Podcast Episode 3 – David Low

Avatar By

Funny how quickly some folk are turned off this issue …

Comment on Podcast Episode 3 – David Low by burghbhoy.

Funny how quickly some folk are turned off this issue when facts/interpretation are presented that goes against their preferred view, such as the TUPE legislation regarding the “business” entity that, the law tells us, was transferred in 2012: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/246/regulation/3/made

I appreciate those open to discussion, rather than to sniping about it.

burghbhoy Also Commented

Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
Allyjambo,

I adopted a Celtic moniker in order to have my contributions to the discussion judged on their merits, rather than be prejudged as coming from a Rangers fan. And, with a sprinkling of “sevcos”, it worked, as this post from a month ago proves…

http://www.tsfm.net/podcast-3/comment-page-1/#comment-16672

I am not a troll. As my twitter account @bryce9a is testament to, i enjoy discussing this particular issue and simply wished to discuss the matters fairly, without my contributions being immediately tarnished by the anti-Rangers prejudice.


Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
Ryan,

You said:
“You have benefitted from this policy and the fact that TSFM asked people not to engage with you but continued to allow your posts to be shown just shows that you were given more chances to contribute something worthwhile, even after dragging us through the mire. ”

A wee reminder….

TSFM says:
May 3, 2014 at 12:56 am

I see the guy who lives up the same close as Oldgold and Enkafid has retired for the evening. Possibly tending to some Campbellsmoney-inflicted wounds.
When he comes back tomorrow don’t engage please. Let it pass.

I have the impudence to provide new, fact-based insight on a staple discussion of this forum and later that evening I have the site moderator instructing users to “not engage” with me tomorrow. Yet somehow I should be grateful? That I wasn’t censored quicker than I inevitably will be?


Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
Anyway, I’ll leave you chaps to it.

I’ve enjoyed the wee experiment of expressing some ideas, not just the TUPE legislation, over the last couple of months, with a celtic moniker and throwing a few “sevcos” and “old Rangers” in, and seeing the thumbs-up roll in.

Genuine thanks to those willing to engage in the actual discussion, which I always enjoy, as long as it lasts that is, before TSFM rolls in to shut it down (maybe if I’d hung around he’d have start a whole new thread to house my offerings again? Will never forget that compliment :-))


Recent Comments by burghbhoy

Redistribution of Football Income – The Human Dilemma
Big Pink says:
Moderator:
September 9, 2015 at 9:31 am

Clearly this site is all about discussion, so I hope you won’t mind me pointing out your logic does not hold for those who do not first accept the ‘club indistinguishable from its legal entity’ premise.

“If Rangers was, (as even the most succulent of our crayon-scribbling friends agree) “put into administration”, then it follows (assuming there is a single figure brain-cell count in your head) that Rangers were also liquidated.”

That simply does not follow IF you happen to identify the club, to any extent, in terms of the “business”, or a collective term for the group of assets/people operating in such fashion. The SP(F)L Rules (“A Share [as held by NewCo/OldCo/Celtic PLC] may only be held by [an entity] who is the owner and operator of a Club”) happen to fall into this category.

“If the business was put into administration, then it follows that the business was also liquidated.”

That is statement is therefore false, because we know a business/assets/staff can be sold/transferred by administrators prior to the company that operated them being passed to liquidators.

If one begins from the ‘club indistinguishable from its legal entity’ premise, then of course liquidated company = liquidated club with no possible exceptions. However I think it’s fair to recognise that where the starting premise is different, that logic does not apply.


Redistribution of Football Income – The Human Dilemma
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer:
September 9, 2015 at 1:51 am

Many of your posts are of the flavour “UEFA have serious rules excluding clubs who newco/drop debts from competition for 3 years – why don’t the SFA?”

May I ask you this. Do you know ANY domestic football association that has such a rule in place? I’d suggest your answer would be none, for one simple premise you seem to miss: Football governing bodies/the law of the land have no desire to extinguish a football club and its business – the exact oppsoite in fact.

Take Rangers for instance. A business that employs 100s, serves many 1000s, trades with many other businesses. Forget specifics of identity/history, the law is designed to allow that business to be preserved, even if the legal entity operating it has failed. Football rules echo this, and the 2012 saga has – at least broadly speaking – played out in that fashion.

UEFA are not a domestic football body – they run lucrative european competitions that 99% of well-run clubs can operate without. They can afford to exclude clubs for 3 years knowing that UEFA compeititon is not – and should not – be an essential aspect to that club’s fundamental existence.

Domestic bodies? Entirely different. Week-in week-out domestic football is a club’s meat and drink. To have similar draconian punishments to UEFA would simply be a death knell to clubs – the businesses – hit by them. And that is entirely counter to the motives of not only domestic football bodies, but the law of the land. They must balance some degree of deterrence – points penalties, demotion – with the aim of preservation.


Redistribution of Football Income – The Human Dilemma
Sergio Biscuits says:
Member:
September 8, 2015 at 2:35 pm
_______

You are unfortunately mistaken.

According to the Rules, and subsequently Lord Nimmo Smith’s report, the owner and operator of the Club was OldCo – the entity in liquidation, and now Newco.

The Articles state:
“19. A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by a Trustee or a person
who is the owner and operator of a Club.”

The current holder of that share is NewCo. Prior to its transfer to The Dundee Football Club Ltd, an SPL share was held by OldCo.

In each case, the rules are unambiguous. Those entities were the “owner and operator of the Club”.


Redistribution of Football Income – The Human Dilemma
Regarding “Laudrup-gate”, the interview was one of a series called Sport Talk. Here’s a link to the other episodes, some interesting ones there: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b060c3sh/episodes/guide From Larsson, to Barry Hearn, to Sergei Baltacha – doesn’t seem the criteria for choosing interviewees is particularly restrictive!

I seem to be one of the few Rangers fans with a soft spot for Tom English. Don’t always agree with him but seems genuinely non-partisan and a step removed from the Glasgow/fitba bubble. I hope he hangs around at the BBC.


Redistribution of Football Income – The Human Dilemma
nawlite says:
Member:
September 6, 2015 at 10:58 pm

It’s part of a series. He did Henrik larrson a week or two ago. Im not aware of either episode being part of a wider conspiracy.

And do you think he’d tell us if it was 😉


About the author

Avatar