people who tell you lies, even after you know they tell you lies? It’s a bit like the Lawrence Dallaglio defence – ‘believe me, I lied!’
Please see the above post, well it’s below but above, if you get what I mean 😕 :
Tif Finn says: (946)
December 2, 2013 at 8:47 pm
oldbhoy99 says: (17)
December 2, 2013 at 8:18 pm
38 0 Rate This
…. He answers only the questions that he can comfortably twist to his alice in wonderland agenda, and ignores the rest. He is here to derail the blog as far as I can see.
————-
I think you’re correct on both counts @oldbhoy99 and if not derailing then just wasting his own and everyone else’s time.
I suppose the other side to this is that if you want to re-sell Sevco Scotland as the original RFC it’s vital to establish the myth and counter all dissenting voices. A bit late for that really — a foreign investor could easily be fooled though. The importance of the myth is maybe connected to the asset value.
bobferris says: (158)
December 2, 2013 at 4:34 pm
36 2 Rate This
Leeds, Crystal Palace and Portsmouth all had their fair share of financial troubles but none of them were ever liquidated.
———————
Palace CVA was approved , and the club avoided liquidation. Confirmed below.
” CRYSTAL Palace took a huge step towards exiting administration this morning when the club’s creditors voted overwhelmingly in favour of a company voluntary arrangement. (CVA) ”
Full article below.
http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/Palace-creditors-vote-favour-CVA/story-11359699-detail/story.html
Interestingly , prior to the CVA vote, The Guardian reported on the consequence of the CVA being rejected.
“- If the CVA proposal is rejected then the administrators believe the club will most likely end up in compulsory liquidation and expelled from the football league.”
Full article below.
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/sport/8213058.Palace_administrator_calls_CVA_meeting_for_June_25/
OT but what the hell:
I see Killie have just postponed their match v Celtic in January so they can benefit from a “Winter Break”. I expect we’ll hear in the press in the coming days that Killie have organised a money-spinning friendly in Singapore or New York or Dubai during that very same “Winter Break”.
Also
What was the canny Yorkshireman prepared to pay an extra £3m for, if as Jacks pet claims ,he bought the assets and the club .?
Oh I forgot it was probably because he is so generous with his cash .
IMO no one was closer to the peepil running our game than DM and I cannot believe for one moment he never asked if his beloved club (one he committed 20 yrs of his life to ) could legally be the same club after liquidation .
I can just see him now ,sitting in his vineyard head in his hands growling ,all the money wasted on expensive lawyers and listening to the so called peepil who said they new the rules and all I had to do was give Bryce a phone and the rat CW could never have duped me into selling the clumpany for a measly quid .