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

JoethebookiePosted on6:34 pm - Nov 25, 2013


bryce9a says: (21)
November 25, 2013 at 4:53 pm
 0 18 Rate This

Do you seriously believe that the Greatest Football Administrator in the World didn’t know the football rules?
Like declaring all contracts to the authorities.
He knew.

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on6:35 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Barcabhoy
This blog is being lectured by Rangers supporters about spin and paying people properly
You couldn’t make that up. As someone once said, you couldn’t mark their neck with a blow torch
————————————————————————————————————————

The word ‘lectured’ is an exaggeration and misrepresents what is simply an opinion or take on a given issue. ❗

A few weeks ago, I chuckled when you replied after I had pulled you up for blatant spin (which incidently the board generally recognized and that’s like a Scottish boxer winning a fight on points in Puerto Rico). I laughed at the reply because in the same paragraph you asked for recognition of past demeanours from Rangers whilst making a denial and not apoligizing for your spin. 😀

Neck/blow torch ?

IMO there are a couple of posters whose style might be called ‘lecturing’ but I’ll not name names.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on6:37 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Bryce,

I’m trying to stick with you!

If RFC have suffered (conveniently ignoring the benefit side of the equation) as a result of COs time at RFCold then that is a matter for RFCold. If all of Scottish football has suffered due to COs efforts whilst at the SFA then that is a matter for all of us.

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on6:52 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Spivco
I gave you a short answer on the issue and didn’t make any requests to TSFM.

I think the key word you use is ‘again’ and that you might want to bear that in mind looking forward.

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on7:00 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Spivco
Institutional Intuition !

Seriously, it’s only a hunch but I think he’ll keep them for aslong as he is at the club, if not longer.
Relatively speaking it’s not as if he stands to lose much financialy, whatever happens.

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on7:02 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Can any of the same club trumpeters tell me
Why their club is excluded from European football for at least 3 yrs .
🙄 🙄

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on7:06 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Can I ask a couple of quick recap questions, on stuff I have forgotten or missed.

1. Will the UTTT findings be redacted, I know there was a hearing about how the case would be handled.
2. When do HMRC become payable again for new club.
3. Are there any other clubs directly linked to the UTTT in the paper trail.
4. What happened to the old allegation about the SFA possibly utilising clever schemes to pay national managers known for having been duped into such rewards elsewhere.

thanks in advance.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on7:16 pm - Nov 25, 2013


bryce9a says: (21)

November 25, 2013 at 5:36 pm

We have had exchanges on Twitter about the culpability of the Rangers support at large for what happened at that your club.

Your argument was that it was not the supporters but the folk in charge who have caused your demise. I actually can buy that argument now in the sense that supporters as a whole are not aware of what is being done in their name by their club’s custodians.

Campbell Ogilvie was part of the policy making group that set Rangers on this disastrous course in terms of loss of integrity, not to mention financially.

You now have enough information as a support to ask him to explain fully his role, how he remained ignorant of the side letter breaches and why he feels it right to continue in his current role in Scottish football. You are asking the wrong folk the kind of questions you should be asking the SFA. Perhaps you can divert some of your energy in that direction.

To put our game (and your club) back on the right and fair track, we need someone of strength and impeccable integrity to bring in the sort of measures that will protect every club in Scottish football from the practices and non policing of them that have brought our game and your club to its knees.

It would be as well to start now than wait to see if the UTT gives Rangers an all clear on the big tax case because on the wee tax case, Rangers with the questionable benefit of Campbell Ogilvie’s stewardship , broke trust with everyone.

View Comment

erniePosted on7:19 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Joethebookie says: (32)
November 25, 2013 at 6:34 pm
=============================
Exactly Joe, I’ve run a team in the amateurs (only way to gat a game!) and been on the committee (including a blazer and tie!) in the Juniors and I, along with all the other thousands of amateurs who do this every week, swotted up the rules for fear of the consequences. How patronising to expect us to think CO didn’t know exactly what he/they were risking.

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on7:32 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Spivco
Thanks. Don’t you think he (like others) will lose them all if the club goes into Admin or Liquidation again due to £14.5m debt? Kinda like the Club Deck people lost their seats for life?
————————————————————————————————————
The issue is whether there will be an insolvency event or not.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on7:35 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Greenock Jack
There’s no other way of saying this.

You are deluded and spinning for all your worth

View Comment

SpivcoPosted on7:46 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Greenock Jack says: (198)

November 25, 2013 at 7:32 pm

Spivco
Thanks. Don’t you think he (like others) will lose them all if the club goes into Admin or Liquidation again due to £14.5m debt? Kinda like the Club Deck people lost their seats for life?
————————————————————————————————————
The issue is whether there will be an insolvency event or not.
_________________________________________________________________

Indeed. But they are 14.5m in debt (minimum) and spending more than they make. Someone, somewhere, will want that 14.5m back. It is not just fresh air that can be puffed away. Unless they liquidate again, when of course, it can ‘disappear’. Just like that. So, how are your club going to repay the 14.5 million pounds they owe?

View Comment

FIFAPosted on8:20 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Arbroath 0-2 down to the visitors who’se fans are now bursting into song,BT are able to tone down the mikes at that end ,have it recorded so will verify at end of game .

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on8:30 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Acording to BBC text commentary:

“Rangers have scored 25 goals in their last six meetings with Arbroath – that’s an average of more than four per game – with only two conceded. So Ally McCoist’s side are following in an impressive tradition.”

Have Rangers played Arbroath six times already?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:33 pm - Nov 25, 2013


FIFA says: (412)
November 25, 2013 at 8:20 pm
2 0 Rate This
—————-

Now 3-0 and ‘too easy’, as Gary McCallister says. Now all this glorious winning, ‘triumph upon triumph’, is it making a mockery of the league if the new club is running out of money? Wilful overspending while there’s a possible possible administration on the horizon is hopefully not acceptable to the SFA.

No doubt the new board members have a handle on it all.

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on8:39 pm - Nov 25, 2013


62 seconds it took me to turn over, not a goal, but one of those songs containing a word you can get the jail for. Kids about, I’ll read about it later. On here obviously not in the match report or any other form of reporting it. Done me a favour sky got a couple of big old teams competing, in a derby match and no hatred. Funny that.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:00 pm - Nov 25, 2013


This is a post from the share chat on LSE. It was posted by Jonnybhoy, although he doesn’t quote his source. Interesting all the same:

a taste of what’s coming
“Another outfit that stirs up trouble in the hope of making a profit is Laxey Partners. Headed by Colin Kingsnorth, Laxey has a succession of victims on its belt, including British Land, where it tried to unseat the property giant’s then head, Sir John Ritblat. Laxey’s ownership can be traced to the Isle of Man but the firm works out of a small office in Jermyn Street. The object of its latest assault is Hirco, the AIM-listed Indian property developer. Hirco is run by the wealthy Hiranandani family.

Laxey holds 10.05% of Hirco and QVT, a fund with which it is closely linked, also has 4.95%. Kingsnorth has called for an emergency shareholders’ meeting to change the seven-strong board. He is demanding that Niranjan Hiranandani, the chairman and father of Priya Hiranandani, the chief executive, resigns and that four “independent” directors are appointed.

It’s not clear what his game plan is but it would come as no surprise if Kingsnorth was pressing for the quick sale of Hirco properties.

He’s argued against what he perceives as the lack of transparency and governance within Hirco. However, of the four new “independents”, one is Andrew Pegge, his Laxey co-founder, another is Michael Haxby, a Laxey executive. A third, Aled Rhys-Jones, runs Celtic Asset Management. Celtic’s chief financial officer, Christopher Bruce, was Laxey’s CFO between 2001 and 2007.

In Switzerland, Laxey is embroiled in a row about secret stakebuilding in Implenia, the country’s biggest building services group. Between late 2006 and 2007, Laxey used different banks to “warehouse” contracts for difference in Implenia. Under Swiss law, holdings in derivatives are subject to the same rules of disclosure as normal shares. Laxey, which denies any transgression, could face criminal prosecution.

Hirco does not need lectures from Laxey. And if we’re serious about the City learning lessons and moving forward, we should take a long, hard look at Laxey and its fellow activists.”

[edit: found source: http://www.standard.co.uk/business/troublemaking-investors-have-left-us-all-in-a-mess-6872819.html ]

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on9:09 pm - Nov 25, 2013


What kind of country/society do we live in that the SFA, the press, radio stations, leaders of Governing bodies, QC’s and several other agencies manipulate things, bend rules and ignore open debate without bias the subject of the liquidation of a club.
Fear or favour has been banded about and also the term of social unrest from fans of ONE club. I find it strange that all of the above entities can lie (same club, fabric of society, Armageddon without them relegated, company died not club and several other ludicrous statements to keep them alive in some form). They also chose to ignore, their veiled threats,threatening boycotts, bigot songs from fans, bigot comments from CEO, no surrender comments from board members and on and on. These actions offend EVERY football fan outside the Govan club but obviously we do not pose a threat and they do not fear us, we are not going to cause social unrest. We mean nothing to them IMO. I do not think they are scared of us but more likely scared of not having them, that is in my mind their real fear. I cannot think of any other club in any other country that would receive this treatment and preference, why? What kind of country do we live in?
If they died completely would it benefit our game and country?

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on9:14 pm - Nov 25, 2013


valentinesclown says: (282)
November 25, 2013 at 9:09 pm

All correct and well said except I thought they had died completely. ❓

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on9:19 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Imagine this…..

You are an Aberdeen, Morton, Dundee Utd or Falkirk supporter and your team earns the right to play in a specific European competition due to your final placing in the league or past achievements….. Now let’s say at the start of the next season your team does not take its rightful place in this competition or has to start in a different round of a domestic competition……

I mean, what’s the problem? Not as if you are going to ask something as simple as “why?” I mean, you were expecting something that didn’t happen but why should that be a problem?

Now if your team(club) is seen as one of the biggest in the country, one that is fawned over by almost every corner of the MSM, you wouldn’t expect them to make a fuss and ask the one simple question to The SFA… “Hey guys, how come Rangers are not playing in the round of The Scottish Cup that their performances to date have determined?”

Anyone?

Well I for one would NEVER ask. But then again, I was always encouraged never to ask a question where I already knew the answer…..

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on9:21 pm - Nov 25, 2013


ean7brodie says: (367)

valentinesclown says: (282)
November 25, 2013 at 9:09 pm

All correct and well said except I thought they had died completely. ❓

—————————————————————————————————

You are so right they are deid, I can say it you can say it, but when the SFA and MSM say and print it then and only then the Govan fans will maybe believe it.

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on9:26 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Can any of the same club trumpeters tell me
What Sevco 2012 did to incur (according to many Sevco 2012 fans and the SMSM ) a 3 year BAN from Uefa .
🙄 🙄

View Comment

bryce9aPosted on9:27 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Madbhoy,

Have you read the specific rule determining which teams were due to enter the Scots cup at the round 2 stage last season?

The rule required Rangers – as a 4th tier side – to enter at that stage.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:29 pm - Nov 25, 2013


So seems like all quiet amongst the ‘new’ board and CEO.

Is it becuase they have taken up the ‘traditional’ Ibrox oath of dignified silence or are they still stuck in the cludgy shitting bricks having seen the books!!

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on9:31 pm - Nov 25, 2013


😛

View Comment

ClashCityRockersPosted on9:35 pm - Nov 25, 2013


fergusslayedtheblues says: (242)
November 25, 2013 at 9:26 pm
Can any of the same club trumpeters tell me
What Sevco 2012 did to incur (according to many Sevco 2012 fans and the SMSM ) a 3 year BAN from Uefa .
———————
They were banned because they didn’t offer ebt’s to Platini and co.

OC/NC conundrum.

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on9:47 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Does anyone think that the real reason for the rushed league reconstruction was to facilitate the change in the rule that associate members served a minimum 5 yr as AM .
Sevco were given Full membership because league reconstruction did away with AM
Could this have been done to ensure Sevco 2012 were able to qualify for European football sooner than they would have .
🙄 🙄

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on9:50 pm - Nov 25, 2013


So in my book Sevco 2012 were fast tracked by 4 years to full membership .
Now how LUCKY was that . 🙄 🙄

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on9:53 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Not sure if it’s been mentioned/covered (i’m a few days behind things)

I see the Scottish CL participants are due to receive a further £7M due to the increased TV deal from BT sport.

the SFA should pass a rule stating that all Uefa money will be split 50% with the participating club and 50% across the rest of the league

it’s getting silly now!

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on9:57 pm - Nov 25, 2013


bryce9a says:
November 25, 2013 at 9:27 pm

The rule required Rangers – as a 4th tier side – to enter at that stage.
——
Correct.

And the lack of a Rangers presence in Europe, following their apparent qualification?

View Comment

Reilly1926Posted on9:59 pm - Nov 25, 2013


bryce9a says: (22)

November 25, 2013 at 9:27 pm

Madbhoy,

Have you read the specific rule determining which teams were due to enter the Scots cup at the round 2 stage last season?

The rule required Rangers – as a 4th tier side – to enter at that stage.

———————-
Why were Rangers (That’s not their original name – Sevco Scotland is) in the 4th tier in the first place ?

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on10:03 pm - Nov 25, 2013


bryce9a says: (21)
November 25, 2013 at 12:03 pm
2 36 Rate This

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.
=======================================
I think I did dispute your claim on Article 6.; but I will try to be a little clearer.

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

Remember:
“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;”

So a Club has multiple characteristics.
1. It is a legal entity or an unincorporated association of persons (its form)
2. It operates as an association football club (its activity)
3. It is entitled to participate in the league (its status)

If we are talking about an incorporated club, we should read Article 6 as,
A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by the body corporate which is the owner and operator of a Club?

or to put it another way

The legal entity which holds the share must be the same legal entity that operates as the association football club that is entitled to participate in the league.

If we are talking about an unincorporated club, Article 6 would read,
A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by the person who is the owner and operator of a Club.

In other words, the Member will be the real person who is deemed to own and operate an association football club which is entitled to participate in the league.

As I said in my previous reply, the SPL articles are written so that they apply whatever form that club takes – a body corporate or an unincorporated association of persons.

I understand that it makes the language difficult; but there is nothing contradictory or overly complicated when the words and expressions are given their intended meaning.

I’ll give you another example – this time from the SFA.

For National Club Licensing the SFA say:
“3.1 Definition of the Club

The club is a full member and/or an associate member of the Association and the expression membership” shall be construed accordingly.”

For UEFA Club Licensing the SFA say:
“3.1 Definition of Licence Applicant

3.1.1 The Licence Applicant may only be a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member).”

For practical purposes, the different definitions mean exactly the same for those taking part in the Licensing process. SFA member clubs who were members of the SPL were all legal entities.

The National Club Licensing definition is written to include clubs which are an unincorporated association of persons. The UEFA Club Licensing definition is explicit that only incorporated clubs will be admitted to their competitions.


On your other point.
A transfer of membership “to another entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction” does not constitute an interruption of membership for National or UEFA Licensing purposes, so no I would not consider that to be a new Member Club. Nor do the SFA.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:05 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Galling fiver says: (38)
November 25, 2013 at 7:06 pm
‘..Will the UTTT findings be redacted..’
—–=-
No.The judge before whom the case will be heard ruled that there was no reason why a football club should be afforded any more anonymity than any other tax-liable body. He would only permit anonymity in an individual case if there were a compelling reason to do so.
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/239433-rangers-ebt-tax-case-hmrc-appeal-to-be-heard-in-public-judge-rules/

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on10:06 pm - Nov 25, 2013


bryce9a says: (22)
November 25, 2013 at 9:27 pm
………………………………………

Madbhoy should have qualified his question better….why in season 2012-13 (if they are the same club as you suggest) did they enter the Scottish cup at a lower stage when the previous season a club called Rangers finished 2nd in the SPL?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:10 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Danish Pastry says: (1725)
November 25, 2013 at 9:00 pm
‘..pressing for the quick sale of Hirco properties..’
———
Same game plan for Ibrox Stadium? Laxey seems to have a thing about selling properties -quick!

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on10:14 pm - Nov 25, 2013


The question now is .
Are the SFA sitting bricking it in case Sevco 2012 reach the SC final and either win it or are runners up to the eventual SPFL winners .
Now if that happens and Sevco’s finances are in order (stop laughing at the back ) and they have paid ALL their TAXES and they are the same club they must qualify for the EL .
If they are not the same club however they will not ,or have the SFA got a S Bryson rule up their sleeve ,could this explain the latest flurry of posts from a new kid on the blog ,added to smudger smiths bullish and very matter of fact statements on radio stations lately ,that and I quote “Uefa and the SFA have said they are the same club ” when no one can point to when both organisations stated such a thing .
Everyone that thinks the OCNC has no bearing in this saga ,may have to think again .
Uefa ,as we have seen leave it up to the domestic governing bodies to issue the licences and I assume they believe they would do that legitimately .
Now who would it suit for the same club myth to disappear off the agenda .are the SFA trying to get ahead of the curve ,just in case like 🙄 🙄

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on10:21 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Thank you JC, what do you want on your chits? I might join you if I’m allowed in dressed as Mr Custard.

View Comment

bryce9aPosted on10:34 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Paulmac2 says: (798)
“why in season 2012-13 (if they are the same club as you suggest) did they enter the Scottish cup at a lower stage when the previous season a club called Rangers finished 2nd in the SPL?”

I’ve answered this recently, so if you don’t mind, I’ll just reproduce my answer!

So, the argument is essentially that Gers entry into the Scottish Cup at the 2nd round is incompatible with them having existed the previous season, as it is claimed, “as the rules make clear”, they’d necessarily have entered at the 4th round if this ‘same club’ scenario was the case.

So, a look at the rules, round by round, in chronological order.

The draw works by specific clubs being “exempted” from particular rounds as follows:

Round One
The clubs which, in the current season, are members of The Scottish Premier League
and The Scottish Football League, shall be exempt from playing in Round One of the
Competition.

Relevance to Gers? As SFL members they are exempt. Onto the next round….

Round Two
The clubs which, in the CURRENT season, are members of The Scottish Premier League
and those which participate in The Scottish Football League First and Second division
Championships, shall be exempt from playing in Round Two of the Competition.

Relevance to Gers? As a club not CURRENTLY (back then) in either SPL, SFL1, or SFL2, Rangers enter the draw at this stage. The rules, unambiguously, require Gers to enter at this stage.

So far so good. However, the weeks tick past and when the draw for the next round arrives, an anomaly is thrown up:

Round Three
The clubs which, in the previous season, were members of The Scottish Premier League
and those clubs finishing in The Scottish Football League First division league positions
one to four, shall be exempt from playing in Round Three of the Competition.

So this wording indicates Rangers (if the same club) are “exempt” from this round, but what effect would that have?

Effectively receiving a bye into round 4, Rangers exemption would leave only 31 teams in the hat to battle over the remaining (because Gers would have received a bye) 15 slots in the 4th round draw (at which stage the SPL/other SFL1 teams enter). Clearly, the draw could not proceed on such a basis.

A solution?

47. Alterations and Additions to Rules
(a) The Board shall have the power to temporarily suspend, amend or add to these
Rules as circumstances may dictate from time to time, as it deems appropriate in its
reasonable discretion, to facilitate the smooth running of the Competition,

The obvious solution is shuffle the 5th placed SFL1 team up one place to fill the “gap” left by any Rangers “exemption” being rendered invalid by having already entered the competition. That is exactly what happened.

So was Rangers entering at round 2 compatible with them being the “same club”?

Yes, because that’s where the rules specifically required them – as a CURRENT (back then) SFL3 club – to enter. The anomaly this created due to the wording of rules for the following round, which obviously only come into play at that stage of the competition, were addressed by the SFA – as the rules permit them to – in the fairest, most logical way possible – to my understanding anyway.

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on10:41 pm - Nov 25, 2013


From 29/03/2012 under the heading
Rangers official Euro ban just days away

UEFA general secretary Gianni Infantino has confirmed that he expects administration-run Rangers to be banned from European competition next season.
Infantino has confirmed that the Light Blues will not be issued with their UEFA licence if they do not come out of administration before the end of this week.
Now as far as I am aware the entity described above never ever came out of administration ,it did in fact enter liquidation 🙄 🙄

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on10:43 pm - Nov 25, 2013


http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2012-13/SFA_HANDBOOK_169-200_Cup_Competition_Rules.pdf

8. Clubs Exempt from Playing in Round One, Round Two and Round Three of the Competition

Round One
The clubs which, in the current season, are members of The Scottish Premier League and The Scottish Football League, shall be exempt from playing in Round One of the Competition.
The clubs which, in the previous season, have won the Scottish Highland Football League Championship, the East of Scotland Football League Championship and the South of Scotland Football League Championship shall also be exempt from playing in Round One, as shall the runners up in the Scottish Highland Football League Championship.

Round Two
The clubs which, in the current season, are members of The Scottish Premier League and those which participate in The Scottish Football League First and Second division Championships, shall be exempt from playing in Round Two of the Competition.

Round Three
The clubs which, in the previous season, were members of The Scottish Premier League and those clubs finishing in The Scottish Football League First division league positions one to four, shall be exempt from playing in Round Three of the Competition.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:45 pm - Nov 25, 2013


No I would rather raith won the ramsdens to avoid the “how many titles” banter and a division 1 side knocks them out of the cup proper for no reason other than to put a spoke in the wheels of the current history making side. Then let normal financial forces take whatever path they do.

View Comment

JoethebookiePosted on10:51 pm - Nov 25, 2013


bryce9a says: (23)
November 25, 2013 at 10:34 pm
 2 4 Rate This

If you were doing it right you would work out which clubs had byes into later rounds first.
Then you would remove them and make the draw with the remaining clubs.
Nice try though.

View Comment

auchinstarryPosted on10:58 pm - Nov 25, 2013


There is this old joke …….. .”.I used to be into Sadism, Bestiality, and Necrophilia………Then I realised I was flogging a dead horse.!” Any similarities to contributors of this blog are purely coincidental.
Its all been said before. So if this incarnation of the Govan club are the same ones who racked up the debts………………Then pay them and be done with it.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on11:00 pm - Nov 25, 2013


briggsbhoy says: (746)
November 25, 2013 at 10:57 pm

HaHa at least your honest 😉 😆

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on11:04 pm - Nov 25, 2013


bryce9a says: (23)
November 25, 2013 at 10:34 pm
………………………………..

So we agree the club who finished 2nd in the SPL were exempt…yet SEVCO were not…strange?

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on11:11 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Oh the famous anomaly .
Now where have I heard that word before
Oh that’s right it was in the months when the new club could not play any pre season games .
where would we be without these wee anomalies
🙄 🙄

View Comment

bryce9aPosted on11:15 pm - Nov 25, 2013


HirsuitPursuit,

Thanks for the reply.
You said…. “I understand that it makes the language difficult; but there is nothing contradictory or overly complicated when the words and expressions are given their intended meaning.”

I’m sorry, but I disagree.

You state:
If we are talking about an incorporated club, we should read Article 6 as,
A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by the body corporate which is the owner and operator of a Club?

Correct… BUT…

1. If we take your claim that the meaning of undertaking as equivalent to “body corporate” applies to the SPL’s ‘Club’ means an undertaking of an association football club… definition – effectively this renders the meaning of “Club” as synonymous with “Company”.
2. Therefore Article 6 MUST (for an incorporated club as in Rangers case ) be read as:
A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or.held by a company who is the owner and operator of a company of an association football club

And, therefore, my point stands that your definition of “undertaking” renders Article 6 as nonsensical. If it’s agree to disagree time on that point, so be it!

View Comment

bryce9aPosted on11:24 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Joethebookie said:
“If you were doing it right you would work out which clubs had byes into later rounds first.
Then you would remove them and make the draw with the remaining clubs.
Nice try though.”

The whole point, in case you missed it, was that Rangers didn’t have a “bye into later rounds” because they were required by the rules to enter at Round Two.

Not sure what your understanding of a “bye” is, but being required to enter at Round X is to not a ‘bye’ according to my understanding.

As I explained, an anomaly did arise, but the SFA dealt with it in the most logical way.

Unless you can suggest an alternative, preferrable solution? Would dearly love to hear one!

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on11:28 pm - Nov 25, 2013


auchinstarry says: (111)
November 25, 2013 at 10:58 pm
I agree it has been done to death but IMO ,we are witnessing a concerted effort to misinform the fans of Scottish football ahead of a possible illegal licence being granted .
Are peepil hoping they don’t have to face the problem or are they laying the groundwork to perpetuate the myth to legitimise their actions

View Comment

Reilly1926Posted on11:28 pm - Nov 25, 2013


With the millions of £s revenue lost in being put into the 4th tier you would have thought that Charlie and his boys would have got their expensive lawyers to argue tooth and nail that they were the same club/different company status and remained in the SPL.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on11:33 pm - Nov 25, 2013


HM Revenue and Customs’ Rangers tax case appeal to be heard in public

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/239433-rangers-ebt-tax-case-hmrc-appeal-to-be-heard-in-public-judge-rules/
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Judge Bishopp said he took into account the financial collapse of Rangers and subsequent fallout into allowing the hearings to be held in public.
He stated: “Perhaps because of such feelings, professional football clubs are often regarded as having a special status. In some respects that may be the correct view; but it should nevertheless not be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a ‘club’, in the sense of an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its shareholders.
“From that perspective it has no special status, and there is no reason why its tax affairs should not be as open to scrutiny as those of any other profit-making organisation. The players, too, have no greater right to conceal their tax affairs from public scrutiny than any other taxpayer. The fact that they are in the public eye is irrelevant.
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
Judge Bishopp doesn`t seem to be aware that this pesky tax issue relates to a holding company that went bust thus freeing a football club to move with the football assets to a new holding co
Indeed
He is saying that it is Rangers Football Club not some ethereal holding co that is the subject of the HMRC appeal to the UTT

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on11:43 pm - Nov 25, 2013


Barcabhoy
There’s no other way of saying this.
You are deluded and spinning for all your worth
————————————————————————-
Strong words but IMO an unfair and inaccurate assessment.

When you concentrate on actual corporate details, the interpretation of how a given situation within a business may pan out or similar you are an knowledgeable and interesting poster.

When you go on a different route, whether it be on random individual attack mode (eg. John McKay, Scott Murdoch etc.), spinning a line/slant or similar, you are not very subtle, accurate or to be frank, very good at it. As another poster put it “you lead with your chin”.

Far be it from me to lecture you on what to post but I do think the blog would benefit more if you stuck to what you were good at.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on11:45 pm - Nov 25, 2013


fergusslayedtheblues says: (248)
November 25, 2013 at 11:28 pm

Not sure I would put anything past the football authorities. However, should such an event come to pass, then all the board members would have serious questions to answer, and the usual excuses will not be sufficient…

View Comment

bryce9aPosted on12:02 am - Nov 26, 2013


HirsuitPursuit,
You said: “A transfer of membership “to another entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction” does not constitute an interruption of membership for National or UEFA Licensing purposes, so no I would not consider that to be a new Member Club. Nor do the SFA.”

This is where I think the meanings of words like “member” can be fleshed out.

Either:
Scenario 1. The holder of the membership = the member club. Therefore any transfer of membership – solvent or otherwise – must, by definition, be from one holder (“member club”) to another holder (“member club”). So that’s TWO member clubs.
Or:
Scenario 2. The holder of the membership = the legal entity representing the member club. Therefore a transfer of membership can take place between legal entities, one that did represent the member club and one that subsequently will, and only one member club need be cited in explaining the transfer.

Both scenarios cannot be true at the same time, it is one or the other.

You seem to have argued in support of Scenario 1 with respect to Rangers to say that the Transfer of Membership was between two member clubs, as only “Clubs or associations undertaking to promote Association Football… may be admitted as registered members, associate members or full members”.

Now, in your response I quoted above, you state an instance where, despite there being a new holder of the membership, you do “not consider that to be a new Member Club”, invoking Scenario B.

To me that is a contradiction. Can you explain this inconsistency and perhaps declare which Scenario, A or B, you actually believe to be the case. Thanks.

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on12:05 am - Nov 26, 2013


So they are the same club, with Dundee’s history, who were relegated a world record amount of leagues, have not enough accounts for Europe, didn’t need a tour of Germany, let all those big fat juicy transfer values walk out the door as a gesture of goodwill, paid the going rate to themselves for stuff they already had, won a tax case, employed a former club manager who had wished the new club well and JT for pronouncing them dead, made it to a CL last eight which was actually a semi, claim 54 titles when it’s 53.5 using the same math, award themselves 5 stars although they have none, rob the queen they so hold so dear, belong at the top, have not officially changed company number or club name, never mention Germans in the same sentence with poppy, believe they are victims, have 500,000,000 fans and no debt, are currently at the mercy of guys who tell porkies to keep control away from a huge pack of billionaire fans willing to bring back Ronaldo, not the old one the new one. And it can all be backed up, unless you are an obsessive hater.

Added a bit of in accuracy for effect.

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on12:08 am - Nov 26, 2013


scapa
Oh how right you are but think on this
Who got a guaranteed 2 game slice of gates announced many months ahead of schedule ,who have maxed out all other investors gullible to hand over cash and who were handed a full membership last year 4 years ahead of schedule .
IMO for the peepil to pull it off they will have to quickly convince as many MSM readers/listeners that their pet was the same pup the peepil once knew ,to avoid too much of a stink reaching Uefa
could we rule it out 🙄 🙄

View Comment

Matteo GalyPosted on12:28 am - Nov 26, 2013


bryce9a says: (26)
November 26, 2013 at 12:02 am

As you’re talking about this transfer of membership, can you tell us why one was needed in the first place?
It wasn’t required when Murray took over from Marlborough, nor when Whyte bought the club from Murray.
Why was this case different, if it was merely a change in ownership?
Thanks.

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on12:30 am - Nov 26, 2013


Bryce9a
You said: “A transfer of membership “to another entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction” does not constitute an interruption of membership for National or UEFA Licensing purposes, so no I would not consider that to be a new Member Club. Nor do the SFA.”

Is the answer not in the words internal solvent reconstruction

View Comment

Caveat EmptorPosted on12:33 am - Nov 26, 2013


bryce9a says: (26)
November 25, 2013 at 11:24 pm
0 5 Rate This
The whole point, in case you missed it, was that Rangers didn’t have a “bye into later rounds”
************************************
I agree. They ‘got a bye’ into the SPFL!!!
And it’s goodnight from me.

View Comment

bryce9aPosted on1:16 am - Nov 26, 2013


Matteo Galy says
“As you’re talking about this transfer of membership, can you tell us why one was needed in the first place?”

As in any situation where a football club survives the insolvency of it’s corporate entitiy through a business/assets sale to a newco – such as happened to Leeds in 2007, Middlesbrough in 1986, Palace in 1986, 2000 and 2010, Portsmouth in 2010 and 2013, Luton/Bristol City/Plymouth/Rotherham/Bournemouth/Charlton the list goes on and on – a transfer of membership is required for the authorities to official recognise the football club as having continued.

Without this transfer – as occured in cases such as Chester, Darlington, Aldershot, Gretna, Airdrieonians, Halifax etc – continuity is not recognised to the same extent and the club is likely to have to adopt a different playing name.

You said:
It wasn’t required when Murray took over from Marlborough, nor when Whyte bought the club from Murray. Why was this case different, if it was merely a change in ownership?

MIH and Wavetower were parent companies, holding a controlling stake of shares in Oldco. Their “purchases” of the club were share purchases in the “owner and operator” (to borrow current SFA/SPFL lexicon), rather than the business & assets sale to newco referred to in my response above.

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on1:30 am - Nov 26, 2013


I will say again
The fact that the rules were changed last year regards associate membership to allow Sevco 2012 full membership 4 years earlier than normal was done for a reason .
IMO the Scottish football paying public of every club bar one (not your turn yet) will soon be played for fools again .
In the last few weeks the re affirming of the same club myth has been stepped up both on the MSM and on here and IMO that is no coincidence ,we have all seen it before but it has now upped a gear and has for a reason .
IMO the reason is that the fix is on, just in time for the departure of the spivs (or as I call them ,the ones who didn’t walk away ) ,money has to come in to a club and there is no pot to give any back ,so dig deep Sevco supporters (now it’s your turn).
Stories of the authorities saying “their the same team ” and the wee report out saying certain clubs are on the brink of going over the edge and fans buyout is the way forward ,is for your benefit .One thing I will say though is I always maintained that it would be you the supporters who would be expected to foot the bill for the tribute act ,pity the peepil never thought you old enough to know the truth .
Why don’t you ask
where your 2nd place prize money went
why, if your club never suffered liquidation did it have to start at the bottom tier of the professional game
why did the SFA allow your players to walk away
why your team had to cancel their pre season games (oh that was because of an anomaly )
why your team had to play in the earlier rounds of the SC (oh that was an anomaly ) must say it’s worth looking up the meaning of anomaly ,sums Sevco and the SFA up perfectly .
why the MSM are convinced your club were RELEGATED 3 divisions and are banned from European football for 3 yrs
Why have you not demanded to know what your club have done to receive this BAN .
Why did your club not receive the Jelavik transfer money
why did LNS fine the old club (remember them )
Answers on a postcard to
Hover pitches r us

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on1:49 am - Nov 26, 2013


A list of clubs who have been in administration, is different from the clubs who were liquidated, when you interpret company law to suit. I concur.

Liquidation is now “surviving an insolvency event”. Gotcha.

Is that after the clear break in history, or after the creditors get paid?

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on2:04 am - Nov 26, 2013


Without this transfer – as occured in cases such as Chester, Darlington, Aldershot, Gretna, Airdrieonians, Halifax etc – continuity is not recognised to the same extent and the club is likely to have to adopt a different playing name.
——————————
And you missed out that you can add a “the” . And then add your new playing name to that list above, of teams who never survived liquidation, cheers.

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on2:14 am - Nov 26, 2013


bryce9a
So who are BDO in the process of liquidating

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on2:50 am - Nov 26, 2013


I am amazed that a financial wizard such as CG would offer to pay £8.5m ,£3m more for something he knew he could get for £5.5m LOCK STOCK AND HISTORY.
I think I read somewhere on here that HMRC had appointed BDO to oversee the liquidation and BDO had looked to a guy called Cohen (I think ) for his expertise of getting stuck in .
Well I am only an internet bampot so I have no reputation to keep but to me the smell in this is overwhelming and it’s a stench that will cling to anybody involved and although people around you may feel obliged not to mention it in the short term in years to come they may just feel they have to distance themselves from me because of my bampotery involvement
Did I mention a few peepil jumped ship just before the convenient name change ,I love a timeline ,don’t you 🙄 🙄

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on2:52 am - Nov 26, 2013


bryce9a says: (27)
November 26, 2013 at 12:02 am
============================
My response to your previous post has not appeared. Too late now to re-type; but I’ll get back to you tomorrow on Article 6.

In relation to the solvent reconstruction scenario – I’m not sure were you see the similarity with RFC and Sevco.

RFC & Sevco were separately registered members of the SFA for a period of 3 weeks through their membership of different leagues.

These clubs cannot be the same member club because they existed as separate member clubs during that 3 week period.

If SFA membership is transferred internally due to solvent restructuring, there is only ever one member. Both registered and full (or associate) membership would be transferred simultaneously.

In such circumstances and as the transferred membership is within the same corporate structure, I would recognise it as the same member club.

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on2:53 am - Nov 26, 2013


off for some beauty sleep ,see you all in 2022
Botox is for wimps

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on2:57 am - Nov 26, 2013


Just a thought – in all the court cases intimated to date, the new holding company of TRFC have not yet issued any threat to the SFA/SPL/SFL to sue them all for loss of income due to illegally applying rules to the same club against the articles of associations etc and causing a huge loss of money/income!

Lost a lot of money from no UEFA participation, SPL prize money, players transfers and TV/sponsor money.

Would be a slam dunk case with Gordon Smith as chief witness surely………..

Strange that the RST have not started a Fighting Fund for this court case……….

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on3:02 am - Nov 26, 2013


Mr Cohen
if you are unable to sleep and are looking in ,I suggest you adjust any recent timeline back a long ways and look at the peepil involved two to three years previous to the MBB .
that is of course just an internet bampots suggestion and you should treat it as such
happy hunting

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on3:08 am - Nov 26, 2013


Exiled celt
Funny you should say that because I was thinking the very same thing .
See for a support that grabs the pitchforks for the least wee comment or remark ,they are very reserved when the peepil seem to keep millions of their money when they so desperately need it .
Now isn’t that very strange EC .

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on3:14 am - Nov 26, 2013


goodnight all
goodnight BDO
goodnight Jack glad to see you have got a better class of troll on the job ,my guess it is an SFA pal or a master debater ,just my opinion though 🙄 🙄
Although they must be costing more than the minimum wage so things must be getting desperate ,hope he is worth it

View Comment

JoethebookiePosted on6:55 am - Nov 26, 2013


ryce9a says: (27)
November 25, 2013 at 11:24 pm
 0 22 Rate This

Rangers did have a ‘bye’ or were supposed to enter at a later round.
That is my point, Sevco didn’t.
That is why Sevco entered at the stage they entered at.
They are not Rangers.

View Comment

FisianiPosted on7:06 am - Nov 26, 2013


Another day gone another 38,000 pounds lost at Ibrokes. The AGM is after the date that the spivs can sell their shares. But who will buy to simply enrich the spivs? Why buy shares in a COMPANY that will soon be bankrupt?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:17 am - Nov 26, 2013


Galling fiver says: (42)
November 26, 2013 at 1:49 am

A list of clubs who have been in administration, is different from the clubs who were liquidated, when you interpret company law to suit. I concur.

Liquidation is now “surviving an insolvency event”. Gotcha.
=============================================
If another club is liquidated we will see what liquidation ACTUALLY means, lock stock & barrel.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on7:20 am - Nov 26, 2013


Notice of AGM
Tue, 26th Nov 2013 07:00

RNS Number : 8944T
Rangers Int. Football Club PLC
26 November 2013
26 November 2013

rangers International Football Club plc

(“Rangers” or the “Company”)

Posting of Notice of Annual General Meeting

The Company has posted a notice of Annual General Meeting (“Notice of AGM”) dated 25 November 2013, together with a form of proxy to shareholders. A copy of the Notice of AGM is also available from the Company’s website at http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/shareholder-centre/reports-accounts. As previously announced, the Company’s Annual General Meeting will be held 10:30am on Thursday 19 December 2013 at Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow G51 2XD, where the resolutions set out below will be put to members.

The instrument appointing a proxy, together with a power of attorney or other authority (if any) under which it is signed, or a notarially certified copy of such power or authority, must be completed, signed and returned so as to reach, by hand or by post, Capita Registrars, The Proxy Department, The Registry, 34 Beckenham Road, Kent BR3 4TU no later than 10.30 a.m. on 17 December 2013. Any member or his proxy has the right to ask any questions at the Annual General Meeting relating to the business at the Annual General Meeting.

As Ordinary Business

ORDINARY RESOLUTIONS

1. “THAT the Company’s audited financial statements for the financial year ended 30 June 2013 together with the report of the directors of the Company (the “Directors”) and the auditor’s report be received and adopted.”

2. “THAT David Somers, who retires and offers himself for re-appointment in accordance with the Company’s articles of association, be re-appointed as a Director.”

3. “THAT Graham Wallace, who retires and offers himself for re-appointment in accordance with the Company’s articles of association, be re-appointed as a Director.”

4. “THAT Brian Stockbridge, who retires and offers himself for re-appointment in accordance with the Company’s articles of association, be re-appointed as a Director.”

5. “THAT Norman Crighton, who retires and offers himself for re-appointment in accordance with the Company’s articles of association, be re-appointed as a Director.”

6. “THAT James Easdale, who retires and offers himself for re-appointment in accordance with the Company’s articles of association, be re-appointed as a Director.”

7. “THAT Deloitte LLP be re-appointed as auditors of the Company to hold office until the conclusion of the next Annual General Meeting of the Company before which audited financial statements of the Company are laid.”

8. “THAT the Directors be authorised to determine the remuneration of the Company’s auditors.”

ORDINARY RESOLUTION

9. “THAT the Directors be and are hereby generally and unconditionally authorised in accordance with section 551 of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”) to allot Relevant Securities (as defined in the notes to this resolution):

(a) up to an aggregate nominal amount of £217,000; and

(b) up to an aggregate nominal amount of £66,000 to employees and directors in accordance with the rules of any share option scheme approved by the Company; and

(c) comprising equity securities (within the meaning of section 560 of the Act) up to an aggregate nominal amount of £434,000 (after deducting from such limit the aggregate nominal amount of any Relevant Securities allotted under sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above) in connection with an offer by way of rights issue to holders of ordinary shares of one pence each in the capital of the Company (‘Ordinary Shares’) in proportion (as nearly as may be practicable) to their existing holdings and to holders of other equity securities as required by the rights of those securities or, as the Directors otherwise consider necessary, but subject to such exclusions or other arrangements as the Directors may deem necessary or expedient in relation to treasury shares, fractional entitlements, record dates, legal or practical problems in or under the laws of any territory or the requirements of any regulatory body or stock exchange,

and such authority shall expire on the date of the Annual General Meeting of the Company to be held in 2014 or, if earlier, 19 January 2015, but so that the Company may, in each case, before such expiry make an offer or agreement which would or might require Relevant Securities to be allotted after such expiry and the Directors may allot Relevant Securities in pursuance of any such offer or agreement as if the power conferred hereby had not expired. This authority shall be in substitution for any previous authorities granted in this regard by the Company, but without prejudice to any allotment of Relevant Securities or grant of rights already made, offered or agreed to be made pursuant to such authorities.”

10. “THAT the Directors be and they are empowered pursuant to Section 570(1) of the Act to allot equity securities (as defined in Section 560(1) of the Act) of the Company wholly for cash pursuant to the authority of the Directors under Section 551 of the Act conferred by Resolution 9 above, and/or by way of a sale of treasury shares for cash (by virtue of Section 573 of the Act), in each case as if Section 561(1) of the Act did not apply to such allotment provided that:

(a) the power conferred by this resolution shall be limited to:

(i) the allotment of equity securities and sale of treasury shares for cash in connection with an offer of, or invitation to apply for, equity securities (but in the case of the authority granted under paragraph (c) of Resolution 9, by way of a rights issue only):

(A) in favour of holders of Ordinary Shares in the capital of the Company, where the equity securities respectively attributable to the interests of all such holders are proportionate (as nearly as practicable) to the respective number of Ordinary Shares in the capital of the Company held by them; and

(B) to holders of any other equity securities as required by the rights of those securities or as the Directors otherwise consider necessary, but subject to such exclusions or other arrangements as the Directors may deem necessary or expedient to deal with treasury shares, fractional entitlements or legal, regulatory or practical problems arising under the laws or requirements of any overseas territory or by virtue of shares being represented by depository receipts or the requirements of any regulatory body or stock exchange or any other matter whatsoever; and

(ii) in the case of the authority granted under paragraphs (a) or (b) of Resolution 9 and/or in the case of any sale of treasury shares for cash, the allotment, otherwise than pursuant to sub-paragraph (i) above, of equity securities or sale of treasury shares up to an aggregate nominal value equal to £66,000; and

(b) unless previously revoked, varied or extended, this power shall expire on the date of the next Annual General Meeting of the Company, or if earlier 19 January 2015, except that the Company may before the expiry of this power make an offer or agreement which would or might require equity securities to be allotted (and treasury shares to be sold) after such expiry and the Directors may allot equity securities (and sell treasury shares) in pursuance of such an offer or agreement as if this power had not expired.”

As other Ordinary Business

ORDINARY RESOLUTIONS

11. THAT Paul Murray be and is appointed as a director of the Company with immediate effect.

12. THAT Malcolm Murray be and is appointed as a director of the Company with immediate effect.

13. THAT Scott Murdoch be and is hereby appointed as a director of the Company with immediate effect.

14. THAT Alex Wilson be and is hereby appointed as a director of the Company with immediate effect.

View Comment

Comments are closed.