Past the Event Horizon

ByBig Pink

Past the Event Horizon

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.

About the author

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

3,926 Comments so far

StevieBCPosted on3:06 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Danish Pastry says: (1721)
November 24, 2013 at 2:52 pm

oldbhoy99 says: (16)
November 24, 2013 at 1:35 pm

Intriguing tweet this:
————
@AnOrangeCount
What exactly would international arms dealers want from a football club?
12:35pm – 23 Nov 13
————-

…they want to buy an Arsenal…? 🙄

View Comment

SmugasPosted on3:08 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Bryce,

Not really a contradiction per se but I fear this statement may be a source of the problems you have experienced on the board thus far because of its dual nature.

“…Ultimately we have no-one to blame but ourselves (though obviously only a few individuals hold direct responsibility) for a massive, colossal **** up and I think the eventual consequences were appropriate – and that includes the club (in the official RFC1872 sense) being saved from obliteration….”

I note your description of and emotional attachment to your club – the thing you’ve followed from birth, the thing that you watched win the titles and all the rest of it. Only a fool would try to argue that that thing, that brand, that club as you put it was dead. I am no fool.

Unfortunately though that thing has to also have a physical presence at some point. Someone has to be able to write down on a piece of paper what the thing we know of as rangers in a footballing capacity actually is (as it does with 41 other senior clubs at the moment). Specifically I would have expected the SFA, as protectors of our game, to be especially interested in being able to define these boundaries. If we can’t rely on them to do so why don’t we all just turn up in our shorts at the park on a sunday, some calling ourselves CFC some calling ourselves RFC, Utd, Accies whatever and just see what happens. Draw up a league table at the end and home in time for tea!

And therein’s the problem for me. Regarding the formal boundaries of our game they appear to have gone out of their way to apply the accepted boundaries in terms of certain rules in only some instances (eg. the re-entry, the early cup qualifiers). They have in turn ignored the accepted rules in certain other circumstances (do you really want a list?) to rewrite the rules in yet more circumstances (the associate membership) and then finally to blatantly ignore the rules AND attempt to force-feed us verbal cabbage most recently eloquently demonstrated in CO’s first statement for years.

The first three I can actually just about accept ONLY in so far as underlying the whole rules aspect of this scandal there is a simple commercial reality that it is handy to have a 35k season ticket club kicking around (around, not off!). But I’m afraid the fourth element – summed up very succinctly in a bastardisation of CO’s statement that despite the fact that we all previously thought that 4 + 4 = 8, that actually the answer is 9, we’ve all to grow up and accept that the answer is 9 and that that should be the matter closed. Insulting nonsense pure and simple.

View Comment

bluPosted on3:08 pm - Nov 24, 2013


upthehoops says: (670)

November 24, 2013 at 2:37 pm
================================
Wrong target. The jury made a fair judgement on the basis of the case presented. It was the charge that couldn’t be substantiated. Wilson admitted guilt for BoP and assault, how could he do anything else? It was the “aggravated by religious prejudice” element that was found to be not proven and so the whole assault charge fell. The Crown Office made a mess of the charges. Not often that I disagreed with Paul McBride but was disappointed that he also missed the target on that occasion.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on3:22 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Barcabhoy says: (291)
November 24, 2013 at 2:48 pm

Anyway, in this particular circumstance emotional beats technical for me. What has kept this debate going is the lack of contrition by Rangers and their supporters and the lack of sanctions on David Murray for his role as architect of the cheating and tax evasion
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Emotional does not have to beat technical. The two can happily exist side by side.

Rangers supporters contrition? Don’t care. One would have thought that if they were unapologetic there would be consequences, one would have thought!

David Murray. Absolutely, but that’s not really a footballing argument per se.

No, what is keeping this going for me now (and I wonder if its my non glasgow background – the them and us thing is less defined) is the authority’s apparent decision that, having made an absolute pig’s ear of the technical reality, if I wouldn’t mind just accepting the emotional bit for now, until such time as they rewrite the technical bit to suit an apparent agenda (and to be clear as I said in a post above I don’t actually have an issue with the commercial agenda as such) just tell me as it is and stop treating me like a fool.

View Comment

BigGavPosted on3:38 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Smugas says:
November 24, 2013 at 3:08 pm

there is a simple commercial reality that it is handy to have a 35k season ticket club kicking around
———

It has been argued here by some (and fairly convincingly) that the presence of that 35k season ticket club benefits only themselves, generating no net benefit for the other 41 clubs.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on3:38 pm - Nov 24, 2013


blu says: (449)
November 24, 2013 at 3:08 pm
================================
Here is the late Paul McBride’s view. The Jury is far from the wrong target, and we cannot rule out the decision was based on prejudice as is much that has happened to Lennon in Scotland.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtb-pGE1ABQ

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on3:49 pm - Nov 24, 2013


‘Project Charlotte’ planning for insolvency already in October 2011:

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/179011542

View Comment

whispererPosted on3:50 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Arms Dealers eh ?

Methinks a thought posted many many moons ago might have some creedance …
Ibrox as a big Laundry … Hmm

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on3:51 pm - Nov 24, 2013


sickofitall says: (203)
November 24, 2013 at 3:38 pm

pathetic rather than scary.

I am coming to the sad conclusion that Scottish Football can have as much mob rule as it is prepared to tolerate. Messers Jardine & McCoist should have been hammered for bringing the game into disrepute, as employees of a member club. Mr Green should have been hammered for each and every one of his idiotic pronouncements. Clubs should face severe penalties every time they fail to ban for life anyone convicted of a violent offence directly connected with football.

The serial failure of the Football Authorities to act whenever someone steps over the line, is leading me to the very cynical view that “fear of the mob” is an awfully good excuse when deflecting calls for change.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on3:54 pm - Nov 24, 2013


http://www.tsfm.org.uk/2013/10/beware-the-angry-shareholders-they-might-just-demand-an-answer/comment-page-65/#comment-73910

My apologies for reposting something from last week; but I do think it’s necessary.

Yesterday, Bryce9a quoted a section from the draft 5-way agreement that he suggested disproved my assertion that Sevco had become a registered SFA member club three weeks before Rangers lost their own membership. I immediately drew his attention to the sentence (which he had quoted) which actually supported what I have been saying. I got no response from that post. I assume he has conceded the point; but cannot be certain.

Bryce9a then listed a large number of quotes from the LNS commission which he says supported his own assertion that Rangers the “club” had been separated from The Rangers Football Club plc and transferred to Sevco Scotland Ltd. On that point, I asked him to consider the circumstances under which the LNS commission had come to the conclusions that they had. I asked if he had an opinion on why some very pertinent SPL Articles (2 & 4) had been ignored. I asked him if he had an opinion on why LNS chose to employ an adversarial system rather than an inquisitorial system. I suggested to him that these two questions were related. I got no response.

Today Bryce9a has moved to the BBC Trust decision on the BBC’s use of Old Club and New Club in relation to the two versions of Rangers.

So, in the spirit of engagement with someone with an alternative view from my own, I shall make one last attempt.

Bryce9a, do you have an opinion the post below? As I understand the SFA’s position (as stated by Stewart Regan), the BBC Trust decision makes no sense at all. Do you have a view on how they could be so definitive about the football authorities position when the SFA explicitly say it is “for people to debate”?

Genuine question.
==========================================

From Tuesday – 31st July 2012
Chris McLaughlin: Is it an old Rangers? Is it a new Rangers? Do they retain their titles? Do they retain their history? Is it still the same Club?

Stewart Regan: What’s great about football is that it’s all about opinions…
…I think what’s important is that the membership of the Scottish FA has been transferred from an Oldco to a Newco and that’s allowed Rangers to take up a position in Division Three. As far as I’m concerned Rangers have now been accepted. The final piece of the jigsaw will be on Friday when the SPL share transfers across from RANGERS IN ADMINISTRATION to Dundee and a new season starts again.

What people’s personal opinions are, about the past and the future, is down to their interpretation; but as far as we’re concerned, it’s about moving on.

Chris McLaughlin: But surely there should be some clarity – I imagine you are the man to provide it – is this the same club? Do they still have the same history? Is it the same club?

Stewart Regan: The share of the club transfers across from the Oldco to the Newco. When a share transfers, as far as we’re concerned, membership of that share is transferred. All other issues, as far as I’m concerned, are for people to debate. That’s not really one that we really need to get involved in or worry about at this stage.http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19068235

=========================

How does the above, then square with the BBC Trust adjudication (from April/May 2013 – issued June 2013) which stated:
The Committee noted, however, that the administrators of Rangers Football Club plc, its liquidators and those representing the Scottish football authorities had taken a common approach when explaining how the football club had been affected by this process. The Committee believed that these groups had made clear that in their view the club was a separate entity from these two companies and that its operations were unaffected by either its previous owner being placed into administration or its sale to a new company. http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/apr_may.pdf

How is it, when the Chief Executive has stated on Camera that the “New Club” question is one that is “for people to debate” – the BBC Trust believed that the “those representing the Scottish football authorities” had taken a firm view that the club could be considered to be a separate entity from the company that was a member of the SFA?

Who at the SFA, did the BBC Trust ask?

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on4:33 pm - Nov 24, 2013


TSFM says: (560)
November 24, 2013 at 2:49 am

“Please folks do not feed the latest troll.”
————————-
TSFM, I beg your indulgence to depart from your advice.
===========

bryce9a says: (12)
November 24, 2013 at 1:31 am

“Yes I think the punishment of, effectively, demotion to the 4th tier (which, from my point of view of Rangers surviving, it is – aware others will disagree!) has been proportionate.”
———————-
Hello bryce. Fairly new posters like yourself, expressing opinions contrary to the general consensus (which is, it has to be said, fairly fluid), often find that they become a target for general frustration. This is unfortunate but perhaps understandable. Whilst I am not keen on such behaviour it is maybe as great a fault not to address points of debate in a direct manner. It is in this mode I would like to respond to your referenced post.

Rangers were fined £250,000 for ‘mis-registering’ players over a long period (see LNS decisions). As you yourself have recalled, Spartans were thrown out of a cup competition because of a missing signature. I do not recognise your view of proportionality.

Following liquidation, an attempt was made firstly to re-enter Rangers into the SPL and failing that, secondly into SFL 1. Supporters of Scottish football clubs in general seem to have frustrated these attempts by boycotting season tickets at that time. It would appear that fans of many clubs could see the manifest injustice in how Rangers had operated their player payment regime and decided to act when it appeared the authorities would not.

Many contributors and readers on here have seen these arguments exercised many times. We have argued with each other about the consequences. I for one am happy to debate with other points of view that can further exercise our viewpoints. With all due respect, your comments are not sufficiently weighty or informed to spark a genuine debate.

The TSFM blog seems disinclined to be derailed. I have disappeared off for months at a time and when I’ve returned, the posting has been as consistent as ever. I am not at all sure this is going to go away, despite in the past falling into periods where for me it seemed pointless. When one poster falls by the wayside there always seems to be another ready to step into the gap.

Right now I’m not sure the OCNC debate is the element that should be most exercising Rangers fans. I fear they may have far more pressing concerns.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on4:37 pm - Nov 24, 2013


TSFM.

Is there a possibility that you could exchange the current spell checker, which uses US English, for one that uses UK English. I find myself doubting my own abilities and resorting to a paper dictionary.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on4:44 pm - Nov 24, 2013


By the way.

I think fans of New Rangers have just as much right to refer to the history of the Old Rangers as the fans of the current Airdrieonians have to refer to the history of the Airdrieonians Football Club that was liquidated in 2002.

Of course, the current Airdrieonians Football Club was formed in 1965 as Clydebank FC, renamed Airdrie Utd in 2002 and renamed again in 2013 to give them their current moniker. Because there is an overlap in history between the two clubs they have supported, most fans of the current Airdrieonians will choose to ignore the period in their history between 1965 and 2002 – when they were known as Clydebank FC.

I have no problem with their fans claiming association with their original club’s heritage, I do have an issue with the new clubs claiming to be something they are not.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on4:50 pm - Nov 24, 2013


sickofitall says (quoting an RM post):
November 24, 2013 at 3:38 pm

… we will have our vengeance on the park as the cream always rises.
——
Also, jobbies are allowed to float in poorly-maintained swimming pools.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on5:27 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Big Pink

I mulled over your post for a few days to see what thoughts it would conjure up. It was a short piece that in some ways was notable for what it did not say. It contrasted with previous contributions from the likes of James Forrest that aimed to cover much ground.

However the space left open in your post has allowed me to grow my own thoughts. Metaphor is a very useful vehicle for drawing parallels with comparable situations and provide more familiar concepts. Such comparisons can often break down at the extremes of the spectrum but I have also found that such comparisons can also betray other hidden information that might not have been the initial intention of the writer. Having fostered a liking for things scientific, I’d like to journey across your universe to see what can be observed.

I must apply an opening disclaimer. However useful science may appear to be, it is likely that the sum total of human knowledge provides us with only a fraction of a percent of true insight into the world we live in. However, given that even with such paltry material we are able to create mass communication, space flight and complex biological solutions, it would be unfair to dismiss our fumblings too lightly.

Entropy is a word that can be used to describe the amount of disorder in our universe. It is postulated that entropy will always increase as time moves forward. That is, things get more complicated every day.

If you were to whizz back a few centuries the things that might be catastrophic might be, for instance, periods of bad weather that affected the harvest over a wide geographical area. Today, in our technological world, it is said that an eruption on the sun might send streams of charged particles across our solar system with the potential to interfere with our communication and computing systems. So our increased use of technology means that there is an increased potential for chaos and disorder. Entropy increases over time.

If we did suffer a catastrophic failure of the internet it is still likely that we could survive. Within the memories of many of us are the skills to execute all manner of tasks manually that are currently undertaken by technology. We would be impoverished since their manual execution would be so much slower but we would probably survive. So this tendency for our world to appear more chaotic over time can be countered by the application of basic skills and underlying principles that we can fall back on should calamity strike. Basic principles like accountancy practice, mathematics, the precise use of language, the employment of scientific rigour etc. These underlying principles will not only save us in the event of catastrophe, they inform how we construct our technological environment. By operating in a logical manner it is likely our method will be understood by other who wish to either build upon or deconstruct our work.

So logic prevents entropy running riot and throwing everything into chaos.

Apparently the boffins think that when stuff gets sucked into a black hole, the information associated with the matter that is consumed is ‘smeared’ onto the event horizon. This hypothesis is based on the need for entropy to increase over time. Information cannot just disappear otherwise the universe might become less disordered. The event horizon is a bit like the wee vortex you see around your plughole before water disappears oot the bath. So Rangers may have disappeared into a black hole but the information associated with them, recently and usefully labelled, the heritage, cannot be lost. I suppose if you could pull stuff oot the black hole you could use the information about its heritage to reconstruct it in its original form. Pulling stuff oot of black holes is rather difficult I understand and almost certainly a topic for a completely different blog site.

So we end up with a bunch of information, the heritage, without anything of substance for it to be projected onto.

Seems a bit of a conundrum. The only thing to do in such circumstances would be apply underlying logic to try and make it fit in somewhere. Logic saves us from chaos.

Alas no. Logic has been sidelined in favour of expediency. The chaos is not under control; it has let loose from its tethers. The consequences are the subject of another post…to follow shortly.

View Comment

bryce9aPosted on5:32 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Hirsuite,

Regarding the registered member thing, id be willing to concede the evidence points to newco becoming sfl members on the 13th, although i still would like to see some evidence where newco becoming registered SFA members is explicit, rather than just assumed on a logical reading of the rulebook.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on6:12 pm - Nov 24, 2013


bryce9a says: (13)
November 24, 2013 at 5:32 pm

“registered SFA members is explicit, rather than just assumed on a logical reading of the rulebook.”

Emotional versus technical.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on6:20 pm - Nov 24, 2013


So what happens in a world where logic is not employed as an underpinning to control chaos? Might it look thus?

(S)DM runs a football club in an illogical manner that might be sustainable if it weren’t for the reality that the world becomes more complex and chaotic over time. If the boom years could have been made to continue his debts might have been inflated out of existence. Reality however did not reflect this simplistic outlook.

Without any logical underpinning to the business model it was necessary to get rid. Cue Craig Whyte. God loves a trier allegedly. He concocted, perhaps in concert with the previous owner, a scheme to shed the accumulated and potential debt of the ailing club. CW enlisted the help of others to spirit away the corpse of the dead club and thereafter, if it had gone to plan, stage a miraculous resurrection.

Rangersness appears to have infiltrated all manner of echelons of the establishment that would make this possible. You get by with a little help from your friends. The application of logic was never considered a necessity; expediency would be sufficient. Fine in a world that was cosy and warm like a ‘Waltons’ bedtime scenario but in a world always tending toward chaos and disorder, there was always the possibility of unintended consequences. So when CG drove the ambulance containing the corpse to his secret hideaway (where his accomplice Imran was waiting with a dangerous looking electrical device) instead of Castle Grant, perplexity was the order of the day. Without the application of logic and the rule of law, how do you distinguish when boundaries have been crossed. CG and IA could smell the opportunity. They would parade the corpse themselves and the poor conflicted authorities could do little about it. Naughty world. Naughty bad future.

Now there is the likely prospect of a hedge fund claiming the remains. They will not be infected by Rangersitis. No sireee.

The presence of Ibrox stadium, a mere two miles from Glasgow City centre and closer still to the newly consecrated financial district has in some ways been a blight on the area it inhabits. This is not to be pejorative about Rangers in particular. Any football stadium tends to change the character of the area it inhabits. However if Ibrox were no longer a football stadium, the land it occupies and that surrounding would take on a new characteristic. It might not be worth a lot of dosh now but in years to come it could be a very lucrative piece of real estate.

I’ve never wanted Rangers to die particularly. I’m not particularly comfortable in using the corpse analogy to make my point. However, there is a danger that all the shenanigans has allowed the hounds of hell to be unleashed. The chaos may now be uncontrollable. It may be time to think the unthinkable.

In the play ‘A Man For All Seasons’ by Robert Bolt, there is a section where Sir Thomas More talks about the necessity for laws. I can’t remember how it goes exactly but I think it is premised on More’s unwillingness to compromise his principles even if it would appear that expediency would demand otherwise. More retorts that you might knock over every law in the land in pursuit of the devil but when the last one had fallen you would be left alone facing satan.

Laws exist for a reason. All sorts of people seem to have conveniently forgotten this. Hell mend them.

View Comment

bryce9aPosted on6:26 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Hirsuite,

Regarding the registered member thing, id be willing to concede the evidence points to newco becoming sfl members on the 13th, although i still would like to see some evidence where newco becoming registered SFA members is explicit, rather than just assumed on a logical reading of the rulebook.

Assuming you are correct, and fair play to you you’ve made a new point that i haven’t seen mentioned before, i cant see it helps the new club case much, other than allowing you to say membership was transferred between members, rather than between a member & a non-member – so what? Perhap ill have to go back and reread your main post on that. (link?)

I looked up the articles you said had been ignored, but couldn’t see which bits you meant in afraid. Feel free to clarify. Again, the “adversarial” question i didnt follow, so make your point on that and ill read it.

Regarding the Regan interview, he’s clearly at pains to avoid saying anything controversial having been had his fingers burnt twice by the no-to-newco crowd already. There is no mention of “history” etc in the sfa rulebook, so he could retreat from the question as he wished.

However i think there is much more other evidence which DOES clarify the question of whether the SFA consider Rangers, today, as having existed pre 2012. I can go into that again if you wish.

Whatever it the SFA have said, its been sufficient for a number of independent judges (literally and figuratively) to come to the same club position, so i think that speaks for itself.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on6:31 pm - Nov 24, 2013


bryce9a says:

=========================

Actions, as they say, speak louder than words.

The SFA and Scottish football in general treated Rangers as a new club. There’s no getting round that, and until you or anyone else can explain the two domestic cups, and the league Rangers were put in, every other argument is a waste of time.

Ranger, if they were the same club would not have played in the early rounds of the two domestic trophies.

Rangers, if they were the same club, would not have been playing in SFL 3 as was. Or can you show me where that was a “punishment” and for what.

Scottish football, by how it treated Rangers, declared them a new club.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on6:40 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Bryce

“..However i think there is much more other evidence which DOES clarify the question of whether the SFA consider Rangers, today, as having existed pre 2012. I can go into that again if you wish.”

Please do – the communication from the SFA that gives rise to the interpretation of pre 2012 existence, not the interpretation itself.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on6:53 pm - Nov 24, 2013


bryce9a says: (14)
November 24, 2013 at 6:26 pm

…independent judges.
———————————————————————- 🙄
That’s a new one on me.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on6:53 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Castofthousands says: (16)
November 24, 2013 at 6:20 pm

Sir Thomas More:

“”What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? … And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s, and if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!””

Truman Capote also said that problem with living outside the law, is you no longer have its protection….

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on6:59 pm - Nov 24, 2013


bryce9a says: (14)
November 24, 2013 at 6:26 pm
=============================
You will note that Mr Regan stated quite clearly that (FULL) membership passed from OldCo to NewCo. It is clear from his statement (and the 5-way-agreement) that it is the company that is the SFA member. You may wish then to consider who or what can be a member of the SFA.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/143196212/SFA-Articles-of-Association-2009

“registered member”
shall mean a club or association which has been admitted as a registered member of the Association in accordance with the provisions of Article 6.1 and the expression“registered membership” shall be construed accordingly;

We agree now, I think, that Sevco Scotland – now The Rangers Football Club Ltd – (the “club”) were registered members of the SFA at the same time as The Rangers Football Club plc (the “club”).

Both companies – under the definition of a “registered member” in the SFA Articles – are “clubs”. Since the “clubs” were simultaneously registered SFA members through membership of different leagues (the SPL & SFL), they obviously cannot be one and the same “club”.

I will get back to you on the LNS commission shortly – but it is important to recognise that the SPL’s definitions are/were different from the SFA.

View Comment

justshateredPosted on7:22 pm - Nov 24, 2013


I wonder what the current relationship is between Sir Walter and Martin Bain?
This would be the Mr Bain that sought to have money frozen in the RFC bank account prior to administration.
I would think that this would be a strained relationship and yet I am led to believe that on the day of the big share transaction they were both together on a flight up from England!!

Perhaps they have a joint business venture under way elsewhere but who knows.
It is also possible that they were both on completely separate business trips and could not believe the coincidence when they were seated together. It really is a small world after all.

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on7:29 pm - Nov 24, 2013


If someone can help me understand the following (Bryce/GJ, DJ or even Gordon Smith), I would be delighted to “move on”.

Last summer we had a 5 way agreement which reached agreement prior to the Brechin v Rangers* game.
The 5 parties involved were SFA, SFL, SPL, RFC (1872) and Sevco Scotland.
RFC (1872 were represented by Duff and Phelps,
Sevco Scotland were represented by Charles Green and Malcolm Murray.

The definitions are given as such

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”).

RECITALS:
(A) The SFA is a private company limited by guarantee which is the governing body of association football in Scotland whose aim is to promote, foster and develop the game at all levels in Scotland.
(B) The SPL is a private company limited by shares which owns, promotes and operates the “Scottish Premier League”, in which the association football clubs owned and operated by the twelve holders for the time being of the issued shares in the SPL compete.
(C) The SFL is an unincorporated association of thirty members acting through its Board which owns, promotes and operates the “Scottish Football League”, in which the thirty association football clubs owned and operated by its thirty members for the time being compete in three divisions (first, second and third).
(D) RFC is a public company limited by shares which (i) is a full member (as defined in the SFA Legislation (as defined below)) of the SFA; (ii) owns one of the twelve issued Shares
in the SPL; and (iii) owned and operated an association football club known as “Rangers FC” (defined below) which played in the Scottish Premier League during season 2011/12.
(E) Sevco is a private company limited by shares.
(F) Following the completion of a controlled auction process by the Joint Administrators (defined below), Sevco has purchased substantially all the business and assets of RFC by entering into the SPA (defined below).
(G) Sevco will become, following on the transfer to it of the full membership of RFC in the SFA, on Completion (defined below) the operator of Rangers FC within the Third Division of the Scottish Football League.
(H) Sevco has applied for and has been admitted as an Associate Member of the SFL (defined below) subject always to Rule 16 of the SFL Rules and during season 2012/13 (at a minimum) shall play in the Third Division of the Scottish Football League.
(I) Dundee FC (defined below) will resign from membership of the SFL, its membership of the SFL will automatically terminate and Dundee FC will have transferred to it by RFC the one Share held by RFC and during season 2012/13 (at a minimum) shall play in the Scottish Premier League.
(J) The members of the SFL passed the SFL Resolution (defined below) on 13 July 2012.
(K) The SFA, the SPL, the SFL, RFC and Sevco have between and among each other agreed to give various undertakings and to contract as set out in this Agreement.

Now given that definition, is it not clear why there are 5 parties?

4 would mean SFA, SPL, SFL and 1 club
6 or 7 would mean SFA, SPL, SFL and clubs and/or holding companies

However the company nos tie up with the old and new clubs.

So to my mind its very clear – not just technically – but absolutely clear.

If someone can point out the flaw in my understanding and show me how John Greig was on a different board than THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC (IN ADMINISTRATION), a company incorporated in Scotland (registered number SC004276 I would be more than happy to change my mind.

If someone can show me where Wavetower were secretly liquidated instead of RFC, I would be delighted to review my conclusions.

Can we not accept its a new club and move on? Why is the only option to accept its the same and move on?

Strange that………..

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on7:42 pm - Nov 24, 2013


They cheated and lied to HMRC, withheld evidence, demanded BTC redaction, threatened tax officials, football officials, reporters, manipulated almost every aspect of how the biggest footballing scandal ever has been reported to the outside world.

And want to argue based on what is out in this manufactured environment, 😆 😆 priceless .

View Comment

WhulliePosted on7:55 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Much speculation as to why The SPFL should suddenly see the merits of chasing the £250k fine.
Suggestions that it is an exercise aimed at legitimising OCNO argument in the blues favour?
I wonder if we could be attacking this from the wrong end.
Is it possible that if/when TRFC/RIFC go t**s up and there is trouble ahead, could the SPFL be in fear of flak coming their way?
If so, could this be a tactic employed by the SPFL enabling them to claim, “not us, that was the SPL. We are not they.”
“In fact look at how vigorously we are chasing this money”
Kinda offering their very own version of the OCNO argument even though the same posteriors are on the same furniture?

Thoughts?

View Comment

justshateredPosted on8:03 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Whullie says: (75)
November 24, 2013 at 7:55 pm

I would think that they would be viewing it as a ‘football debt’ which should be honoured as part of the five way agreement.
To me it does nothing to solve one way or another in the ‘New Club / Same Club’ argument.

Although I said ‘honour’ in the above sentence I’m reminded of the old expression that ‘there is no honour amongst ……………’
What was that word again……………………………………… nope its gone.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:10 pm - Nov 24, 2013


EKBhoy says: (137)
November 24, 2013 at 5:37 pm
=============================
The alternative world made a pass at us in 1994, nudged along by a senior Bank of Scotland man – as I recall his name was George Mitchell. Several papers at the time carried the carefully scripted story that instead of looking at the financial pages over his cornflakes, Mr Mitchell searched for the crowd figure at the previous night’s Celtic v Kilmarnock game. The crowd was low and Mr Mitchell decided enough was enough. With a scandalously high debt level of £6M, the time had come to finally end this farce of a football club and its ‘bungling board’ and then everyone could get on with their lives. It is now history that Fergus McCann thought otherwise, and thankfully he removed the Bank of Scotland from Celtic’s lives forever.

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on8:26 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Sir Thomas More:

“”What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? … And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s, and if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!””
=============================================================================
Scapa and CastofThousands….firstly, millions of thanks for stirring in my memory (what is left of it!) such memorable line, portrayed in the film, “A Man for All Seasons”, the lead being played by Paul Schofield, a most wonderful actor. His words are so telling and particuilarly so in this appalling context of the SFA and its incompetence in administering its own laws.

The reference to “Roper” seems to bring to mind the part played by John Hurt, if I recall correctly, and his gormless yet scouling facial expressions in the film, making me wonder, is RC Ogilvie best portrayed here by Roper?

This is not entirely OTT since the context of historical drama is so relevant to what is being played out at Mount Florida and Govan.

Finally, we all recall the ultimate price Sir Thomas More paid for his noble stance, don’t we?

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on8:29 pm - Nov 24, 2013


scapaflow says: (1161)
November 24, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Sir Thomas More:
“”What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? … And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s, and if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!””

Truman Capote also said that problem with living outside the law, is you no longer have its protection….
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Scapa
The problem is that they have have broken all sorts of rules but not the law.

Regretably I suspect that they wil therefore retain it’s protection.

David Murray, Lloyds, Craig Whyte and Charles Green and others have all financially benefited from an outdated legal system and a concept of limited liability that belongs in the eighteenth century.

Taxpayers, creditors, Scottish Football and (Tin Hat on) Rangers are all paying the price.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on8:39 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Apologies for boring everyone else with this again; but for the attention of Bryce9a

From the SPL Commission Reasons for Decision
http://www.scribd.com/doc/143094729/spl-commission-reasons-for-decision-of-12-september-2012

[46] It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule ll it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club. 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. While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise.

The transferability of the “Club” from one company to another relies on the LNS interpretation of the word “undertaking” in the SPL;s Article 2:
“Club means the undertaking of an association football club which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League;”

However, what LNS did not quote from Article 2 was:
“Act means the Companies Act 1985 including any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force;”

What he also missed (from Article 4) was:
“Unless the context otherwise requires, words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the Act but excluding any statutory modification thereof not in force when these Articles or the relevant parts thereof are adopted.”

Handily, the Companies Act 1985 (as modified by the 1989 Act) does give us a particular meaning for the word “undertaking”. Section 259 of the Act describes it thus:
“1. In this Part ‘undertaking’ means:
(a) A Body Corporate or Partnership; or
(b) An unincorporated association carrying on a trade or business, with or without a view to profit”

Rangers Football Club was incorporated in 1899, so we can probably agree that the only possible meaning (in relation to Rangers) is that “undertaking” means “a body corporate”

Which, of course, means that (in relation to Rangers) the definition:
“Club means the undertaking of an association football club which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League;”

should be read as:
“Club means the body corporate of an association football club which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League;”

Had the enquiry been an inquisitorial system, Lord Nimmo Smith would be open to severe criticism for this obvious mistake in his interpretation of the SPL Articles.

Because he chose an adversarial system, he can argue that he would only consider points of dispute. Since the mistaken interpretation (championed by Neil Doncaster in May 2012 and written into the terms of reference of the enquiry) was not challenged by OldCo or NewCo, there was no decision for LNS to make.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on8:43 pm - Nov 24, 2013


scapaflow says: (1161)
November 24, 2013 at 12:44 pm
21 2 Rate This

Silent Partner says: (12)
November 24, 2013 at 12:40 pm

As a taxpayer the UTT decision will resonate, in footballing terms its already an irrelevance
—————————————————————————————————————-
Concerning the UTT if HMRC win the appeal in football terms it means everything to me. The fans of the team named in the past as Rangers who blamed all of society for their team’s demise will know for a fact the Mr Murray used an illegal tool to pay players and therefore cheated and dealt the club a death blow in the process. Their team would have won tainted trophies as they had an unfair advantage through the use of EBT’s.
That is not irrelevant to me as my team may have won some of those trophies which I would have been able to celebrate which is everything to a fan.
The old club will then be officially known as cheats and all eyes should then turn to Mr Ogilvie and the SFA.

View Comment

fergussingsthebluesPosted on8:43 pm - Nov 24, 2013


bryce9a says:
November 24, 2013 at 6:26 pm

=================================

Still waiting for Vince Lunny to act on a certain complaint made 2 years ago to him.

Apparently there is a football team currently masquerading in the SPFL as “Tony Blair FC” when in fact they are actually registered as “Rory Bremner FC”

Come on Vince, get a grip here!

Seriously, it’s time the SFA came out and gave a full, decisive judgement on the newco/oldco argument, not just “it’s peoples own opinions”

e.g I believe that Rangers no longer exist. There is a team currently playing out of their old stadium, but they are NOT rangers! If I’m right, under liquidation rules, they were also not entitled to rename the newco anything similiar to the word “rangers”, perhaps any legal eagles can confirm this?

On the other hand, bryce9a also stands by his opinion that no matter what, rangers still exist, intact with all their history despite all the shame attached to it.

This is always going to be a divisive argument as Scottish Football moves forward, therefore it really is incumbent of the SFA to give a definative statement, based on facts, their own laws and the overall law of the land.

Until they do this simple thing, we’re all going to be fighting each other verbally for a long time!

View Comment

ZilchPosted on8:46 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Since we are getting all literary an’at…

Back when I was but a little Zilchlet, we were force fed Tess of the D’Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy. Actually, Thomas wrote the book, it was the English teacher that made us wade through it and then dissected in such a way so as to remove any last possible pleasure there might have been in it.

Reading some of the recent comments today put me in mind of the pathos of the story, how a young woman was ruined by the ravages of an evil man and was subsequently scorned by a society that saw only the effect and cared not for the cause.

“Heap as much anger as you want to upon me, and welcome; but pity the child!” she cries.

In the story we currently write: You can empathise with the pain, and feel rage against the perpetrators of the crime. Unfortunately, the child that has been spawned in this case has all the hallmarks of carrying and amplifying the sins of its conception. It even claims to BE the father.

Is it to be pitied or scorned?

Hand your essays in at the end of the week and marks off for poor handwriting. McGurk – if yer dug so much as Looks at your homework….

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:47 pm - Nov 24, 2013


essexbeancounter says: (319)
November 24, 2013 at 8:26 pm
‘…we all recall the ultimate price Sir Thomas More paid for his noble stance,.’
———-
Eb, we’re a wee bit away from being executed for correcting the big lie.Things aren’t quite that bad …..yet! 😀
( But there was a guy in a blazer in St Mary St when I was posting my letter to Ogilvie this afternoon………….) 🙂

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on8:51 pm - Nov 24, 2013


parttimearab says: (72)
November 24, 2013 at 8:29 pm

Actually the scheme at the heart of the “Wee Tax case” did break the law, the UTT will decide on the “Big tax case”, and there is still the possibility of prosecutions arising from the myriad of investigations being conducted.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on8:54 pm - Nov 24, 2013


fergussingstheblues says: (97)
November 24, 2013 at 8:43 pm
=============================
As I understand it, Sevco purchased the intellectual property (including brand name) from the old club. They are entitled (legally at least) to call themselves Rangers.

You may find this interesting: http://mg.co.uk/about-mg/history-heritage/
The reference to “our name” cleverly connects the original motor manufacturer with the current owners of the brand. While the brand’s heritage is celebrated, I don’t think anyone is suggesting the current brand owners are the same motor manufacturer as the original.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on8:56 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Bryce, you say

i cant see it helps the new club case much, other than allowing you to say membership was transferred between members, rather than between a member & a non-member – so what?

Surely then you see that as both those members were members at the same time, they must be 2 different members/clubs?

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on8:58 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Zilch says: (110)

November 24, 2013 at 8:46 pm

…..”Hand your essays in at the end of the week and marks off for poor handwriting. McGurk – if yer dug so much as Looks at your homework….”
===============================================================================
Zilch….pure dead brilliant…!

Such was also the way of teaching Shakespeare in my time, reading round the class in pre-pubescent voices…! (Apologies to John Clark(e) for lack of reverence to the Bard.

From my days from a certain English teacher…”…looks like this was done in the shed (next to the Molindinar Burn!)…”….or…”….when the number 58 bus braked to a sudden halt…!”

View Comment

Reilly1926Posted on8:59 pm - Nov 24, 2013


john clarke says: (1393)

November 24, 2013 at 8:47 pm

essexbeancounter says: (319)
November 24, 2013 at 8:26 pm
‘…we all recall the ultimate price Sir Thomas More paid for his noble stance,.’
———-
Eb, we’re a wee bit away from being executed for correcting the big lie.Things aren’t quite that bad …..yet! 😀
( But there was a guy in a blazer in St Mary St when I was posting my letter to Ogilvie this afternoon………….) 🙂
—————————–
I hope your letter was to Campbell and not St John Ogilvie. They got him as well.

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on9:06 pm - Nov 24, 2013


scapaflow says: (1162)
November 24, 2013 at 8:51 pm
0 0 i Rate This

parttimearab says: (72)
November 24, 2013 at 8:29 pm
Actually the scheme at the heart of the “Wee Ta case” did break the law, the UTT will decide on the “Big tax case”, and there is still the possibility of prosecutions arising from the myriad of investigations being conducted.
———————————————————————————————————————————————–Fair point Scapa. Keep forgetting about the WTC!!! 😳

Guess I wanted to make the point that the whole tax avoidance thing and what, to the layman would look like blatant Phoenixism, appears to be perfectly legal.

I particularly wanted to highlight the happy coincidence that allowed MIM/Lloyds off the hook tax wise regardless of whether or not HMRC were successful in the BTC and to point to the damage done to all creditors and to Rangers by their actions and to how the law of the land facilitated this.

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on9:07 pm - Nov 24, 2013


john clarke says: (1393)

November 24, 2013 at 8:47 pm

1

0

Rate This

Quantcast

essexbeancounter says: (319)
November 24, 2013 at 8:26 pm
‘…we all recall the ultimate price Sir Thomas More paid for his noble stance,.’
———-
Eb, we’re a wee bit away from being executed for correcting the big lie.Things aren’t quite that bad …..yet! 😀
( But there was a guy in a blazer in St Mary St when I was posting my letter to Ogilvie this afternoon………….) 🙂
================================================================================
JC….thank you for (ri)poste.
Nice to see you still use snail mail to correspond with our friend in Mount Florida. I trust you did pay the extortionate “guaranteed next day delivery” fee of around £7 (GBP7!)to ensure he gets it, or you are in for another extended silence!

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on9:19 pm - Nov 24, 2013


essexbeancounter says: (321)
November 24, 2013 at 9:07 pm

By God you’re right there eb, extortion for next day delivery fee on the mainland. I thought we bought First Class stamps for that purpose 😡
The fabric of society is unravelling!

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on9:46 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Whullie says: (75)
November 24, 2013 at 7:55 pm

… a tactic employed by the SPFL enabling them to claim, “not us, that was the SPL. We are not they.”
——
Except they are they.

Starting life as Dunwilco (597) Ltd in May 1997, the new name “Scottish Premier League Ltd” was adopted in April 1998. The company changed its name to “The SPFL Ltd” in May 2013.

They’re the same company … company number SC175364.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on10:41 pm - Nov 24, 2013


HirsutePursuit says: (449)
November 24, 2013 at 8:39 pm

“Apologies for boring everyone else with this again; but for the attention of Bryce9a”
————————-
Hirsute, I must confess I’ve glossed over some of your recent contributions largely because I am accustomed to how thoroughly you research your contributions. I had the following link tucked away from a previous time which confirms at some point in the past I was capable of keeping up with your analyses.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/38/crossheading/meaning-of-undertaking-and-related-expressions

However I suspect there will be many newcomers to the site and the principles, however detailed, will bear repetition. It serves to illustrate that these interpretations are well founded and as I recall, have been thoroughly debated.

As I was reading your post and came upon the reference to the Companies Act 1985, a wee light illuminated in my brain asking, wasn’t that document subject to a later revision. Sure enough later in your exposition there it was, “as modified by the 1989 Act”. Even some of the detail has stuck.

Sometimes we are accused of mutual backslapping but that is the type of logical underpinning that keeps the devil from the door.

View Comment

EKBhoyPosted on10:44 pm - Nov 24, 2013


Who knows what the future will hold?

Rangers fans want to hold on to their history , which is completely understandable. What is missing is an unreserved apology from the club, which I believe would be accepted by all fans. At that point, the SFA could be clear with the position of old club / new club ….. by their dis-honesty Rangers will be forever classed as cheats , and this position will be cemented when Rangers lose the UTT.

It will never be forgotten, and in response to Big Pink , Celtic will request that there are no away fans at the first game against them, as the hysteria whipped up by the media will be unmanageable.

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on11:15 pm - Nov 24, 2013


EKBhoy says: (141)
November 24, 2013 at 10:44 pm
%%%%%%
I want to hold on to my adolescence, unfortunately physics doesn’t allow me to. The only person who can revisit their past is The Doctor.
A company that liquidates then restarts under the same name is asking for trouble.

View Comment

TommyBPosted on12:08 am - Nov 25, 2013


What is the saying about doing the same thing repeatedly and hoping for a different result? I doubt that Ally or any of his fellow sevconians have heard that one.

View Comment

bryce9aPosted on12:28 am - Nov 25, 2013


HirsutePursuit,

Thanks for the info you’ve provided. Very interesting for someone who’s been discussing this stuff since it all kicked off to see new lines of argument and evidence.

Ok, I get it now. Your point is LNS’s interpretation of the word “undertaking” was totally incorrect – that it should have be taken to simply mean “company” (as it does in the Companies Act, which an article you quoted requires to be the basis for meanings of words used in the Articles), where as he understood the word in a manner that led him to the distinction he drew between club and company that was so significiant in defining his judgements.

You might be right. He might have made a big mistake. On the other hand…

The article you quoted, that forms the basis of your opinion on this matter, states:
“Unless the context otherwise requires, words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the [Companies] Act “(where “undertaking” = “company”)

So, does the context require an alternative understanding?
Consider Articles 3 & 6:

Article 3A reference in these Articles to a person includes a body corporate and an unincorporated body of persons.

Article 6A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by a person who is the owner and operator of a Club

Taken together, these articles suggest the “owner and operator of a Club” actually refers to the “body corporate” of the Club.

Now let’s read Article 6, again, this time on the basis of
– your “undertaking=company” understanding of the Articles’ definition of the word “Club”
– the “body corporate” definition within Article 3 of “person”

and transpose both into the sentence, Aritcle 6 reads as…

A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by a body corporate who is the owner and operator of a body corporate of an association football club.

That makes no sense! Have we not established exactly the kind of “context” where the Companies Act defintion does not – cannot – apply?

It seems to me that the “owner and operator” reference – as Article 3 requires it – must refer to a company, as distinct from the club it “owns and operates”.

Excuse the no doubt confusing presentation, but I trust you catch my drift! Look forward to your response.

View Comment

GeronimosCadillacPosted on1:50 am - Nov 25, 2013


scapaflow says: (1162)
November 24, 2013 at 8:51 pm

parttimearab says: (72)
November 24, 2013 at 8:29 pm

Actually the scheme at the heart of the “Wee Tax case” did break the law, the UTT will decide on the “Big tax case”, and there is still the possibility of prosecutions arising from the myriad of investigations being conducted.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes it did and so convoluted and aggressive it was too. Campbell signed for it but then he was given assurances!!

View Comment

GeronimosCadillacPosted on1:51 am - Nov 25, 2013


In my previous post I mentioned the word “assurances”. I think there were roughly 95,000 of them.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on2:18 am - Nov 25, 2013


bryce9a says: (15)
November 25, 2013 at 12:28 am
==============================
The language (in the Articles) is tortuous; but the answer is in your question.

The articles were written on the basis (as per Article 3) that a Club may be incorporated (a body corporate) or it may be in the form of an unincorporated body of persons. Article 3 demonstrates why the word “undertaking” (as defined in the 1985 Act) is used in the Club definition rather than simply saying company.

Because the SPL (now SPFL) is a company, and membership of the league required that a share in that company is held by each member club, it would present a real difficulty if an unincorporated club were to take part. The articles cannot assume every Club has a corporate structure. The Articles require that the share is transferred to each member club; but as an unincorporated body has no legal form, the registered shareholder cannot – in those circumstances – be the club itself.

In the case of an unincorporated club, the actual person who registers the share, will be considered to be the member. The member in turn is considered to be the owner & operator of the club. Essentially, this gives the league a real person to sanction if things go wrong at an unincorporated club.

In the case of an incorporated club (in real terms every professional club in Scotland) the owner & operator is still the registered shareholder. Which in every case that I am aware of, is the club itself.

97. Nothing in these Articles shall relieve any Member of the Company from its obligations as a full member club of the SFA to comply with the applicable articles of association of the SFA for so long as it remains a member of the SFA. Each Member shall (in so far as it is lawfully able and permitted by the exercise of its voting powers to do so) procure that the Company observes and complies with all relevant articles of association of the SFA applicable to it

Note that the Member of the Company (registerd Shareholder) is referred to as full member club of the SFA.

And, of course, as the Member of the Company was RFC plc (the body corporate) it is obviously RFC plc (the body corporate) which was considered to be the full member club of the SFA

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on6:56 am - Nov 25, 2013


Re awaiting the outcome of the UTT to show Ragers 1872 were cheats .
As far as I recall Ragers 1872 conceded on 5 cases already ,so ARE cheats regardless of the UTT result ‘
If for example someone is accused of one murder but are believed to be responsible for for ten .
If they confess to the one murder ,they are a murderer ,if they confess to 5 of the other ten they could be classed as a serial killer .
IMO ragers1872 have already admitted to being SERIAL CHEATS .
Also were there not 81 cases to begin with ,I think the UTT is dealing with 30 cases ,anyone know what happened to the other 46 (as I believe they admitted guilt on the 5 above )

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:15 am - Nov 25, 2013


fergusslayedtheblues says: (239)
November 25, 2013 at 6:56 am
Re awaiting the outcome of the UTT to show Ragers 1872 were cheats .
As far as I recall Ragers 1872 conceded on 5 cases already ,so ARE cheats regardless of the UTT result
======================================
The so call ‘wee’ tax case is also confirmation that the previous club cheated. Despite that, and the admission of five cases of wrongdoing, they somehow ‘won’ the big tax case we are told. Should HMRC be successful in their appeal, it will be interesting to see how the result is presented in the media compared to the original case.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:25 am - Nov 25, 2013


EKBhoy says: (141)
November 24, 2013 at 10:44 pm

It will never be forgotten, and in response to Big Pink , Celtic will request that there are no away fans at the first game against them, as the hysteria whipped up by the media will be unmanageable.
=================================================================
I sincerely hope that should Celtic be unfortunate enough to have to play Sevco at Ibrox in a cup game, that the Celtic fans groups might urge our board not to take tickets. Who honestly believes that environment would be a safe one? I am also of the view that it would not be a safe environment for the Celtic players. Should the game be at Celtic Park I think if Sevco fans were to demand a boycott for their own reasons, it would be no bad thing. As for the the media, they will act with the same degree of irresponsibility they have displayed for decades.

View Comment

theoldcoursePosted on9:00 am - Nov 25, 2013


I am reminded that this weekend has seen the 50th anniversary of the television show Doctor Who. I propose therefore that we should refer to The Rangers as Doctor Who FC as they, like the eponymous time lord, seem to have undergone regeneration and been born again in a different body, but they’re still the same doctor.

View Comment

FIFAPosted on9:07 am - Nov 25, 2013


theoldcourse
Unfortunately with the same old patients with the same old ailments ,more now with that memory forgetting thing ,I can’t recall its name.

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on9:17 am - Nov 25, 2013


Any club manager, when things are hot in the kitchen, gets the kiss of death by the board giving the manager their ”backing”.

In Sevco’s case – it’s Ally gives his backing to the [present] Board ! 🙄

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on9:19 am - Nov 25, 2013


upthehoops says:
November 25, 2013 at 7:15 am

Should HMRC be successful in their appeal, it will be interesting to see how the result is presented in the media compared to the original case.
——
Should you be expecting anything other than a small piece at the foot of an inside column on p96, I fear you will be disappointed. By the time the news is printed, a corner of a carpet will already have been lifted, and it will be swept under summa celeritate.

Further, any such decision will not be attached to the current Ibrox club by the MSM. It will be exclusively Oldco’s wrongdoing, and we will once again see a chasm between old and new clubs magically appearing. I would be surprised if the word “Rangers” was used in anything further than an introductory paragraph. It will be “Oldco”.

Personally, I’ll be looking for the “title-stripping” to start fairly quickly should a verdict in favour of HMRC be returned.

View Comment

manandboyPosted on9:25 am - Nov 25, 2013


On trolls, PR, MH and MSM.

When my dog poos, it is a simple task to pick it up in a little bag and then drop it in the bin. Sorted.

It is a simple task – until the leaves begin to fall from the trees around the start of November.

Then, the job becomes more difficult, increasingly so as more and more leaves cover the ground.

Difficult ? Well, first of all it takes longer, a lot longer, to find the poos.

Then, one has to be a lot more careful as to where you put your feet as there is an increased risk of fouling your shoes. Yuk !

You will probably also find yourself bending down a little to take a closer look which makes the job a little more tiring. Leaves are perfect camouflage for poos.

Finally, you may be unsuccessful in locating the poo which leaves the problem unsolved and a mess waiting to happen.

You must be yawning by now, dear reader. Bear with me. We’re nearly there.

Here on TSFM, leaves are a problem – all the year round.

The ‘leaves’ I’m referring to of course are the huge amounts of media litter scattered around the Ranger/Sevco story by scottish radio, TV and press, together with MH – and our regular trolls on TSFM.

Every single day, we are presented with a new load of ‘leaves’ to cover the Sevco shit. ( Yes, no longer using the word poo – Ibrox/Hampden, BBC/Clyde/DR etc. don’t do poo, they do shit, or bullshit, as some like to call it, when on the subject of Sevco)

In scattering their PR litter, the medias’ job is to cover up the cheating, and make it much harder for everyone
to see all the shit that SDM, the SFA, RFC(IL) and TRFC et al, have dumped and continue to dump, on Scottish Football.

If things go on like this, Scottish Football is going to end up a real shit hole !

What does one do in these circumstances ?, I hear you say.

Well, my input would be to continue to focus on finding the shit and avoid looking at the leaves.

And watch where you put your feet !
.

Ps. The SFA don’t do picking up Sevco shit.

View Comment

tomtomPosted on9:55 am - Nov 25, 2013


Angus1983 says: (1251)
November 25, 2013 at 9:19 am
1 0 Rate This

upthehoops says:
November 25, 2013 at 7:15 am

Personally, I’ll be looking for the “title-stripping” to start fairly quickly should a verdict in favour of HMRC be returned.
====================
Much as though that should be what happens there is no chance of it. The SFA have already decided that they would not appeal the LNS whitewash.

I don’t like it and I certainly don’t agree with it but that’s the reality of the situation we are facing. There will be no clamour from the media for this and, as previously stated, it will be reported in a couple of lines on the inside pages.

However we (the internet community) can certainly try and bring pressure to bear and we should not shy away from tackling this when the time comes. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. There is no level in any sport where cheating can be tolerated and effectively rewarded, Armageddon or not. It’s bad enough that we tolerate megalomaniacs with their riches effectively buying titles but to let someone win with our money is definitely a step too far.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on10:22 am - Nov 25, 2013


The tweet by @AnOrangeCount asking what international arms dealers would want from a football club does make you wonder.

Anyone think that’s merely a red herring thrown in to muddy the waters? Or does one of the background boys do arms deals?

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on10:22 am - Nov 25, 2013


http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/government-sells-900-million-in-student-loans-to-debt-collection-company-8961790.html

Wy doesn’t HMRC sell on what they are owed by Rangers to a debt collecting agency, as the current Rangers claim to be the same Rangers as the previous lot, thar means the debt is the SAME debt , so it should be paid – in full !?

View Comment

EKBhoyPosted on10:49 am - Nov 25, 2013


upthehoops says: (674)
November 25, 2013 at 7:25 am

Indeed, I do believe that over the next few years as the SMSM get more and more outrageous in their desperate attempts to shift copy, they will over step the mark which will require the Celtic Board to hand out more red cards.

I believe the main focus at the moment should be on the aspects of cheating and incompetence.

Cheating will be ratified by the UTT and incompetence from the SFA in relation to Mr Bryson’s registration scam and his colleagues’ inability to track UEFA license applications.

Arguing the toss on NC/ OC is a waste of time and energy and when it is with professional dis-assemblers and full-time serial avoiders of the truth ; they get plenty practice talking nonsense and at best you get is a draw.

Longer term focus and key word is CHEATING and in the absence of a fulsome APOLOGY from Rangers then the club and fans are fair game in my book to be labelled as such.

I wonder if Lord Murray of Milngavie will plea bargain out of his New York cell.

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on11:15 am - Nov 25, 2013


Danish Pastry says: (1723)
November 25, 2013 at 10:22 am
0 0 Rate This

The tweet by @AnOrangeCount asking what international arms dealers would want from a football club does make you wonder.

Anyone think that’s merely a red herring thrown in to muddy the waters? Or does one of the background boys do arms deals?

============================

A Huge squirrel ?

These twit-ter accounts haven’t given any real dynamite information so far.
‘They’ claimed the work is done !

What work?

To provide enough tittle-tattle to keep the bampots occupied. . .
To get Sevco through to the end of the lock-in period of the ”investors” in new improved Rangers?

View Comment

manandboyPosted on11:17 am - Nov 25, 2013


Greenock Jack says: (183) November 25, 2013 at 9:42 am
manandboy @ 9:25
I apoligize for being so base but your post reminds me of the line about people only enjoying the smell of their own farts.
Generally speaking, there is no greater troll or spoiler of debate than those who believe they have the exclusive on the truth.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

The fact is Jack, there are laws about fouling.

All I, and the majority of people ask, is that those laws be adhered to.

Trouble is, your crowd just don’t do law abiding.

I guess that’s because you are the Peepil.

But, you have a choice, Jack.

You could choose to have some respect for the law of the land –

and obey it.

I can assure you and yours, that would change things big time.

It can be done, Jack.

Just ask any dog owner with a bag in their pocket.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:21 am - Nov 25, 2013


tomtom says: (504)

November 25, 2013 at 9:55 am

Angus1983 says: (1251)
November 25, 2013 at 9:19 am
1 0 Rate This

upthehoops says:
November 25, 2013 at 7:15 am

Personally, I’ll be looking for the “title-stripping” to start fairly quickly should a verdict in favour of HMRC be returned.
====================
Much as though that should be what happens there is no chance of it. The SFA have already decided that they would not appeal the LNS whitewash.

I don’t like it and I certainly don’t agree with it but that’s the reality of the situation we are facing. There will be no clamour from the media for this and, as previously stated, it will be reported in a couple of lines on the inside pages.

However we (the internet community) can certainly try and bring pressure to bear and we should not shy away from tackling this when the time comes. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. There is no level in any sport where cheating can be tolerated and effectively rewarded, Armageddon or not. It’s bad enough that we tolerate megalomaniacs with their riches effectively buying titles but to let someone win with our money is definitely a step too far.
=================================================
Nil desperandum lads

The problem is not that there is not enough evidence to warrant asking questions, but that the authorities in all their forms, are afraid of what the answers to those questions will mean.

They postponed having to make a decision on titles behind LNS and will not want a revisit if the UTT finds for HMRC, but there are flaws in LNS’s decision re how he treated the early DOS ebts which were illegal but on which he was deliberately left unsighted by D&P..

You cannot used a flawed decision to prevent looking at what a victory for HMRC would mean, which is Rangers used tax evasion (as they already have done in the wee tax case) to illegally remunerate players at a higher level than their competitors, using a method that their competitors were unable to use because it was illegal.

However what matters here is not title stripping, what matters is authority admitting what everyone now believes or would believe if Rangers (oldco) came clean (but will not before the UTT as that would allow HMRC to start pursuing the men responsible now), and that is ebts were used in an illegal fashion to gain a sporting advantage and Rangers Oldco apologise profusely to Scottish football for demeaning our national sport and for the commercial damage caused..

It would help if they then offered to surrender titles voluntarily, but just getting the truth out is essential to stop this running sore before it poisons us all. In that respect removal of the fear of the consequences of telling the truth (i.e no title stripping ) would encourage it to emerge.

In fact retaining those titles would be a constant reminder of the most shameful period in Scottish football history.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on11:23 am - Nov 25, 2013


Angus1983 says: (1251)
November 25, 2013 at 9:19 am

I’m afraid you are going to be disappointed. The line will be that LNS dealt with the sporting aspects of these matters, and that to reopen them would be double jeopardy, against natural justice, fattening and any other half assed excuse the boards of the SFA & SPFL can up with. Oh yeah and it will be time to draw a line and move forward for the good of Scottish Football.

View Comment

FIFAPosted on11:33 am - Nov 25, 2013


manandboy
This is exactly what they are hoping for that the bampots will Leave them alone,go away,find a new blog ,they better get used to the fact its not going to happen,the sh~t has got be cleaned up and they certainly dont want to do it ,why ,because they know its not ordinary everyday sh~t ,its as toxic as you will get ,and its their sh~t which makes them toxic,as they say ,Houston we have a problem.

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on11:36 am - Nov 25, 2013


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25080684

Robbie Savage
. . . ” i think the chairmans of them clubs . . .”

Still better than Billy boy Dodds, Chic Young, Gordon Smith et al

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on11:49 am - Nov 25, 2013


Daily Record

‘Oldco’ Rangers receive £1m from sale of Nikica Jelavic.. but warn creditors they’re unlikely to get penny from windfall

25 Nov 2013 09:03
IBROX creditors left furious after joint liquidators BDO inform them of Nikica Jelavic windfall but warm them they are unlikely to get any of the £995,000 received.

OLDCO Rangers have received a further £1million from the sale of former star Nikica Jelavic – but creditors won’t see a penny of it.

Joint liquidators BDO wrote to 276 creditors this month informing them of the windfall but warning them they were unlikely to get any of the cash.

The letter said a payment of £995,000 had been received and they were expecting a further £1.058million in May 2014.

The payments relate to the transfer of striker Jelavic, who left Ibrox for Everton in January 2012 in a deal worth £5million.

Alan Duncan, who worked as the club’s kids’ entertainer and is still owed more than £2000, said: “I haven’t had a single penny of what I am owed.

“The Jelavic money should be used to pay the businesses they owe money to but it’s clear they have no intentions of doing that.

“I don’t think I will ever see the money I am owed.

“I was a Rangers fan and I employed six others to work there but they lost their jobs too.

“I am just peed off by the whole thing.”

The letter from BDO also revealed that the liquidators made a whopping £635,000 acting on Rangers’ behalf between October 2012 and March this year.

Legal fees of more than £500,000 have also been paid out to various firms using cash from the liquidation estate.

========================================

So . . . Mr Alan Duncan, can I ask you one more question?

Is the New Rangers, THE SAME CLUB as the Old Rangers ?

View Comment

bryce9aPosted on12:03 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Hirsute,

Your last response did not dispute my claim that the SPL’s Article 6 cannot be read any other way other than by drawing a distinction between “body corporate” (the owner and operator”) and the “club” which is being owned. Otherwise the “body corporate” becomes the owner and operator of itself.

You earlier asked why LNS discarded the Companies Act definition of “undertaking” and i think the above is your answer – because the SPL Articles required it.

With regard to your points on what exactly is the “member club” according to the SFA, ive a question that will assist in m understanding and un-tie a couple of cognitive knots!

That is, if there is a Transfer of Membership from the existing entity that held the membership (existing member) “to another entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction” (as the SFA Articles permit), does that mean the receiving entity is a “new member” (and taking the “only a club can be a member” principle) a “new club”??

I believe the process described within that question covers the scenario of a club incorporating, when technically speaking a new legal “person” is created and, so to speak, assumes the membership from the unincorporated association.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on12:08 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Just listened to the news on the Radio.
Football clubs in Scotland are walking a financial tightrope(no s**t,sherlock) and need to revisit their business model.
Due to Rangers “demotion”,however,the problem isn’t as bad for the div2(div 3?.) clubs as they benefited from Massive gates.
Usual rubbish!

View Comment

Comments are closed.