burghbhoyPosted on10:44 pm - May 1, 2014

StevieBC says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:24 pm

How’s the match ticket/match programme for a contender for most reliable indication?!
http://tiny.cc/5ia7ex

Also to note
– The wording of the 5WA says “Rangers FC”.
– The wording of that Duff and Phelps letter to the SPL requiring players then registered to Old Rangers to be borrowed by sevco for the game says “in order for these players to be able to play for Sevco Scotland Limited trading as The Rangers Football Club” (difficult to squeeze that on the match ticket!)

GoosyGoosyPosted on10:59 pm - May 1, 2014

RyanGosling says:

May 1, 2014 at 10:33 pm
The parodies and glee at Rangers’ self inflicted troubles are what make this forum, at times, a fairly exclusive place.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
You are spot on with that point

I have contributed my fair share of this type of post There is a thin line between commenting on situations or people you genuinely believe unworthy and offending decent people who think otherwise.Its all in how you word your post
…………….
Being right is never a good excuse for giving offense
So for anything I posted that was coated in gleeful language I apologise to you and fellow Bears

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:13 pm - May 1, 2014

burghbhoy says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:08 pm
10 1 Rate This

A question regarding the bizarre narrative surrounding that Brechin game in 2012 (for HirsutePursuit in particular but any boffin may step up!…)

If Sevco were already (as the rulebook seems to suggest) SFA registered members from July 13th when accepted into the SFL, why the need for the “conditional membership” fudge, urgently cooked up to cover the Brechin game?
============================================
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/09Articles.pdf

10.3 Each club in full or associate membership shall in its Official Return register its ground and playing field dimensions and no such club shall remove to another ground without first obtaining the consent of the Board. Any club in full or associate membership wishing to make any alteration to its name, its registered ground or its playing field dimensions must first obtain the prior written consent of the Board. No club in registered membership shall adopt in whole or in part the name of a club in full or associate membership without the prior consent of the Board.

Had the FULL membership remained with the old club for the Brechin game, the SFA board would have been forced to pass a resolution permitting the new club use of the Rangers FC brand. This would have confirmed beyond any doubt that the two clubs were separate entities.

Since Sevco were in registered membership the FULL membership held by Rangers at the time, was a block to the new club’s use of the name- if no permission was sought under Article 10.3..

Allowing Sevco to use the FULL membership on a conditional basis meant that the board did not have to make a decision on Article 10.3.

RyanGoslingPosted on11:14 pm - May 1, 2014

Wottpi- yes, the apocalypse one was pretty damn funny.

burghbhoyPosted on11:36 pm - May 1, 2014

HirsutePursuit says:
May 1, 2014 at 11:13 pm
“Allowing Sevco to use the FULL membership on a conditional basis meant that the board did not have to make a decision on Article 10.3.”

The problem i see with that interpretation is that the brechin conditional membership was NOT the original RFC full membership being borrowed, it was a new one pulled out of the sky!

From the 5-way agreement

Completion
2.6 The SFA, the SPL, RFC and Sevco hereby agree that the transfer of the RFC Membership to Sevco is wholly suspensive and conditional on the transfer of the RFC Share to Dundee FC being registered by the SPL no later than midnight on 3rd August 2012.
….
3.1 The SFA will enter into an Agreement to approve the transfer of the RFC Membership toSevco (“the Application Agreement”) on the same date as this Agreement and shall take whatever steps are necessary to effect such transfer immediately on Completion.

“Wholly suspensive” is a pretty emphatic indication that membership wasnt changing hands until 6 days after the Brechin game, when the Share would eventually transfer.

3.3 Pending Completion, the SFA confirm it has granted Sevco conditional Full Membershipof the SFA to facilitate the playing of matches by Rangers FC for the period until midnight on 3rd August 2012.

Again, this brechin membership applies “pending” completion, in contrast to the transfer of the original Full membership which only takes place “on Completion”.

It seems to read clearly to me that the two are different though both, somehow, permit Rangers FC to play matches. Bizarre.

justshateredPosted on11:49 pm - May 1, 2014

I see there was another debate yesterday regarding the club from Govan and its status.
Like most I’ve recently been amused by the media discussion regarding the finances of ‘The Rangers’.

It looks like this tightrope is becoming ever more difficult to balance on for our beleaguered media.
After every paper and media outlet in the land declared that RFC had died during the summer of 2012 a complete about turn occurred and it was a ‘holding company’ that had died but not the club. It was the club that entered administration and was deducted points in February 2012. Given their use of the courts, if the administrators had found this to be untrue then I’m sure they would have raised a legal action.
They didn’t. I wonder why that was?

When the CVA for the club failed, and it was for the club, all tangible assets were sold to a new company. The club itself could not be sold because it was the club that owned the debt.

We are now led to believe that the holding company was the entity that died yet no one seems to be able to put a name to this company. In reality the company that owned RFC was named The Rangers Group, formerly known as Wavetower, and that company is still alive and well.

When the assets were sold players had the opportunity to TUPE over to the new company. Now if the players must have a contract with the club, as per the rules and the club was still hale and hearty, why would the players need to TUPE over?
I’m sure I don’t know.
History seems to be the main thrust over the continuation politics. Now when Dave King said in early 2012 that he feared a failure of a CVA, Charles Green went on TV to saying that failure to achieve a CVA would mean an end to the history.
Was he correct?
I don’t know.

It seems that ‘The Rangers’ didn’t want the debt that went with the old club.
They did, regardless of how history is now written, want a place in the top league.
When that failed to materialise they expected to only fall one division.
They wanted and expected to keep all of the players of the old club even if it was just to sell them in the early months however several players decided not to TUPE over.

In conclusion, if a club does not own players, does not trade financially with other clubs through the buying and selling of players or register them with the authorities, if it does not trade with local businesses, if it does not pay TAX and NI, and if it does not have season ticket holders because that would be a financial transaction that it doesn’t do how can it possibly claim to have a history of 140 years?
How can it claim to have won leagues and trophies if it did not own the players that played on the park and pay their wages?
Surely it was the dreaded ‘holding company’ that won the honours?
All of the above add up to what history is.
That is what defines a club. It is the characters who played for the club, it is the tough managers that the club had, it is the memorable days and nights where fans come together in a common cause and drive their respective teams forward sometimes to victory and sometimes to fall agonisingly short.

It is often said that fans are the club and that is true because it is their money that keep any club alive.

However in the corporate and financial sense the fans are virtually an irrelevance.
To me, it seems one of the biggest ironies in this shambles, is the fact that people who often mentioned RFC going to ‘the next level’ and being a ‘global corporate brand’ during the nineties now shy away from financial and corporate speak.

EKBhoyPosted on12:25 am - May 2, 2014

Ladies and Gents
The whole unholy mess of Rangers would have been solved by people / peppill , accepting personal responsibility and apologising and being honest. The culprits are in order:
– Sir David Murray
– Mr Craig Whyte
– Mr Stewart Regan

Any Rangers director , after Whyte are economic vandals (so is Whyte!)… apologies as follows would have sufficed for me:

SDM : ” I wish to apologies the Rangers fans and the rest of Scottish football, I now realise that I authorised a business plan with the benefit of hindsight which was over-optimistic and has resulted in a risk to continuation of professional at Ibrox. I now realise that I should have tempered my desire and ambition for trophies for a more responsible attitude to the well being of the game as a whole. I now appreciate that I was wrong in my approach and I will be withdrawing from professional sport.”

Craig Whyte : ” I am sorry for my actions and I apologise to the wider community of Scottish football”

Stewart Regan “Scottish football is run on trust and we are bitterly disappointed in the actions of the Rangers Board under Sir David Murray and Craig Whyte. All the clubs understand the strict economic straight-jacket the wider game is under and the clubs and their directors have a responsibility to not only themselves but to the wider league. Our view is that an original member club should not be removed from the Scottish football map because of the actions of a few men, who we can confirm are sine die from attending a Scottish football match , nevertheless any official involvement.

Moving forward, we accept Rangers apology to the wider game and we will re-instate them to the lowest league.

Due to the un-precedent nature of Rangers behaviour the new club will be unable to claim the trophies of the previous club until a period of 5 years, where they can apply for a review.

We appeal for the good of the sport that everyone accepts the current position and moves on, with a willingness to build a positive future.”

I would have happily accepted the above (last para needs polishing!), still, this requires leadership, which the SFA cannot provide as they are infiltrated by the brothers (Dallas evidence) and equate money = Rangers.

Gosh getting late.

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:30 am - May 2, 2014

burghbhoy says:
May 1, 2014 at 11:36 pm
============================================
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/09Articles.pdf

The granting of FULL membership to Sevco was done on the basis of a transfer of membership under Article 16

PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP
16. It is not permissible for a member to transfer directly or indirectly its membership of the Association to another member or to any other entity and any such transfer or attempt to effect such a transfer is prohibited save as otherwise provided in this Article 16. Any member desirous of transferring its membership to another entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction must apply to the Board for permission to effect such transfer, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any other application for transfer of membership will be reviewed by the Board which will have complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.

So the Board had absolute power to TRANSFER an existing FULL membership “on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.”.

But… did they have power to GRANT a new FULL membership – even on a conditional basis? Article 6 seems pretty clear on this:

APPLICATION & FEES
6. Clubs or associations undertaking to promote Association Football according to the Laws of the Game as settled by the International Football Association Board and the Articles and other rules of the Association may be admitted as registered members, associate members or full members, subject to the provisions of Articles 6.1 to 6.6.

6.1 A club or association shall be admitted as a registered member automatically by reason of its being admitted as a member of an Affiliated Association or an Affiliated National Association, or in the case of a club through membership of or participation in an association, league or other combination of clubs formed in terms of Article 79 and in the case of an association by being formed in terms of Article 79 provided it is not already an associate or full member. A registered member shall not be a member of more than one Affiliated Association or more than one Affiliated National Association. A registered member may apply at any time to become an associate member.

6.2 A club or association desiring to qualify for full membership of the Association must first be admitted as an associate member. A club cannot be admitted as an associate member unless it meets, and commits to continuous compliance with the Membership Criteria and amendments thereto as shall be promulgated by the Board from time to time in connection with the membership of the Association.

Article 6 precludes the conditional FULL membership from being a new one?
“A club or association desiring to qualify for full membership of the Association must first be admitted as an associate member.”

Would Sevco have even qualified for a new ASSOCIATE membership?
“A club cannot be admitted as an associate member unless it meets, and commits to continuous compliance with the Membership Criteria and amendments thereto as shall be promulgated by the Board from time to time in connection with the membership of the Association.”

Allowing that transfer of FULL membership to be made on a conditional basis (before being made permanent by the conditions of the 5WA being met) was certainly within the board’s gift.

Granting a new FULL membership to Sevco – even on a conditional basis – was not.

youtawknabootPosted on12:36 am - May 2, 2014

May I say that this site just gets better & better !!
looooong time lurker..small time contributor..copywrite licence holder 🙂
…and now tonight, a very very pwoud subscriber !!

burghbhoyPosted on1:20 am - May 2, 2014

HirsutePursuit says:
May 2, 2014 at 12:30 am

Once again your reading of the rulebook seems comprehensive but the fact remains, which you havent attempt to refute, that the 5WA clearly describes a situation where:

– the transfer of Oldco’s Full membership was “wholly suspensive and conditional on the transfer of the RFC Share to Dundee FC being registered by the SPL” (which only occurred after the whole brechin game/conditional membership scenario had already played out)

– The description of “the SFA confirm it has granted Sevco conditional Full Membership of the SFA to facilitate the playing of matches by Rangers FC” jars against your interpretation. If they’d actually been referring to a conditional transfer of the oldco membership, they’d have surely stated that or something like it, rather than leaving “full membership of the SFA” being granted generic and without reference to the oldco.

I do not reject your points regarding the rulebook, but given the wording of the 5WA I’d lean towards the explanation that sees the capacity for discretion being stretched by the SFA in order to cover the anomalous Brechin situation.

Resin_lab_dogPosted on2:35 am - May 2, 2014

RyanGosling says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:33 pm

Next time the question is raised regarding the lack of engagement from Rangers fans on this forum, journey back to today’s mocking posts …..

________________________________________________

Ryan,
I suggest that some of those decent Rangers fans may also need to develop something more of an epidermis. I cite the Ibrox BBC ban as supporting evidence.

I think it was Harper Lee’s Atticus Finch who said (paraphrasing) ‘to know a man you must walk a mile in his moccasins’. If TRFC fans in general exhibited the same level of respect and sensitivity towards fans of other clubs to which they themselves feel entitled as a matter of course, I might feel that their sensibilities were being unduly impugned here. Present company excepted, they don’t, and – frankly – they aren’t!
See – If anyone wants to wade into Caley’s humping at the weekend, (which I did not enjoy) it is fair game. Fill yer boots!
Within this forum there has been debate on Butcher and Hibs nosediving that I am sure some of the fans of that club didn’t relish.
Hearts have been racked here on a great many occasions.
And when it comes to Celtic… well if you put any 2 Celtic fans in a locked room you are guaranteed that at least 3 diammetrically opposed opinions will be the result.
This site is not some Celtic love in.
And nor is it a TRFC/RFCIL hatefest.
But your club(s) and the stewardship have affected ours adversely for a great deal of time. So until you lot either finally get your shit together, or else fall of the planet and stop being disruptive element in the smooth running of the sport as a whole, you better expect to be the subject of scrutiny. And some of it will be pointed. And some of it will be deservedly so. And some of it may stray into parody. This is not unhealthy.
We stumped up for our season tickets same as you did.
We didn’t suffer the ignomy of liquidation. But if we had we wouldn’t try and pretend otherwise. Nor would we be allowed to.
And nor did we breeze our way into European qualification on the back of other peoples money. Our flags are still under wraps. Out passports unstamped.
Our players don’t stay in 5 star hotels before matches. They cadge free coffee at local cafes after narrowly losing league cup finals.
Rangers fans are suffering, we accept that.
But your club, along with the SFA made this mess on their own without help or counsel from us.
And yet we all have to deal with the legacy of the failed medical experiment that was Frankenstein Rangers revival by licence transplant.
Fans of TRFC will enjoy our sympathy and fellowship nevertheless. More in common that dividing us.
But it would help enormously if TRFC fans – like you do Ryan – showed more willingness to take their share collective responsibility for the basket case in which we have all ended up as a sport. Not the armageddon that was predicted. Just a kafkaesque governance that resulted from the attempts of a dodgy regulator to put one over on its paying customers in pursuit of a vested interest.

And I can’t abide this cherry picking from TRFC fans: ‘ 9 in a row? – yes please’ , ‘Tax avoidance – illegal tax evasion? No thanks. That wisnae us. Some bigger boys did it and ran away. ‘
Its table d’hote or nothing, guys! Live with it. And there is so much of it hidden under Ibrox carpet now that noses are scraping the ceiling.

As you say, some of the reason that TRFC fans do not engage here as much as we would like is because they will find banter that disagrees with them. But that is ‘only an excuse’ I contend.
A larger part of the reason that TRFC fans do not engage here as much as we would like – I feel – is because they unavoidably encounter uncomfortable truths that they would rather ignore, and which the :slamb: and footballing authorities, along with those who would variously seek to both run and undermine the Ibrox enterprise conspire to make it easy for them to avoid, in pursuit of their own dubious agendas.

I may be wrong here.
I invite you to challenge me on this.
And I afford you a great deal of respect and esteem, whatever.

helpmaboabPosted on8:00 am - May 2, 2014

Justshatered At:1149pm

Bullseye!

twopandaPosted on8:29 am - May 2, 2014

Today`s the day then – admin day or not
Not convinced about admin being their choice
[Until we hear of the mad dash across the M8 this morning 😉 ]

If they go back to the CoS pleading insolvency after blowing 67m
They`ll throw the book at them
As for tails between their legs – they`ll be lucky to keep both

And then what
Presumably a pre-pack needs to demonstrate a `going concern`
Good luck with that

burghbhoyPosted on9:00 am - May 2, 2014

HirsutePursuit says:
May 2, 2014 at 3:09 am
I don’t quite understand why you think the “suspensive and conditional” nature of the agreement to transfer the RFC membership to Sevco would automatically preclude that transfer being made on a conditional basis before the completion date – when the contract conditions have been met.

Very simply, because of the specific wording contained within the Agreement that, and I quote

“the transfer of the RFC Membership to Sevco is WHOLLY SUSPENSIVE [my emphasis] and conditional on the transfer of the RFC Share to Dundee FC being registered by the SPL”

…which we know didn’t occur until after the disputed Brechin “conditional” membership had been granted, and used, to play the Ramsdens Tie.

Clearly we’re not going to reach agreement here, but I’d certainly say that, given an understanding of the word “suspensive” ie. deferred/postponed, the language employed within that sentence speaks for itself.

Rushed now but I’ll consider your other question later on.

normanbatesmumfcPosted on9:29 am - May 2, 2014

rougvielovesthejungle says:

May 1, 2014 at 7:03 pm

27

1

Rate This

A bit off topic but rather than listening to Radio Shortbread MW or digital, we should really have FM on tonight.

The theme tonight is songs you associate with football teams.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
“I’ve got 99 problems but a pitch aint one”

South0fThe BorderPosted on9:47 am - May 2, 2014

twopanda says:
May 2, 2014 at 8:29 am

Today`s the day then – admin day or not

_____________________________________

I am not an insolvency practitioner so am very open to correction. If someone was going to petition the court for the appointment of an administrator then I would have thought that they would have already done that by now. A similar company that ran a football club that had financial difficulties, had a creditor (HMRC) apply to the court in Edinburgh on 13th February 2012, but wasn’t officially in administration until 14th February 2014 when the court appointed the administrator.

Not sure if the same applies in Scotland, but down here a company or its directors (not a creditor) can apply for a court to appoint an administrator without petitioning the court – but inform the court which can be done by fax at any time. The administration is deemed to start when the fax is sent/received even though it may not be processed until the next working day. So they could submit a fax before 16:45 tomorrow (before the end of the final match of the season) and we wouldn’t know about it until sometime the next working day – Tuesday 6th.

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on9:54 am - May 2, 2014

Seems Southoftheborder was sorta answering my question as I was typing it.
Ah well. 😳

CampbellsmoneyPosted on10:02 am - May 2, 2014

You can do an administration appointment over the weekend. Just as Southoftheborder says. Just make sure the transmission report is timed at 16.44 on Saturday I guess (or maybe wait and see the ref play 63 minutes of injury time if he gets the heads up that the fax machine has jammed).

😀

I don’t see it happening by the way.

CampbellsmoneyPosted on10:13 am - May 2, 2014

Its much easier for the directors to do an administration application than for creditors (except floating charge creditors). Other creditors tend to go down the liquidation route. If a creditor presents a petition to wind up a debtor company, then the ability of the directors to go down the administration route is constrained.

So, if you are a creditor, and you think a debtor may be looking at an administration, get a winding up petition presented as soon as possible. That way, the directors will maybe pay you off so that they can proceed with their own choice of administrator. On the other hand, you might end up getting nothing anyway (having incurred the additional cost of winding up).

If in doubt – see a solicitor. Its never to early to see your solicitor.

😛

twopandaPosted on10:31 am - May 2, 2014

Last week
Two `tales from the tabs` – `Exclusives`: Ground-breaking seekers of truth break the news

• Plod asked to investigate; &
• Shareholder eventually allowed to inspect contracts

Now
No more `tales from the tabs`
Follow ups not their Forte
They`re really rubbish aren`t they :slamb:

Screwtop ThompsonPosted on12:22 pm - May 2, 2014

wottpi says:
May 2, 2014 at 11:37 am

The club/company can limp on for a good bit longer yet.
I even believe that with a bit of support CEO Wallace can get things on the straight and narrow but the reality is (as it always has been and DK is right on that point) they will still need millions extra, from somewhere, above normal income levels per annum if they wish to challenge at the top level. However as more clubs are cutting their cloth the gap is perhaps not as wide as some people think, or want it to be, albeit Celtic will still be a good few furlongs off in the distance.

The challenge is trying to keep the stadium as full as possible when the product on the park isn’t that good and, if you do escape the championship, 2nd spot is perhaps all you are fighting for.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree that the clumpany can stagger on for a bit yet, perhaps until about 16th May or thereabouts but I disagree that Wallace can get things on the straight and narrow without trimming the player wage bill to around £3M and cutting costs of around £4m elsewhere.

A good place to start would be to raise/borrow £5M to enable the players, coaches and managers contracts to be paid up. This could be cobbled together from donations/loans from rich super fans and emotionally involved normal fans as it will SAVE the club once and for all and always and forever etc.

Close Murray Park and train at say Glasgow Green (I believe Kilmarnock are moving out of there and if the facilities were good enough for a Premiership side then even a soon to be down on its luck Chamionship side should be able to cope) . I wonder if this kind of detail is in the 128 day review?

One would also suspect the 128 day review to have considered Administration and perhaps even Liquidation to demonstrate in retrospect that they were always trying to protect shareholder interests. The SFA may have been sounded out about this option and how well it would fit within existing rules!! If this option is the chosen one I expect a full rebellion by all clubs to bar them from entry.

Scottish Football does not need a weak financial basket case of a club. Things are downsizing nicely and the inflationary bubble previously caused by Rangers debt spree is deflating gently back to a size where clubs can find their level and compete more evenly. Only Celtic are experiencing the predicted doomsday scenario and the response by some at the helm of that club is to cry Armaggeddinoutahere!!

burghbhoyPosted on1:11 pm - May 2, 2014

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.

ptd1978Posted on1:29 pm - May 2, 2014

Just a thought. If Wallace doesn’t pull the trigger (or would flush be more appropriate) until after the end of this season.
If (and it’s still a pretty big if) another admin leads to another liquidation, the new regional league system will be in place. There will be no automatic reason why third Rangers should need to start again in League Two to avoid financial collapse. Hopefully a big number of football clubs would think a stint in the regional leagues might do the supporters of Ibrox club number three some good.

CampbellsmoneyPosted on1:33 pm - May 2, 2014

Burghbhoy – what are you saying about TUPE? Apologies but I am not following your specific point about TUPE.

burghbhoyPosted on1:55 pm - May 2, 2014

Campbellsmoney,

I summed it up in the third point I put in reply to BRTH… http://www.tsfm.net/podcast-3/comment-page-34/#comment-19203

burghbhoy says:
April 29, 2014 at 3:20 pm
3. Does this concept that football gives us of an entity existing – the football club – that can span different organisational/legal forms, and maintain it’s identity, have any legal basis?

Yes. Clearly. Consider TUPE law, the regulations of which apply to… (quoting from the statute book http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/246/regulation/3/made):

“3. 1(a) a transfer of an undertaking, business or part of an undertaking or business situated
immediately before the transfer in the United Kingdom to another person where there is a
transfer of an economic entity which retains its identity; …..”

“(2) In this regulation “economic entity” means an organised grouping of resources which has the
objective of pursuing an economic activity, whether or not that activity is central or ancillary.”

Now these entities being referred to are *distinct* from companies/particular legal forms, they transfer between them after all. Yet we have an entity that is recognised by law as “retaining its identity”.

In a nutshell:
1. TUPE law recognises an entity (the “business”/”undertaking”/”economic entity” as they refer to it) that is distinct, and separable from the legal entity and “retains its identity” despite a transfer between legal entities.
2. The Regulations only apply (ie. a TUPE will only occur) in instances where such an entity has been transferred, called a “Relevant Transfer” in the regs.
3. The Rangers/Sevco newco scenario was evidently a “Relevant Transfer”, as a TUPE occurred in that instance, and therefore that business entity – whatever you wish to call it – did indeed transfer to newco, in the eyes of the law at least.

y4rmyPosted on2:08 pm - May 2, 2014

Have you forgotten the VAT.
Let’s hope those nice chaps with their fingers in the till at Ibrox haven’t

There were some rumours about this a few days ago (Phil MacG?). Frankly I’d be astonished if it were true given both the history of the old club and Sandy Easdale’s personal…um…experience.

Even with a restricted ST uptake (if that is indeed the case), there should be enough to pay the taxman. I’d be less comfortable if I were a supplier (excluding the Stockbridge specials, of course).

Palacio67Posted on2:19 pm - May 2, 2014

The lengths some will go to just to convince themselves that Liquidation is no big deal. 🙄

HaywirePosted on2:36 pm - May 2, 2014

burghbhoy says:
May 2, 2014 at 1:55 pm

1. TUPE law recognises an entity (the “business”/”undertaking”/”economic entity” as they refer to it) that is distinct, and separable from the legal entity and “retains its identity” despite a transfer between legal entities.
2. The Regulations only apply (ie. a TUPE will only occur) in instances where such an entity has been transferred, called a “Relevant Transfer” in the regs.
3. The Rangers/Sevco newco scenario was evidently a “Relevant Transfer”, as a TUPE occurred in that instance, and therefore that business entity – whatever you wish to call it – did indeed transfer to newco, in the eyes of the law at least.

BB: I know that it is some time ago that these machinations occurred, and I thought that I had more or less unscrambled them at the time, but just tell me how you know that a TUPE did actually happen. I do recall that there was a considerable amount of discussion at the time because most folk, including, apparently, a certain chap with big hands, were not aware that the regulations were there to protect the employee if he/she so wished, not for the protection of the employer, Was there some sort of legal statement or not?

valentinesclownPosted on2:39 pm - May 2, 2014

Palacio67 says:
May 2, 2014 at 2:19 pm
0 0 Rate This

The lengths some will go to just to convince themselves that Liquidation is no big deal.
————————————————————————————————————————-
Other things/words that do not seem to be a big deal in Govan or SMSM when referenced to the Ibrox club.. Terms that somehow means something different from the obvious.
Demotion, settled, taxes, club/company,relegation, deed of novation, sevco 5088, sevco Scotland,tuped, duped, Armageddon, financial fair play, EBT’s, non conflicted, betting and on and on.

If this Ibrox club goes into liquidation, be prepared to here these terms and maybe some new ones again.
Sporting integrity is a term that sits comfortably with me, it is one I understand.
I will be at the Scottish Cup final with 2 of my sons as neutrals and am looking forward to the game. Armageddon, really??

JimBhoyPosted on3:14 pm - May 2, 2014

Should rangers take 3 points at the weekend cue the rags reporting the biggest points haul ever in Scottish football… Another record for Ally’s troops..

thirdmanrunningPosted on3:34 pm - May 2, 2014

burghbhoy says:
May 2, 2014 at 1:11 pm

If I read you right, you are saying that when staff employed by RFC ‘TUPED’ across this proves that the ‘business undertaking’ did too. Ergo it’s the same business etc etc?

My understanding is that TUPE is short for Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) and is designed to transfer (an employee or group of employees) to another employer.

Without such regulations your contract of employment relating to your own terms and conditions would be meaningless.

Are you suggesting that the fact that the employees TUPED across means that the business simply continued?