“Anyone read Michael Grant’s article in The Times? Only saw a pull-quote but the headline is about not everyone cheering for Celtic to European success since the financial windfall will put them too far ahead of the other clubs. It’s that old UEFA distribution thingy. Auldheid had a sensible alternative a while back.”
Thanks Danish Pastry for giving Big Pink the opportunity to nudge me (over a coffee I paid for – so how’s that for redistribution of income? 🙂 ) to blog again on the issue of redistribution of UEFA money whilst he was advocating gate sharing as an alternative.
I recall the redistribution debate being discussed on the first TSFM podcast Episode 1-01 of 9th Feb 2014 which can be found here:
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/scottish-football-monitor/id817766886?mt=2
Listening to it again (I used “View in I Tunes”) I heard many of the recent comments on the previous blog being made in that podcast at or around:
9.58: The interdependent nature of the business of football. Why it is different from normal business.
10.50: Celtic/Rangers leaving the Scottish League making it immediately more competitive.
11.30: Clubs as a community resource (like museums or libraries not run for profit, providing a community service and staying solvent).
12.48: People have to let go of the notions that they have held about the nature of football and recognise it is a totally interdependent business.
13.55: Changing the Champions League format to European and Regional Leagues and raising the standard of all, not dropping standards of one to bring about competiveness.
25.50: A rethink at the top level with NEW thinking about redistribution of income using Champions League money.
27.50: The human dilemma.
So rather than repeat what was said originally and very well developed in the comments on the Michael Grant article on the previous blog, I thought I would look at what I think is the greatest barrier to change which was the last item above – the human dilemma. *
Modern football reminds me of a description of a scene from hell where a visitor looks into one room and sees an emaciated group around a table on which is set a large pot full of stew. They cannot eat because their arms have been set straight at the elbow and elongated so that they cannot get a spoon in their mouths. It is a miserable place. Then the visitor goes upstairs and enters a similar room with occupants similarly handicapped, but where everyone is well fed and contented. “How can this be?” he asks his guide. “Well downstairs all their energies are spent in the nigh impossible task of feeding their insatiable hunger, whilst up here they simply feed each other.”
The analogy is bent a little but not broken in the sense that there are fat and emaciated folk in the football version of the lower room but it is not a healthy place as the fat can themselves become emaciated over time (see Liverpool and even Man Utd) but, generally speaking, self-interest or rather what is perceived as self-interest, holds sway.
Human nature that causes the human dilemma is well reflected in normal business where dog eats dog, then eats the food of the dog it ate if it comes out top dog. Football however cannot exist on a dog eat dog basis because it is interdependent as a business. Dog eating dog is bad for business because over a period of time even the top dog will die of starvation.
Now without abusing the dog metaphor any further and risk attracting dog’s abuse, why is it that something which should be as self-evident as looking after each other is good for business, be such a hard sell?
I said in the podcast around 12.48 that folk need to let go of the notions they have clung on to about football, but why is that so difficult?
Perhaps the resistance to that change can be found, at least in the case of Celtic, who at present are asked in the current debate to make a sacrifice for others, either in the form of gate sharing or giving up some Champion Leagues winnings (if/when they qualify) can be found in the genesis of the club and the memory of that genesis passed from generation to generation.
Everyone knows that the original purpose that Brother Walfrid had for Celtic was to feed the poor in the East End of Glasgow and many of that poor had come from Ireland to be strangers in a strange land.
As a Calton man born in the Gallowgate, as was my grandfather (my dad was found under a cabbage in Well St) I’ve never really identified much with the Irish context of Celtic’s history, although I do recognise its importance to many supporters with Irish family ties, but that dimension adds a further layer to the human dilemma.
Think of it, you form a football club to raise money to feed yourself because you live in an environment where welcome mats are in short supply. That money raised is YOUR money. Your life depends on it as does your family’s as well as your close neighbour (usually in the same close). How prepared are you to share what income you have had to raise yourself with others who you believe have been less than charitable towards you?
Add that folk memory to the human selfish trait of wanting what you spend on football spent on meeting your own desire, which is to make you happy watching an entertaining and successful team on the park and you get an idea of where the resistance to a more equitable sharing comes from and how deep it goes.
I use Celtic here because they are my club and part of my life experience and I have no idea if other clubs experience that added layer of resistance to sharing, if indeed they are in position to share. But if we are ever to be able to introduce gate sharing or what I see as the easier alternative of redistribution of UEFA geld because in not coming direct from supporters pockets it has less of the Celtic folk memory layer to overcome, then those who will be asked to make a sacrifice have to be given the confidence that the aim is not to impoverish them (and the Celtic community memory of poverty and fighting it is as strong today in the form of The Celtic Foundation, The Kano Foundation and the numerous charity events organised by supporters and prominent blogs) but to enrich their neighbours, but doing so in such a way that they enrich themselves. That is the challenge.
In the upper room in the earlier hellish description, the occupiers present the ultimate example of charity in that in feeding each other they feed themselves.
- PS the podcast covers other issues that some 18 months later might still be of interest.
High beeswax,
Laudrup was not paid by EBT.
The Cat NR1 says:
Member:
September 7, 2015 at 3:08 pm
http://www.hostilemonkey.co.uk/weekend-at-bernies/
——————-
Thanks for that
What other team in the World can do this to you heart.
Whatever if we get there fine, just glad to see the fight.
Apologies BP my email address has changed …… Info updated now 😕 enjoy Perth 😆
easyJambo says:
Member:
September 7, 2015 at 5:20 pm
I see that Sheriff Sean Murphy has granted the Crown a three month extension to present a case against Craig Whyte and others.
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/1328245-crown-get-extra-time-to-bring-ex-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-to-trial/
Prosecutors have been granted an extra three months to bring former Rangers owner Craig Whyte and four others to trial over the alleged fraudulent acquisition of the club.
The Crown Office on Thursday asked for an extension to the date when an indictment must be served on those charged in connection with the alleged fraudulent purchase of Rangers in 2011.
Prosecutors had until September 17 to present their case against the club’s former owner Craig Whyte, joint administrators Paul Clark and David Whitehouse, ex-club secretary Gary Withey and David Grier.
At court proceedings in Glasgow on Monday, legal arguments continued after the Crown requested the extension to their deadline on Thursday.
Sheriff Sean Murphy QC told lawyers at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Monday he would grant a three-month extension to the time bar in the case.
All five men were charged in November 2014 accused of being involved in a fraudulent scheme when Whyte bought Rangers from Sir David Murray for £1 in 2011.
============================================
So the worry for anyone remotely interested in investing in RIFC is it will be 2016 and beyond if you know what your investing in.
Only Scottish Football could deliver a weekend of International Football like this – Was recently asked to support Ally MacLeod’s entry into the Hall Fame. WGS seems to be channelling him
Meanwhile in today’s epic at the Court of Session, it was all a bit more Bryson’s Law than Sutherland’s Law. Though I rather think Iain Cuthbertson would have delivered Roddy Dunlop’s lines with a bit more pizazz, fine character actor that he was. Dunlop had an air of “who wrote this pish”, as he clutched his iPad. Whatever the result of the case, Politics & the Law are already losers.
At least the SFA are apologising and offering refunds for the seating cock up
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsCategoryID=6&newsID=15275
Can we get there?
Hugely impressed by tonight’s performance.
Were Germans jammy? were we? of course.
See off Poland another heart stopper. And guess what another heat stopper!
Love Scotland.
I’m going to employ a nurse for these games.
easyJambo says:
Member:
September 7, 2015 at 5:20 pm
‘I see that Sheriff Sean Murphy has granted the Crown a three month extension to present a case against Craig Whyte and others.’
__________
I wonder ( not expectantly, but with hope!) whether we might see one or two other arrests?
Of persons whose international profiles are considerably higher than that of the those presently facing trial?
Oh, I do hope so!I would give a whole field full of mints if that were to happen even if it happened in a hurry.
🙂
—-
Quite separately and unconnected I was unable to attend the Election Court today ‘in re’ ( and, Tam Cowan, that’s Latin for ‘in the matter of’) the petition to have Carmichael’s election nullified as planned: we were concerned that an elderly, infirm cousin was not answering her phone, and we had to do a bit of phoning around before establishing that she had had a fall and was in hospital, and then making contact with her to visit her in Falkirk early in the afternoon.
I saw DP’s post,though, and tuned in to STV’s live broadcast-stream.
I was actually a bit surprised that the camera was allowed to film the public benches.
I watched for about an hour, up to about 12.20 pm, I think.And quite enjoyed it.
Part of the enjoyment is watching how quickly a QC can think on his feet, when a Judge suddenly asks what appears to be a simple question, but which in fact shows that the judge knows his law, and is, in effect, questioning whether the QC knows his.!.
John
I’m adding legal argument to legislating & sausage making on the list of things not suitble for family viewing
Scotland the Brave right enough
Someone mentioned my attitude to the national team and it is best summed up by Robin Williams from 1:42 to 1.450 on at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcnFbCCgTo4
excuse the language. 🙂
The Cat NR1 says:
Member:
September 7, 2015 at 3:08 pm (Edit)
http://www.hostilemonkey.co.uk/weekend-at-bernies/
I’m not sure if this has been mentioned on here before, but it brings together several strands of post-2012 mythology with substantial references and links to source material
===============================
I’ve read it.
On LNS Its spot on in both what LNS did say and what was kept from LNS. Fixes facts in folks minds.
On ECA/ ASA /BBC he is correct that neither has any football authority apart from saying what both did say rather than what they were reported to have said.
He has nailed the UEFA coefficient argument as well as setting out why TRFC needed to wait three years before UEFA would take an application from them.
On SFA Membership Registration there is one bit I’m not sure of but its compensated by another point that I am.
A good read over a coffee
scapaflow says:
Member:
September 7, 2015 at 11:01 pm
‘…..Meanwhile in today’s epic at the Court of Session, it was all a bit more Bryson’s Law than Sutherland’s Law. Though I rather think Iain Cuthbertson would have delivered Roddy Dunlop’s lines with a bit more pizazz, fine character actor that he was.’
_______
And a wonderful series ‘Sutherland’s law’ was.
And why?
Because, like the best literature, dramas,television, and films,it appealed to every person’s sense of truth and justice.
Every sentient human being knows that there is ‘truth’ and that there are lies.
“Sutherland”, as PF, was interested in truth, and was not deflected from trying to establish the truth.
We on this blog know that our Football Authorities are not at all of that kind of stamp.
Truth is just what they will not acknowledge.
In the case of their actions in relation to a cheating club, and a new, bastard, club , they have lied and cheated prodigiously.
There was no ‘Sutherland’in their ranks to be seen questioning the liars and deceivers who cobbled up the 5WA.
That is the great shame of the total membership of the SFA in particular,and of the clubs who made up the separate leagues.
There was no ‘Serpico’ among them.
Big Pink says:
Moderator:
September 8, 2015 at 10:49 am
UPDATE!
Right now, we have 33 people who can go on the Thursday and 20 can do the Saturday – although about a dozen of the people we wrote to have not replied.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
I expressed interest in the Perth get together, but didn’t get a PM or an email about the proposed date-change, so I’m one of the dozen or so who haven’t replied! I wouldn’t be able to attend on the Saturday.
RN?WMTP?
A recent news posting that I saw in China below…
LeTV will pay US$400 million-US$600 million for English Premier League rights in Hong Kong, twice the amount PCCW spent three years ago, according to the sports news provider Sportcal.
What was the ‘potential’ amount the SPFL has secured for the whole of mainland China? I forget.
Here’s one for you guys running the Blog/site……..I watched an interview with the brilliant and hugely succesful novelist Val McDermid on TV. She was asked if she was a football fan, she replied that she was indeed a commited supporter of the beautiful game.
She went on to say that she would very much like to write a novel about all the backroom dealings and skulldugery that has gone on at the SFA.
Well, I thought, if only she had some material to work with 😎
You were looking for someone to interview were you not BP????
STICKY:
This event planning lark should be left to the likes of AJ Soprano 🙂
Several people have contacted us expressing real disappointment that we are holding the Perth Symposium in midweek. About a dozen because of work commitments and two because they are travelling to see Celtic that evening.
I have written to all of you (30 or so) who have indicated a wish to come to the event to see if a change to a weekend would suit. I have also amended the SFM Roadshow page form http://www.sfmonitor.org/sfm-roadshow/ to solicit interest for that change.
People who have responded already via the form need not do so again, but if you are interested in attending on Saturday, 24th October, please use the form to let us know.
We will have a look at the numbers and make a decision on whether to change or not by Thursday.
UPDATE!
Right now, we have 33 people who can go on the Thursday and 20 can do the Saturday – although about a dozen of the people we wrote to have not replied.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jun/04/raith-rovers-shirt-sponsorship-val-mcdermid
The initial part of the Hostile Monkey blog article is horribly wrong on a couple of fairly basic legal points, unfortunately.
This passage in particular totally misunderstands the concept of “legal personality.”
______________________________________________________________
“So, Lord Nimmo-Smith specifically differentiated between the two “Rangers” entities, then clarified that a football club is a separate entity from its owner and operator. However, in the same clarification, he also asserted that a club does not have a legal personality – and therein lies the crux of the problem: if a football club does not have a legal personality (in the way, say, a house or a car does) then it simply does not exist in any tangible or legal sense. If it does not exist, it cannot be passed from owner to owner.”
_______________________________________________________________
The author appears to consider this a critical point since he/she goes on to develop it further:
_____________________________________________________________
“This “legal personality” definition is not commensurate with the popular argument that the original Lord Nimmo-Smith report specifically “ruled” that Rangers is/was/forever-shall-be the same club as it was prior to liquidation in 2012; either the club exists as an entity that can be bought and sold, or it does not. It cannot be like Schrödinger’s Cat; appearing to be both simultaneously alive and dead. In truth, the club exists only in the way Bernie Lomax did; as an amusing plot device contrived to keep its benefactors alive.”
_____________________________________________________________
but it is fundamentally incorrect.
It is quite wrong to assert that something without a legal personality does not exist in a tangible or legal sense. It is also quite wrong to assert that a car or a house has a legal personality. They do not.
The concept of a “legal personality” is rather the concept of something which is able to take legal steps, such as be a party to a contract or to court proceedings. A person or a company (for example) has a legal personality.
A car or a house do not have a legal personality despite what the author says. They cannot be a party to a contract, and one does not find court actions raised by a VW Beetle, but they still have an existence in law. They exist as things/assets but not as legal persons.
Saying that something does not have legal personality does not mean that it cannot be transferred. As I’ve said, the example he/she gives illustrates the error. A car or house is capable of being transferred, but does not have a legal personality. Things without legal personality are bought, sold and transferred millions of times a day.
The comments on TUPE, although correct on a superficial level, are also overly simplistic:
______________________________________________________
“The legal challenge failed because the players were fully entitled under TUPE regulations to walk away from the new company, since their previous employer had gone bust and their contracts were voided as a result. Crucially, in line with employment law, it was ruled at the same tribunal that the departing players’ SFA registrations were held with their employer (i.e. The Rangers Football Club PLC) and not the mythical “club” component of the organisation.”
_____________________________________________________
The players would have been entitled to walk away from the new company under any TUPE transfer. TUPE protects employees, not employers. It is always at the employees’ discretion whether to stay or go when there is a transfer of undertakings.
Further, it is not a question of the contracts being void – TUPE does not determine that. The relevant TUPE regulations of the time (they have since been replaced) applied where an employer company enters insolvency proceedings as long as – when the insolvency proceedings were commenced – they were not with a view to liquidation.
I haven’t read the rest in any detail yet, but given the basic errors I’ve noted already, I think caution is required!
John Clark & scapaflow
It’s dry stuff but interesting to observe. Mr Roddy, from one profile, suddenly reminded me of a young Rikki Foulton. Because they’re speaking so slowly their facial expressions and body language become a bit detatched from the voice.
That male judge has a quite a sense of humour, fortunately. The English QC os almost Shakespearian. Certainly more fun than the outcome of the fitba qualifier followed by late night Andy Murray. Both got back into their matches annaw 🙄
Can you imagine they televise the other trial we’re all interested in?
DuplessisII
While the car/house analogy maybe is not the best one, the basic premise of the blog is pretty accurate.
Rangers FC PLC, as with any football club, was a business, a legal entity. As with any other business, it employed staff, paid tax ( most of the time anyway ) and had an owner and operator.
It’s true that a company can be separate from it’s owner and operator, after all neither Craig Whyte nor Wavetower were Rangers PLC, they merely ran it, as did MIH and the Marlborough group previously.
However there can be no doubt that it was Rangers FC PLC and not the owners and operators who were placed into liquidation.
As Rangers themselves stated in their own communications pre-2012, Rangers FC PLC were founded in 1872.
Straight from the horse’s mouth as it were!
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”.
as the man on Radio Scotland said Val McD sponsored Raith Rovers because they were murder…
Sergio Biscuits says:
Member:
September 8, 2015 at 2:35 pm
Rangers FC PLC, as with any football club, was a business, a legal entity.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
The only legal entities I am aware of are individuals, companies, and partnerships. All of those can own stuff and run businesses, but a business is not in itself a legal entity. Rangers FC PLC was of course a company.
It was once the case that businesses had to display the name of their proprietor on all correspondence, because customers need to know who to sue in the event of any dispute. You cannot sue a business, you can only sue the legal entity which operates the business. Similarly, tax assessments are not made on businesses, but only on legal entities.
Whether a football club is a business I will leave to the wisdom of others.
neepheid,
A company, by definition is ‘ a business owned by multiple individuals’, and as Rangers FC PLC were such a company and therefore a legal entity, I’m not sure what you’re getting at, sorry.
Sergio Biscuits says:
Member:
September 8, 2015 at 6:22 pm
neepheid,
A company, by definition is ‘ a business owned by multiple individuals’, and as Rangers FC PLC were such a company and therefore a legal entity, I’m not sure what you’re getting at, sorry.
—————–
I don-t know where that definition of a company comes from, since there are many companies which do not carry on any business, and have been set up for some other purpose, such as owning a property or holding investments.
Rangers FC PLC was of course a legal entity, whether it carried on a business or not.
burghGer says:
Member:
September 8, 2015 at 2:40 pm
Newco Rangers or whatever you want to call them have never been in the SPL so why would they hold one of the shares in it.
Oldco Rangers (or Rangers as I like to call them) were placed into liquidation as such they were not going to be playing football in Scotland or anywhere else for that matter. So they were no longer entitled to a share in the SPL and it was transferred to Dundee the club who replaced them in the SPL.
I think part of the problem we have here is comparing Oldco to Newco. What was Oldco what is Newco.
As I understand it Oldco was Rangers the football club. It had a holding company called Wavetower. Oldco was placed into liquidation.
Newco as I understand it is seen to be the PLC which owns the Football Club (it’s subsidiary limited company).
So one was the subsidiary (Oldco) the other is the holding company (Newco). Rangers have tried to convince people that their structure, as it exists just now, is the same as it was before. I do not believe that to have been the case.
Mike Ashley seems to be having a few local difficulties, corporate governance issues are not confined to RIFC. Ashley & King may have more in common than people think… at least in terms of management style & approach to governance.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11852156/Investor-tide-may-be-turning-against-Mike-Ashley.html
My concern about the club as distinct from the company is What constitutes a club!
Most clubs have a constitution, committee, membership etc. Did the Rangers Club have that, apart from the Corporate Structure.
In the event of dispute with various parties how would you know which is the one, true continuation.
Den says:
Member:
September 8, 2015 at 9:37 pm
My view on this is simple and has never changed.
Four men had a dream etc, they formed a football club over a century ago. That club was just that, a members club, which in this instance played football. It could have been a golf club, a tennis club, or anything else. In this instance the collective dream was to play football.
In the fullness of time that club grew and it was decided to make it a limited company. It was still owned and operated by the same people, it still played football, that was now it’s business. However for financial reasons the people involved decided to limit their liability. That is the point of a limited company. The shareholders liability for it’s debts were limited to the value of their own shareholding. They could only lose what they had invested. If the company had debts then it was the company owed that money, not the individuals who owned the shares in it.
That limited company later became a PLC, a public limited company. Meaning that it’s shares could be traded on the markets. (A PLC doesn’t actually have to be listed on an exchange but that’s not important right now, in Rangers case it happened). In doing so the limited company could issue a whole load of new shares, bringing new money into the company. Money that could be spent developing it and improving things, money to grow.
So, in my view, the club became the ltd company became the PLC and was liquidated. The only separate holding company at the time of liquidation was Wavetower. The whole Rangers PLC is a separate entity from “the club” is just a myth created by people like Charles Green. The man who had already stated that if the club could not get a CVA then it was dead and that all of the history was lost. Various other people said exactly the same thing. Then conveniently changed that view when it no longer suited them.
For example the classic
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/james-traynor-spl-will-not-be-able-1129166
“They didn’t even wait until tomorrow’s creditors’ meeting, although that will still go ahead.
But Rangers FC won’t. They’ll slip into liquidation within the next couple of weeks with a new company emerging but 140 years of history, triumph and tears, will have ended.
No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club. When the CVA was thrown out Rangers as we know them died.
They were closed and a newco must start from scratch although their fans will insist the history will be boxed up with the strips and balls and carried into the future with the new club.”
Bawsman says:
Member:
September 8, 2015 at 10:47 am
‘…She [Val McDermid] went on to say that she would very much like to write a novel about all the backroom dealings and skulldugery that has gone on at the SFA..’
__________
Not even the great Val McDermid could make us believe that a story involving a huge sports cheating scam such as the SFA/RFC/IL/Sevco/TRFC/RIFC saga could even approximately happen in real life,
or that there could ever be such a cast of thoroughly undesirable persons all in the one book, ranging from the ‘murderers’ of a football club to ‘resurrection men’ in unholy alliance pretending that the living body in a ‘Rangers’ top is the murdered corpse come back from the dead, while in fact the corpse is lying there in the Liquidation morgue for all to see..
Nah, canny see a publisher for that kind of reason-defying stuff!
neepheid says:
Member:
September 8, 2015 at 6:38 pm
I don-t know where that definition of a company comes from, since there are many companies which do not carry on any business, and have been set up for some other purpose, such as owning a property or holding investments.
Rangers FC PLC was of course a legal entity, whether it carried on a business or not.
___________________________________________________________
All companies have a business as documented in their articles and memorandum, although some companies might not be trading at a point in time and be dormant.
Owning a property or holding investments is a business 😐
The definition of a company from a UK perspective comes from here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/contents
Maybe the pertinent question may be (we will see) was SEVCO5088 Legal before being SEVCO SCOTLAND.
Novation anyone.
John Clark says:
Member:
September 8, 2015 at 10:15 pm
=====================
To be honest, I was quite startled when she came out with the statement that she’d love to do a novel on the workings of the SFA.
On reflection, I imagine she’s had in the past had a conversation or three with the late great Turnbull Hutton who, as we all probably agree, would not be averse to letting Val know what the score was as far as the SFA were concerned.
The seeds are planted, I’m absolutely convinced they could be germinated by the likes of your good self, Ally, Auldheid, BRT&H, BP et al.
Just add whisky, a mike, pen, paper, evidence. 😎
jings crivens help ma davy besmirched-weir…..
a guy on the clapham omnibus writes a coherent explan of why its a new club and the woodworm bar spills out onto the streets with their establishments exposed….. the idea that its the same club cos the players could to pee or not to pee is brill….
old steerpike had the best justification for it being the same club… he used sfa discretion, ignored insolvency acts etc and even had the foresight to realise one day uefa would decree it a new club…. how he got round the uefa ‘bit’ was genious….. “I dont care if uefa tell me its a new club” must have taken hours of logistical thinking…..
The Perth thing is looking very much like Plan A (the Thursday).
Unless there is a dramatic change in notification of intentions to do the Saturday, we will arrange an online purchase option for tickets for 22 Oct.
We will decide for definite tomorrow, and also investigate the food options. Problem with that is that around half want some grub and half don’t, but logistically it may be difficult to put into effect unless ALL of us are having food.
We will look into those logistics, but it may be best just to arrange coffees and biscuits.
Anyhow, a notice will be posted tomorrow.
THere seems to be some confusion about the word club.
Just because a company is called XYZ Football Club Ltd, doesn’t mean that it is a club and a company.
It is simply a company with the word club in its name.
There is no separation and there can be no separation as there is only only one entity.
Another company can own XYZ FC Ltd by virtue of holding 100% of the issued share capital. That is a holding company and produces a linear group structure.
The holding company can sell XYZ FC Ltd to another company, but it would still be XYZ FC Ltd and it would be in a linear group stucture, albeit different.
Ignore the word “club” and its common historical usage and all becomes clear (as mud?).
Things were much easier before these new fangled corporate group structures and umbrella holding companies that are now prevalent in the football business.
Reading the annual reports and financial statements of the clubs of which I have holdings is too much like being at work and is far removed from the (halcyon?) days of just being a supporter or fan forty years ago.
Just a wee thought reading the company stuff (apologies if it’s already been posted and/or breaches rules) but IF it is proven that Mr Whyte acted in concert with Messrs Green et al to commit fraud, etc, etc; does our old friend phoenix not rise again?
By the way, on the company stuff, may I remind you all that Field Fisher Waterhouse provided very clear and unambiguous legal opinion to Sevco? For that reason, you will never ever see anyone from Sevco enter a court of law to argue that it is the same entity as the one which died.
Finally, I find that if you remove the rather erroneous AMERICAN definition of “holding company” from the argument and stick to the historical and much more accurate BRITISH definition, it all becomes so much clearer. Charlie’s holding company (owning 100% of Sevco) falls into the latter, whilst Wavetower and MIH (being simply the main – but never 100% – shareholders of Rangers) fell into the former. Thus Rangers (the company) never had a holding company and so could never have been distinct or separate in any way, shape or form from the club.
PS: you might find it slightly ironic that FFW have a growing reputation in the City for their work on corporate crime. Poachers turned gamekeepers?
Bawsman says:
Member:
September 8, 2015 at 11:20 pm (Edit)
John Clark says:
Member:
September 8, 2015 at 10:15 pm
I’ve e mailed Big P. (One of my files is named skulldugery:)
DuplesisII says:
Member:
September 8, 2015 at 11:38 am (Edit)
I’m not sure the house was the best analogy as a house can still exist if its owner and operator die.
A football club is not a house, it only exists if there is an owner operator component to give it life, the heart and the brain if you like. They go, the club goes.
On TUPE players were contracted to RFC and RFC would be expected to honour their contracts.
The inability to do so meant the players were no longer contracted to RFC who in effect broke the contract, so whether it was TUPE that allowed the players to walk in terms of protecting employees from possible working conditions like say less pay, or the breaking of contracts, it was liquidation that allowed the SFA to release players from their registration to RFC just as it was liquidation that meant RFC’s replacement starting anew in the SFL. Football reacted to RFC’s liquidation as if it had ceased to exist. That is self evident.
Not just the SFA but UEFA did so too. They have an actual rule (Art12) to prevent a club doing what RFC attempted, precisely to protect the sporting integrity of their competition.
Had there been an equivalent Article12 in Scottish football none of the attempts to circumvent sporting integrity would have been possible.
No discretion, no SPL voting on SPL share. No transfer of SFA membership. Straight new club with three years to prove its stability . My what a difference that would have made.
No Charles Green no spivs taking our game and TRFC fans for a ride although DK may yet come into that category
On LNS, whatever the points in the Decision, it is an unreliable platform because its construction was flawed.
Anyone who really looks into its construction in the media agrees but so far none have published.
They realise the size of the worms in the can.
alzipratu says:
Member:
September 9, 2015 at 1:15 am (Edit)
To back up that point about the UK meaning of holding company I’ll bet my life MIH never applied to UEFA to play in Europe.
Had they been a holding company which UEFA do define in Art 12 it would have been MIH who applied. It was not MIH that got a licence granted by the SFA.
Quite who will apply if TRFC get into Europe I’m not sure as Art 12 allows for a club only construction or a holding operating company one, but either way it will not be RFC. If it were then they would have to pay all outstanding taxes to be granted a place.
Danish Pastry on September, 2015 at 2.10pm referred to the Petitioners’ QC at the Election Court Hearing.
He may be almost Shakespearian but he’s not English. He’s from Edinburgh.
I caught part of the Hearing just before lunchtime on Tuesday and heard him utter one of the most elegant verbal shimmies I have ever heard.
He was directing the Court to a particular section of the Act when it was pointed out that that section had no application to the point he was making. Cue much shuffling of paper, muttering about misnoting the right section and then:
“I have to blush…”
The look on the face of the male judge, Hugh Matthews, made it clear that this was the first time that he had heard this phrase used rather than, say:
“I’ve been talking pish…”
They rear them differently in Edinburgh.
I though the one that paid the taxes would be the real one .
Homunculus says:
Member:
September 8, 2015 at 10:07 pm
———
And it was James Traynor himself who penned that Record piece! I often thought he was brought into Newco as a kind of damage limitation exercise. He was probably perceived as the dog’s bollocks of Scottish sports journos by the Newco crowd and getting him to flip-flop on that article, and promote the myth, was a bit of a coup.
By the way, Martin Hannan was comparing Hibs one year out in the 1890s to the RFC – Sevco thing, to promote his view that Sevco is the same club. Any Hibbies historians? I understood Hibs first incorporated during the first decade of the 20th century. So on the face of it Hannan’s comparison is not quite accurate.
PS Lugosi, with Shakespearian I was thinking more of his theatrical presentation style than nationality. Always a potential blush if you only have a loose grasp of yer briefs 🙂
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer:
September 9, 2015 at 1:51 am
Anyone who really looks into its construction in the media agrees but so far none have published.
They realise the size of the worms in the can.
=====================================
That’s interesting Auldheid. I take it then you have had that view from some of them off the record? Not that I expect you to name them of course.
As for the size of the can of worms, it is of the utmost concern to me that the cultural power held by Rangers fans holds so much sway. Right to the extent the media can’t even report legally sound facts regarding the liquidation of Rangers where no separate club and holding company existed. They are forever banging on about the freedom of the press, yet there is so much factually correct information lying right there on a plate for them that they don’t want to touch. Just what would have to happen for them to report accurately on Ibrox happenings? The criminal aspect of these potential court cases aside we have no way of knowing what may come out regarding deals done to create this same club myth. Will they still refuse to accept it then, or would it being discussed in a court be the comfort blanket they need to start doing their job as they should have all along?
Well this is a fascinating squirrel.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/rangers/13655580.Former_Rangers_manager_Ally_McCoist_set_to_reach_agreement_with_major_Ibrox_shareholder_Dave_King/?ref=twtrec
Please help me understand how a companies major shareholder makes an agreement on behalf of the company?
Must be something else happening that requires attention to be diverted
zerotolerance1903 says:
Member:
September 8, 2015 at 10:29 pm
All companies have a business as documented in their articles and memorandum, although some companies might not be trading at a point in time and be dormant.
Owning a property or holding investments is a business ?
The definition of a company from a UK perspective comes from here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/contents
++++++++++++++++++++++=
The Articles and Memorandum of a company indicate the activities which a Company MAY undertake.For modern companies, that is generally worded to include just about everything and anything. There is nothing that dictates what business a company must undertake, or even that it must conduct a business at all.
There are hundreds of thousands of UK companies which are simply dormant, they own nothing and do nothing, but someone pays an annual filing fee to keep them in existence.
There are also thousands of companies which simply own the freehold of properties lived in by foreigners living in the UK, who do not want their names appearing in any public registry. Those companies often don’t even have a bank account. They are no more in business than I am when I buy the house I live in.
Owning a property or other investments may or may not constitute a business. It depends on many factors, but the fact that the house or investment is owned through a company has no bearing on that.
Thanks for the link to the Companies Act. That legislation (which I am only fairly well acquainted with, by the way) is the size of a fair sized novel in printed form. If you think that there is a single paragraph in that Act which supports your contention, just quote that paragraph, and I’ll consider it.
dom16 says:
Member:
September 9, 2015 at 8:10 am
‘…Please help me understand how a companies major shareholder makes an agreement on behalf of the company?’
______
On the same theme of big-mouthed chairmen, where does the President of the SFA get off when he publicly declares ” … Even though it’s a board decision, I cannot see any of our board wanting anything other than Gordon continuing…..I don’t see any reason why he won’t be here.I’m going to stick my neck out and say I don’t think Gordon will want to leave.He loves the job,it’s the right job for him……..Surely everyone can see that there has been improvement..” [from Graeme Macpherson,the Herald ‘Sport’)
I suppose from Strachan’s perspective ‘it’s the right job for him’.
I’m not entirely sure that ‘everyone’ will agree with Alan Macrae that Strachan should be be the man to lead Scotland into the forthcoming World Cup qualifying campaign. Far from it.
dom16 says:
Member:
September 9, 2015 at 8:10 am
A large squirrel indeed.
The article states King will fly in (clearly not worth jetting in this time) in a couple of weeks time to resolve the situation.
That’s as good as takes us to the end of the month.
So if McCoist has been getting his salary as per normal, he will have had 9 of the tweleve months by the time the matter is ‘resolved’. So a potential 25% reduction. Possibly £180k based on the reported £15k. Not to be sniffed at.
However what chances of such an early and sudden cut off? More chance of a reduced rate. The man will have monthly bills to pay after all.
Along with adding an Airport Transfer service to his gardening duties its all stinks of the rehabilitation of the Rangers Legend to maintain the RRM / Historical links to the old club.
neepheid says:
Member:
September 9, 2015 at 8:31 am
******************************************
You asked where the definition of a company comes from. It’s all there in part 1. 😐
Unless I’ve somehow missed the point you were going for, which is always possible.
Of course one of the nice wee anomalies of the “it was the holding company wot dun it”! tendency is this.
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.
However according to :slamb: , “Rangers” the ethereal entity was bought out of the holding company which is now being liquidated – so “Rangers” survive.
By that logic then, it wasn’t Rangers who were put into administration either – just the holding company – since liquidation is a consequence of a failure to emerge from administration.
To resolve the contradiction, there are only two possibilities.
1. Rangers was put into administration and are being liquidated – therefore the club playing out of Ibrox is a new club with a three year history.
2. Rangers were never in administration and therefore those points should never have been deducted, and they should still be in the SPL (assuming they would have avoided relegation over the last three years) – therefore they are the same club because they were never Rangers but in fact “Rangers”.
Of course #1 above is what all non-Rangers fans agree is the case. Most Rangers fans agree with that too. They will just never admit it to the rest of us, and will stick to the emotional argument of same club (which nobody challenges), and ignore the actual facts of corporate structure.
Fact is, they all know they are legally a new club. I have no problem with Ryan’s argument that for him it is the same. Charles Green , for all his faults, secured the emotional attachment of the fans to what he created. It was Rangers-enough for 38,000 of them. Ultimately it may have been better to embrace that positivity than set a collision curse with the rest of us.
dom16 says:
Member:
September 9, 2015 at 8:10 am
Well this is a fascinating squirrel.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/rangers/13655580.Former_Rangers_manager_Ally_McCoist_set_to_reach_agreement_with_major_Ibrox_shareholder_Dave_King/?ref=twtrec
Please help me understand how a companies major shareholder makes an agreement on behalf of the company?
Must be something else happening that requires attention to be diverted
__________________________________________________________________
Interesting.
The straight answer to your question is that the major shareholder can only reach a deal if he’s also an officer of the company with the authority to do so.
Of course, a major shareholder could also broker a deal using the influence of his major shareholding with the company. Whether or not he’s taken up a role in the company or not King does fall into this category in that he has been calling the shots since his “takeover” earlier in the year.
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.
Sorry for three posts in a row, but I note this quote from the ET article:
Asked about the issue back in May, King said: “The fact is he has a contract, it was committed to and the club must respect contracts.
The “club” has a contract with Mr McCoist does it? The club and company must be the same thing in Mr King’s eyes as well then. Nice to know 🙂
Might be interesting if anyone has a list of the MSM reasons why Rangers are the same club. My guess is that there are many different theories which laboriously try to navigate their way past Occam’s Razor.
I wonder how many of them are contradictory?
Big Pink says:
Moderator:
September 9, 2015 at 9:31 am
‘… I have no problem with Ryan’s argument that for him it is the same. Charles Green , for all his faults, secured the emotional attachment of the fans to what he created. It was Rangers-enough for 38,000 of them. ‘
_____
As said often enough before, ‘Rangers’ fans can believe what they like, in the same way as ‘Flat Earthers’.
But the Football Authorities have a responsibility to the rest of us to live in the real world of truth and fact.
An SFA and SPFL (and the lying hacks who support them) that endorse a huge untruth is as dangerous as a Flat Earther designing air- and sea- navigational systems!
The Football record books MUST state the absolute football truth: RFC of the 19th century is dead. It can play no football, win no games, win no trophies, and commit no further acts of serial cheating.
The new TRFC has played some football ( certainly since Warburton arrived) and has won a couple of titles.But it simply cannot claim ,other than in nostalgic fantasy, to be entitled to anything that the Rangers of days of yore won-honestly or not.
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.
zerotolerance1903 says:
Member:
September 9, 2015 at 9:30 am
neepheid says:
Member:
You asked where the definition of a company comes from. It’s all there in part 1. ?
Unless I’ve somehow missed the point you were going for, which is always possible.
============================
The point I’m trying to make, completely unsuccessfully, is that a business is not a legal entity. Every business has a legal entity which operates it and takes legal responsibility for it. That can be a company, an individual, or a partnership. But clearly (or so I thought) not every legal entity has a business.
You seem to be saying that a company must have a business, past present or future. It does not say that anywhere in the Companies Acts so far as I know. You have pointed me to Part 1 of the Companies Act, for the definition of a company-
That has absolutely nothing to say regarding what you say is the necessity for every company to have a business.
If the myth of the same club is maintained by smsm, sfa and the fans of mythical club then IMO this will cause the most damage to our game. History to all fans is everything the old club has gone and it history with it. If the lie continues that it was not liquidated then our game and sporting integrity is also history as in gone. We must not let this happen, football is not all about the Govan club.
All very elegant, if the gardener gives up his last three months salary that becomes the warchest for the season thus allowing the main warchest to be preserved intact for the world club championship. Or perhaps not.
Coming at it from an entirely practical day-to-day standpoint, if the major shareholder can do a deal with the gardener (within the rules and regs of company law etc etc) before the end of the month, it leaves the club/company just to pay the remainder, which it might have a better chance of doing with limited resources if the expensive gardener is taken out of the equation?
What was it Kaiser Sauzee(sp) said about the answer to the question being hidden in front of your face?
On the Dave King’s gardener story, surely it is a sign of absolute desperation that King is jetting in with only 3 months gardener wages still to be paid? The sum involved is less than £200k, which should really be small change. If it isn’t small change, then money must be very short.
I saw this headline in the Record-
“Former Rangers gaffer Ally McCoist on verge of settlement with club as Dave King gets set to jet home”
Jets home? I thought King’s home was in South Africa? Maybe HMRC should be told.
Mibbes Ally will be allowed to increase his shareholding at a future share offering in lieu of monies owed ?
burghGer says:
Member:
September 9, 2015 at 10:00 am
___________________________________
I hope you won’t mind me pointing out that you have misunderstood my logic which applies irrespective of acceptance or denial of the new definition of club/company existentialism.
I never said it did. I actually said the opposite, that by the logic that the ethereal entity existed separate from the company, then Rangers should never have been deducted any points at all. Might even have won the league with McCoist in charge.
Incidentally, your second paragraph from the quote above is an example of the tortured tap dancing around reality that even you, as an eloquent advocate for the same club scenario, has to resort to.
If that is the case, why is nobody at the CoS arguing that Rangers were denied their rightful place in the SPL? You might also want to talk to some Hi-His and Gretna fans about that one too.
Which brings us down to the fundamentals of the thing. If your starting premise is correct, then why don’t TRFC test it in court with regard to the SPL expulsion, and the points deduction? If memory serves, an insolvency event in a “holding company” does not attract a points deduction.
Unless you are arguing that up until administration, RFC were indistinguishable from the company of Rangers PLC, but afterwards, like some Fatima-esque appariton, the entity appeared to sever the invisible umbilical.
You KNOW that TRFC is a new club. You are too smart not to know that. If I was in your postition, I would maybe like you refuse to admit it to anyone outside my camp and argue on a Flat-Earth platform – but I hope not.
As you say, this site is about discussion, but you can’t honestly believe that arguments like those will change minds here. I think OC/NC is bit if fun – an intellectual Folly if you like, but OC is an impossible case to argue, and it is a preposterously false premise to suggest that there is even an argument about a club being indistinguishable from its operator.
Rangers fans will go on telling us that they are the same club – whether they believe it or not. The rest of us just don’t accept it, and I suspect never will, because it is not important that we should.
Serious question, to which I bet we don’t both give the same answer:
I wonder if it is more important to Rangers fans for the rest of us to accept that you are the same club; as it is to the rest of us for Rangers fans to accept that Rangers, as a failed institution, failed to exist?
I think the former is true.
Smugas says:
Member:
September 9, 2015 at 10:26 am
What was it Kaiser Sauzee(sp) said about the answer to the question being hidden in front of your face?
=================================
Was that during his Hibs days? 😀
No doubt it was inspired by fellow Frenchman Eric Cantona’s 1995 quote “When the seagulls follow the trawler, it’s because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea.” If only Barry Ferguson could match that in his column.
neepheid says:
Member:
September 9, 2015 at 10:08 am
**************************************************
Crossed wires it is then, I think we’re in broad agreement. With perhaps some pedantry on my part 🙂
I agree that not every legal entity is necessarily in business.
However, every business does need to have a legal form to be allowed to trade in the UK, whether that be sole trader, partnership or limited company.
Every limited company has a set of activities that it is permitted to do as documented in its memorandum and articles (which is a companies act requirement), however you are right to say that it need not be carrying out these activities in which case it would be dormant. So from Companies Act point of view every company has defined it’s business, however it may not be trading in that business because it has either yet to commence it or because it has become dormant.
Big Pink says:
Moderator:
September 9, 2015 at 11:38 am
“Which brings us down to the fundamentals of the thing. If your starting premise is correct, then why don’t TRFC test it in court with regard to the SPL expulsion, and the points deduction? If memory serves, an insolvency event in a “holding company” does not attract a points deduction.”
=====================================
Depends how you define “holding company”.I would recommend Alzipratu’s post at 1.15am in that context. Here is the current SPFL rule, which I believe is unchanged from the 2012 SPL version.
zerotolerance1903 says:
Member:
September 9, 2015 at 9:37 am
Sorry for three posts in a row, but I note this quote from the ET article:
Asked about the issue back in May, King said: “The fact is he has a contract, it was committed to and the club must respect contracts.
The “club” has a contract with Mr McCoist does it? The club and company must be the same thing in Mr King’s eyes as well then. Nice to know 🙂
=====================================
Don’t forget though, that DK was previously dubbed as “a G & SL”, so anything he says is not to be believed without additional corroboration.
I don’t expect that the 500M fans of the ground for which John Brown played will be changing their entrenched views off the back of that.
What would be the fallout, as far as The Rangers are concerned, if Ashley gets canned from SD?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/97e58a50-557a-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html
Burghger
For what its worth, I absolutely understand that your starting premise exists, particularly for a fan base who really only need an icon/brand to follow. I’m sure it was a tagline on here for a while that the blue white and red scarves rarely sported a company number as their motif.
Where I struggle is with the boundaries of your premise. Usually due to the context in which such a discussion is raised the debate inevitably follows a well worn path whereby certain aspects of a continuing entity (most notably it seems the ‘history’) are carried as part of the transfer but certain others (and I guess the debt would be top of this list) are written off (and to be clear I mean by the borrower, not the lender!). I think it is for this reason that the ‘legalista’ will always revert to the ‘first person’ if you like i.e. who are you, what are you about and most importantly what are you responsible and liable for.
Doubt this helps. 🙄
Bawsman says:
Member:
September 9, 2015 at 12:37 pm
What would be the fallout, as far as The Rangers are concerned, if Ashley gets canned from SD?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/97e58a50-557a-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html
======================================
There’s as much chance of that happening as Peter Lawwell not getting re-elected at a Celtic PLC AGM even if all the minority sahreholders in attendance vote against.
Proxies will have already been submitted and the block holdings will always stay loyal. Any serious shareholder rebellion would have been dealt with on the quiet ages ago.
BurghGer
Are you seriously suggesting that UEFA’S stance re guarding the sporting integrity of football played under their auspices is not an argument for having such a rule in domestic football?
Are you suggesting UEFA carry only the same authority as ASA or ECA or BBC in the matter of protecting our game?
As to why no such rule appears in domestic football I have not researched other associations but I’ll give you an answer you won’t like.
The SFA and so Scottish clubs never considered such a rule necessary because they trusted that all clubs would recognise the sanctity of sporting integrity and not embark on the programme of tax evasion as in DOS ebts. Tax avoidance as in BTC that might become evasion. Hiding both from the national association when registering players to constituterule breaking and a breach of trust on a massive scale.
Then there is the lieing to keep the UEFA licence in 2011, witholding ebt side letters from HMRC when specifically asked for them in 2005. Witholding same relevant information from SPFL lawyers in 2012 and same information from SFA on UEFA licence in 2011 so that the lie to UEFA was not recognised.
The sheer scope of the skullduggery could never been envisaged so that the SFA would have thought an UEFA equivalent of Art12 was needed to protect the integrity of our game.
So yes we do need such an Article12 and RFC are the reason.
burghGer says:
Member:
September 9, 2015 at 9:35 am
Much as that was an interesting read you start from a false position. Rangers didn’t “newco/drop debts”
Rangers still exists, the debts still exist. The club is in liquidation. Eventually the liquidators will secure as much as they can, pay the creditors what they can and kill the club off.
No-one, either domestic or European is punishing Rangers in any way. They are simply being treated like any other new club. If anything they were given preferential treatment by being allowed into the SFL (as was) ahead of other clubs which had been about for years. I make no comment on that as it was the members of the SFL who voted for it.
I would add to that post Auldheid also that, in general terms, the SFA/SPFL rules do not specifically refer to a post liquidation scenario, in the same way as they do re a club post -administration simply because no-one, pre 2012, ever considered a post liquidation state to be possible and not that it had simply been somehow overlooked.
The Cat NR1 says:
Member:
September 9, 2015 at 12:51 pm
Ashley has 55% of the shares, so I am sure he is confident of seeing them off
. This is a serious revolt, there have been rumblings for quite sometime from the Institutions, but, given the shareholding structure all they can really do is complain.
Still, it shows that Ashley does not exemplify best practice when it comes to corporate governance.