Celtic Shareholders who put forward a resolution to the Celtic AGM in 2013 are preparing for the 2019 AGM tomorrow and some of their conclusions are reproduced below. Celtic are planning to vote the current resolution of 2019 down after several years of kicking the can down the road after an agreement to adjourn the 2013 motion was agreed at that AGM.
Given the weight of evidence, and the prevarication that has gone on for this extended period of time, you don’t have to be a student of politics to infer that Celtic are failing their own shareholders over this.
There appears to have been, at best, a failure of SFA governance over this issue. At worst? Well that doesn’t really bear thinking about. That Celtic (and other clubs too) have been in possession of the evidence outlined below but have failed to act on it is a damning indictment of the quality of people running our clubs. Peter Lawwell’s words from 2008 about the integrity of competition seem hollow coming from the same lips as the man who has failed to pursue any kind of sporting integrity over upholding the rules of the game.
Of course we are talking about a fundamental difference in how people see the game. There are those of us who (some say naively) consider that upholding the aspects of fair play and competition are paramount, and those who see the commercial aspects of the game as the foremost consideration. A pragmatist might find a way to accommodate both, but there are apparently no pragmatists in boardrooms all over Scotland – just financial accountants.
It would be unfair to categorise the latter constituency as suffering from some kind of character defect of course. Doesn’t make you a bad person because short term financial gain is your thing.
But it puts you at odds with the paying punters – or at least some of them. As a Celtic fan myself, I’m not so sure that I can take any real joy from my own club’s success if I have come to the conclusion that they themselves are happy with a rigged competition. I am not so sure I can credibly throw stones at anyone who is caught cheating when I see that serious evidence of malpractice is being ignored and hidden under the rug by my own club.
I am sure there are those who feel the same as I do. Are there enough of us? Probably not, but the effect of it all from a personal perspective, is that it disconnects me from the process where common goals and objectives are shared between fans, players and clubs. That’s what clubs are for after all isn’t it?
In short, if the game is rigged, there is no common objective.
And consequently, many of us, deprived of that shared mission, that bond broken, will be forced to re-evaluate their relationship with their clubs.
We all have our own thoughts, but the urge to walk away forever is strong with me.
The Resolution 12 Story
In 2012, Celtic shareholders brought a resolution before the Celtic PLC AGM which asked the Celtic Board to refer certain matters to UEFA because they felt that the Scottish Football Association was compromised, no longer fit for purpose in relation to these matters, at least, and had failed Celtic and all the other football clubs in Scotland and in its duty as a Governing body, and it has separately failed UEFA as the Licensing Authority appointed by UEFA to grant licences to play in European Football in relation to Scottish teams.
The actual wording used was as follows;
“This AGM requests the Board exercise the provision contained in the Procedural Rules Governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Article 10 with jurisdiction and investigation responsibilities identified in articles 3 & 11 (Note 1), by referring/bringing to the attention of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), the licensing administration practices of the Scottish Football Association (SFA), requesting the CFCB undertake a review and investigate the SFA’s implementation of UEFA & SFA license compliance requirements, with regard to qualification, administration and granting of licenses to compete in football competitions under both SFA and UEFA jurisdiction, since the implementation of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations of 2010.”
The response of the Celtic Board was to argue that this resolution was NOT NECESSARY because the board itself had already recognised that there had been failings within the SFA Licensing process, and they were already in correspondence with the SFA in relation to much the same issue.
The difference between the board and the Resolutioners was that the board wanted to continue corresponding with the SFA rather than refer the matter to UEFA or anyone else, whereas the Resolutioners argued that the SFA were hopelessly compromised, were unfit for purpose, could not of themselves remedy the situation they had created, and so wanted to refer the matter to UEFA as an independent and overseeing body whose rules had been flaunted, broken, ignored and to be frank, completely manipulated as a result of SFA inaction and inactivity.
After much discussion between the board and the Resolutioners, it was reluctantly agreed that the resolution should be adjourned and to allow the SFA to be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they could operate as a proper Governing body should and to answer all and any questions put to them via the Celtic PLC board and , where appropriate, the Resolutioners and ,if necessary, their solicitors.
In the interim period, it has become clear to the Resolutioners that the SFA are not fit for purpose, just as they originally argued, and that they are not, and never could have been, the appropriate body to consider and determine the failings in the licensing system that the Resolutioners had complained of.
This is not merely opinion on the part of the Resolutioners but is the determination and judgement of a formally constituted judicial panel appointed by the SFA itself.
The Resolutioners complain that the SFA have failed, and continue to fail in the following areas;
- They failed to oversee a fair and robust European Licence application process before and after March 2011 in respect of the appropriate season.
They had failed to mount any sort of investigation despite being contacted by HMRC from 2006 onwards in relation to the unlawful activities of a member club – they should have had a watching brief and requested regular updates from HMRC directly but didn’t. - They failed to properly apply the necessary tests demanded by UEFA in considering licence applications, and subsequently, through their then CEO, sought to justify their licensing process and the grant of certain licences on a number of different contradictory grounds – none of which stood scrutiny.
- They failed to monitor, update their records or make specific enquiries between 30th March 2011 and Mid May 2011 when the list of application grants was formally intimated to UEFA – and by which time there was widespread public rumour and speculation about the state of the tax affairs of a member club together with specific legal documents which outlined that there was indeed a tax bills due which would have disqualified that club from being granted a UEFA licence – had the rules been applied properly.
- They failed to grasp the situation between March 2011 and August 2011 when the Sheriff Officers were seen arriving at the same club and had still made no enquiry.
- They failed to carry out any monitoring duties at all post the grant of the licence, with then CEO Reagan telling Celtic that once a European licence was granted – which it was in April 2011 – all further compliance monitoring and any necessary action was the province of UEFA. This was later contradicted by UEFA themselves.
- They failed to monitor through the June 30th and September 30th, two key datelines specified with the UEFA regulations, and there exists a damning e-mail from one SFA officer to the offending club which effectively says that he hopes UEFA will be too busy to notice the deficiencies in the latest submissions sent by the SFA to UEFA in respect of the club concerned.
Throughout, the SFA denied that there were any failures in their procedures, that licences had been correctly granted, there had been no breaches of the rules and maintained that their procedures had been audited and approved by UEFA during the period.
According to the official UEFA website, no such Audit actually took place with the same website confirming which Football Associations were in fact audited at the relevant time. There is no mention of any SFA Audit.
The SFA claimed that not only was there nothing wrong with the grant of the licence, but that there was nothing for them to report during the post grant period as it was not their responsibility – and then added that even if something had been wrong, or was later found to be wrong with the grant, they could not report the matter to UEFA and could take no action because they were time barred from doing so.
Post the Craig Whyte Trial, where long held evidence was publicly noted and commented upon, Celtic and the SPFL publicly called for there to be a full independent Legal inquiry into all that had transpired during “the EBT years” and all aspects of how what had occurred, impacted on football Governance in Scotland.
The SFA rejected those calls and instead insisted on their own internal inquiry into the UEFA licence process for 2011/2012 – despite previously insisting that there had never been anything to investigate or report to UEFA who had entrusted them with the administration of their Licensing process.
The SFA wrote to every club in Scotland to say they were undertaking that investigation and later publicly announced that as a result of that investigation they had uncovered sufficient evidence to justify bringing formal charges alleging breaches of both SFA and UEFA rules.
This despite denying for a number of years that there had been any need for an investigation and despite reassuring Celtic that their licensing process was robust, had been conducted properly, and had not resulted in any incorrect grant of a licence.
The SFA appointed a judicial panel to hear those charges, determine whether they had been proven or not and then to hand out an appropriate punishment.
That Judicial panel have ruled that legally they (the SFA appointed panel) and the SFA itself cannot bring, hear, determine and act on those charges, nor consider the activities of the football club concerned in any judicial forum, because apparently the SFA had previously decided and formally entered into a contract which says that the SFA will not, and cannot, administer their normal Governmental and Judicial function (which would normally apply to any other club in Scotland and at any other time in the history of the SFA or UEFA) in relation to the acts concerned and the specific football club in question.
Instead, the Panel ruled that the charges concerned should be considered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport as a matter of contract and law – and could not be considered by an SFA appointed panel.
In other words, it has been judicially determined that the SFA cannot as a matter of law enforce its own rules or those of UEFA in relation to one club, and have signed away their entire right to oversee proper football Governance and the implementation of SFA and UEFA rules in this instance.
Further, that contract must have been known to all the appropriate SFA officers who decided and took part in the inquiry that led to the SFA bringing the disciplinary charges – Stuart Reagan, Andrew MacKinlay and Tony McGlennan – and when the SFA rejected Celtic’s call for a fully independent inquiry.
In effect, those same officers mounted their own internal inquiry and brought proceedings which they knew, or ought reasonably to have known, which would end in a legal dead end.
Such a course of action amounts to professional incompetence on a monumental scale – at best!
Further, subsequent SFA officials, assured the officers of Celtic Football Club that following the decision of the Independent Judicial Panel there was no reason why the SFA would not take the matter to CAS and in turn used the officials of Celtic Football Club to relay that message to the Resolutioners in the knowledge, and with the intention, that Celtic PLC shareholders would rely on those assurances and would act accordingly. Those actions and those assurances should now be the subject of a wholly separate inquiry.
Since those assurances were made to Celtic officials, Solicitors acting on behalf of shareholders have written to the SFA on no less than three occasions requesting clarification on what the SFA is doing, whether or not the decision from the independent tribunal advising that the matter should go to CAS will be implemented, and requesting a proposed timetable when this will happen. All such letters have been ignored or avoided by the SFA.
Subsequently, the current CEO of the SFA has stated that whether or not the matter should go to CAS will only be determined prior to Christmas 2019 – some 18 months after the ruling by the independent judicial panel.
This position is a complete volte face from what the SFA told Celtic officials immediately after the 2018 panel hearing.
The conclusion to all of this can only be that the SFA is not fit for purpose and that the governance of Scottish football is so bad, so broken and so far removed from normal judicial and corporate business practice that it must be looked at by an independent body if the matter is not referred to CAS.
Further, all of this must be made public, must be out in the open and must be properly disclosed otherwise any future investment in any club whether by private individuals, stock market listed entities, banks, loan houses, credit houses or whatever is predicated on the wholly fraudulent notion that the SFA will consistently apply its own rules or those of UEFA.
Celtic, as a respected member of UEFA, should not and cannot, stand back and allow this shambolic governance to continue unchecked and without external examination as to do so would be doing a total disservice to UEFA, and such a course of action would potentially make Celtic a party to the entire shambolic administration we have seen thus far.
The resolutioners have stated consistently since 2012 that SFA governance is not fit for purpose and have requested that this entire matter should be referred to UEFA as the overall governing body for European football and as a footballing authority who has entrusted the SFA to oversee the fair application of its rules in Scotland.
Despite what is now accepted as continued and regular SFA failure, that request has met with obfuscation and resistance.
However persistence beats resistance and no matter what the outcome of the 2019 Celtic AGM this is an issue which will not go away and is worthy of consideration and determination in a more formal legal forum.
Eastwood 25th December 2019 at 23:08
"John Clark,….
The original "clubs" are dissolved in the course of incorporation. Little known fact.'
++++++++++++++
Just to be clear, Eastwood, ( in case others may think you are trying to make unsound equations between different things!) let me observe as follows:
The Committee and members of The Celtic Football and Athletic Club of 1887 set up the Celtic Football and Athletic Company in 1897 ( the first shareholders being officers of the club).
The first object of setting up the Limited company was to 'take over and acquire, for the purpose of carrying on a football and athletic company, the whole property and assets and others referred to in and upon the terms defined by an agreement between the President, Vice-President, Treasurer and Secretary and other members of Committee of the Celtic Football and Athletic Club ……….and John Shaughnessy, apprentice-in-law ..as Trustee for behoof of a company to be formed and registered under the name of the Celtic Football and Athletic Company Ltd…….'
There was no 'dissolution' of a body: the same body as was the un-incorporated club remained , but with legal protection for its shareholders and directors. By contrast, SevcoScotland ,the limited company set up by CG in 2012 could not 'acquire' all the assets of a living, functioning football club.
Et pourquoi, M. Poirot?
Parce que, mon ami, Ze Rangers Football Club of the young Glasgow Greeners of 1872 had gone bust.Spectacularly (and disgracefully)so.
It was in Liquidation, not able to participate in football. It had ceased to function or to be entitled to function as a football club. There was therefore no football (or athletic)club to take over and acquire.
What happened next ( and I do hope the FCA are really looking into this) is that a number of people, (some with previous connections with the liquidated 'Rangers') bought lots of shares in SevcoScotland.
And then Rangers International Football Club plc was set up!
This was done by the shareholders of SevcoScotland swapping their shares in SevcoScotland for shares in the new RIFC plc simultaneously with the issue of an Initial Public Offer Prospectus, which invited the public to purchase shares in RIFC plc on the clearly implied basis that what had been Team 12/SevcoScotland and was now 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd' was actually Rangers Football Club of 1872- not dead at all, even though its eviscerated body was still lying on the mortuary slab awaiting the turning of the switch marked 'dissolution'; and its stiffed creditors were looking at 3p in the pound of what they were owed being paid.
The point to be made is the point that has been made many times.
TRFC Ltd are not, cannot possibly be, RFC of 1872.
The Celtic Football and Athletic Club, unincorporated, did not cease to be Celtic FC when it became The Celtic Football and Athletic Company , or when that in turn became Celtic PLC. And remain with an unbroken history since my grandfather's early boyhood.
John Clark,
"There was no 'dissolution' of a body: the same body as was the un-incorporated club remained , but with legal protection for its shareholders and directors…."
I am no historian and could not confirm the precise fate of the unincorporated clubs, in either my own team's case with Rangers or with Celtic. We are talking over 120 years ago and I doubt anyone else on here could shed light on the matter, although I'd be delighted to be proved wrong!
I am sure however that – these days – it would be routine for a club going down the route of incorporation to dissolve after transferring everything into the ownership of the new company, and most examples i've seen online contain such a resolution. The former committee-run structure is rendered obsolete, so why hang around i suppose! There are no doubt historians who could confirm the sequence of events in the late 1890s and I'd love to be enlightened one day with regards to either.
You mentioned the parallel to 2012 and opened the OCNC question, which I address with caution! First point of order from my perspective would be that, given the liquidation of OldCo only began in the October, Duff and Phelps did continue to operate the business/pay the wages – as was the administrators' job of course – until it was sold to Sevco. Whether you consider the business and assets that Sevco acquired to be a football club or not is each individual's choice. Many clearly don't and I won't waste my time pretending otherwise!
As per UEFA's recent prize money windfall proved, the football authorities recognise the continuity of the/a football entity – and apparent relevance of a triumph in a defunct UEFA competition from almost 50 years ago! – though with revelations re. the (in)famous 5WA and transfer of membership to come out, some would say that is not yet a settled matter! Bated breath are the words that jump to mind…
Eastwood 26th December 2019 at 20:49
I watched the first half of your game and agree with the BBC's assessment of possession . When Killie had the ball they passed it about among themselve until closed down , then lumped it up the park . TRFC tended to be more direct , trying to move it forward quickly , then retreating rather than pressing when they coughed up possession . I reckon the foul count and shots count were accurate as well . I didn't watch the second half as the game was tripe , so have no opinion as to whether it was offside or not . In a lot of matches , teams with lower amounts of possession have more shots , sometimes even more on target . It depends how long it takes them to get into position to have said shots . So in what way are the possession stats absolute nonsense ? Just because you don't agree with them ? Is the 23 shots recorded for TRFC accurate ? What shot stats were off ? What are you basing your statistical analysis on ? It was a p*sh , turgid game , much like watching Thistle recently .
There is one way to stave off this continuous OC/NC debate, which is simply this. The current Rangers club who claim to be the same club who stole tens of millions from the public purse should pay it all back.
Eastwood, firstly it’s nice to have a fellow bear on here! I had stopped contributing as there was a real shortage of varied opinions so it’s nice to see you here! Secondly I’m not sure we were watching the same game yesterday. It was one of the most turgid awful games I have ever seen against a team with no interest in actually winning the game! Every time Killie had the ball they were time wasting so I’m not sure the stats were far wrong. There is no doubt only one team deserved to win and the result was the correct one, but with how often they were kicking the ball about their back line with no attempt to get forward the possession stats looked correct. Certainly not a good advert for Scottish football and tragic how far Killie have regressed since Clark left.
Darkbeforedawn 27th December 2019 at 08:51
Eastwood, firstly it’s nice to have a fellow bear on here! I had stopped contributing as there was a real shortage of gullible liquidation deniers.
————————————————————————————————-
Fixed that for you DBD.
Paddy,
For the last couple of years I've been keeping stats as i watch – just basis shots on/off, crosses from wide, and passing/central attacks. Not sure why to be honest! Probably helps with the nerves during a big game and it's good to look back on a game and see clearly how things played out, how the team actually played. Sometimes you can have long spells of possession and it might feel like you're dominating, then you glance down at the sheet and 15 minutes have passed without a cross or an attack, let alone a shot.
There are some fuzzy boundaries i suppose – you count a shot blocked on the line but if its blocked by a challenge a metre from the attacker i don't record it. Possession i dont bother with but certainly the game yesterday 50/50 seemed way off.
Recently we've been defending from the front and pressing teams so I can't see how killie had anywhere near 50 % possession just from knocking it about at the back – not really their style either!
There was much talk in the media about Killie returning to the more dour, organised Clarke style and it rang true, as it look like one of those days.
The goal was magic though, superb football from Jack, Aribo and lightning feet from Morelos. That man has been a revelation and with 60 minutes resting on the bench, I hope his form will continue to Parkhead!
I see that the new Aberdeen chairman, Dave Cormack, has taken long to question the Compliance Officer, and is seeking fairness in decision making.
https://twitter.com/CormackDavie/status/1210019775096741889
Dave Cormack @CormackDavie
Law = fairness & consistency. Sam will take his ban but the compliance officer has a duty to review Ajer feigning injury with his triple salvo and miraculous recovery after Sam gets the red. Griffiths lunges into Ferguson’s knee with both feet in the air. Fairness for ALL please!
Eastwood 27th December 2019 at 11:59
See Darkbeforedawn at 08.51
And you can look forward to me giving you a minute by minute breakdown of our game at Cappielow tomorrow , concentrating manly on the Beckam-esque throw ins from Penrice , if he gets a game !
Eastwood 27th December 2019 at 00:43
"…Whether you consider the business and assets that Sevco acquired to be a football club or not is each individual's choice.."
+++++++++++
The SFA did not think it was a matter of choice, when they insisted that CG's bundle of assets must first apply for membership of a league before it could be offered membership in the SFA.
You are, with the greatest respect for your persistence in trying to deflect from the truth, talking absolute factual and legal mince!
Facts are chiels that winna ding.
CG did not buy Rangers Football Club of 1872.
Team12/SevcoScotland/TRFC were a brand new creation under the Articles of Association both of the (then) SPL and the SFA.
The disgraceful fact that Football Governance abandoned principle and forsook the truth they at first upheld, yielding to pressure from venal, lying, grasping , hectoring, blustering, marching , dog-whistle blowing men involved as well as from the running dog lackeys in the world of Press and Politics and BBC Scotland does not change the Truth.
Corrupt Official: to be fair there was not a huge amount of varied opinions on here
. Of late it has been a site of the last remaining ‘new clubbers’ going over the same ground over and over. For his mischief, folk like Steelpike were always an interesting alternative view while I loved Jimbo’s often completely unrelated musical musings! In the last year or so it has been a very quiet site with maybe a few articles a year, a handful of comments a day and most of these are JC inevitably mentioning “cannot possibly be the same club that is now in liquidation” in relation to some body or organisation he has written to and never got the response he wanted.
Darkbeforedawn 27th December 2019 at 14:25
A tad harsh , methinks , and if you get your pal Eastwood to check the stats , you might find that it is I who is shading possession .
John,
You will have to correct me if my recollection is wrong, but my understanding is based broadly on the SFA's own testimony to the ASA:
"The SFA further pointed out that, following RFC’s transfer to a new corporate owner, Newco did not take a new membership of the Scottish FA but rather that the previous membership was transferred across to them so they could continue as the same member of the Scottish FA"
I've no doubt you will have seen that before and have a different spin on it. But factually speaking the points it references, chiefly the transfer of membership between Old Co nd new Co, are well established and not really in question?
Eastwood 27th December 2019 at 00:43
You mentioned the parallel to 2012 and opened the OCNC question, which I address with caution! First point of order from my perspective would be that, given the liquidation of OldCo only began in the October, Duff and Phelps did continue to operate the business/pay the wages – as was the administrators' job of course – until it was sold to Sevco. Whether you consider the business and assets that Sevco acquired to be a football club or not is each individual's choice. Many clearly don't and I won't waste my time pretending otherwise!
=============================
You are correct to address the issue with some caution as there are well rehearsed arguments and entrenched positions.
The "business and assets" were sold to Sevco Scotland on 14 June 2012, the day that the club failed to achieve a CVA (Company Voluntary Arrangement). The failure to achieve a CVA meant that the club could not continue as a going concern. The administrators were then charged with obtaining the best possible return for creditors, without the company being wound up or by selling the assets of the company.
You are correct to question whether or not the "business and assets" sold to Sevco Scotland constituted a "football club" (whatever that is).
Despite all the court cases that have followed, I can only recall one instance of what was actually sold and purchased being mentioned in court. The QC who brought it up described it as a "basket of assets and a trading style" (the trading style being the brand "Rangers FC"). That QC was representing Charles Green, owner of Sevco Scotland at the time of the purchase.
The second contentious part of the issue is that the Administrators in their final report advised of a "going concern" sale having been completed. I'm at a loss how a "going concern" sale can be achieved when the failure to achieve a CVA meant that a "going concern" sale was not possible. If a company can just dump its debts and still continue as a going concern, then what is the point of any insolvent company going through the process to achieve a CVA.
The third part of the issue involves the football authorities, who have a record of allowing "sporting continuity" for a "new club" to be treated as if it was a continuation of a former "club" that went bust, and is subsequently resurrected in a new corporate form.
For all practical purposes the football authorities (including the SFA) treats a new club as if it is a continuation of an old club if it uses the same stadium, colours etc.. That is what happened in the case of Rangers. The SFA largely treated "Rangers FC" (whatever that is) as having come out of administration with a CVA, but with a few exceptional conditions attached. Football creditors were paid, but the new version started in the lowest tier. The new version was also barred from playing in Europe for three years, but enjoyed immunity from action against the old club.
As you say, its an individual's choice how they view the events that unfolded six and a half years ago.
Was there not a seperate thread created for discussion on OC/NC ? If it's dead , we could maybe start a new one and pretend it's the same one .
Darkbeforedawn 27th December 2019 at 14:25
Corrupt Official: to be fair there was not a huge amount of varied opinions on here.
———————————————–
Indeed DBD, but the matter in hand is not about opinions. Yours or mine !…It is about reality.
The old adage, "Stop telling lies, and we'll stop telling the truth", springs to mind.
No matter how successful, (or not) Sevco go on to become, the reality of the situation will not be permitted to be airbrushed over, just because certain members of society, from top to bottom, wish it so.
Without doubt the Scottish footballing public are being taken for a ride. Some are happy to be hoodwinked. The abominal thing is that those who quite rightly speak out against such hoodwinking, are being roundly castigated, shouted down, or ignored.
That is just plain wrong. Especially as we ALL, (hoodwinked and not), watched it unfold chronologically live on the telly, in news reels, flashes, documentaries, and hauf hour specials.
The power propaganda has, has blown my mind, and outside of the fitba' sphere, I consider that to be the single most worrying aspect facing us plebs, and society in general.
Sevvies may be myth believers now, but deep down, they know what we all know.
Minty cheated like f*kk, (financially and sportingly), breeching UK laws and fitba' rules, and it resulted in a convoluted sale to an asset stripper, when it became clear liquidation was the only possible outcome for Rangers(I..L.).
A blind eye and probable assistance was provided by individuals within our governing bodies, in his unlawful pursuits and flouting of fitba' rules and regs over more than a decade. That is inexcusable. I make no exaggeration in calling them a cabal of corruption.
In short, our game is bent…….That is what irks me and many others……..But strangely enough, is of such little concern to followers of the club that was actually liquidated, that it is a real hindrance to Rangers(I.L.) fans receiving any kind of justice whatsoever, for the wrongs committed in their name.
The new incarnation, backed by propaganda, did its job……………For now.
It is not just Rangers(I.L.) fans who deserve justice though !…..Everyone who ever spun a turnstyle spanning that period is entitled…..No matter their allegiance….We were, and are, all victims of the corrupt cabal.
But a merry crimbo and happy new year to you DBD. …..With a bit of luck, "Dawn", will arrive, and you can leave the darkness behind for ever.
And remember. 10 IAR is a tremendous thing for Scottish fitba'…….Rejoice in it should it happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRGrPJwKlyY
CO, I will never deny it was a shameful, embarrassing and quite despicable part of our history that we should never be allowed to forget. I have long argued on here that a bit of humble apologies and making bridges would have served us far better than the mentality of “it wasn’t our fault” and cause more trouble! The whole way it went down was shocking, and has huge parallels for me to how the banks in 2008 could fail so badly due to dreadful management and greed, and to quite Alistair Darling, RBS Chairman phoned him up to state “we’re going to go under by the end of the days what are YOU going to do about it?” It’s capitalism at its worst and where there is money there will always be corruption.
That said, the very errors and facilitators of the disaster are now often overlooked due to the OC/NC argument which I don’t believe is in anyone’s interest. Out with a very small circle of Scottish football fans such as this site, the fact that Rangers are the same club has been widely accepted (rightly or wrongly) by the very people that run the country and the football. Like everyone else I had no idea a business could be free to shed its debts and “continue” until HMRC – the very people who can liquidate a company – stated that it was in the clubs interest to reject the CVA so they could move forward. Then it’s not just Rangers who UEFA – our custodians of football – treat as a continuation, rightly or wrongly. It can’t be said that they believe we are a new club when they have just given money to Rangers for the years prior to 2012. For a company who money is king, they are hardly going to pay out as a favour for a backwater football association unless they genuinely treat Phoenix clubs as a continuation.
For all the (albeit ever dwindling) number of folk who will argue till the end of days that Rangers are a “new club” I can’t believe there will ever be a Eurika moment where that will be stated. Instead I see more big clubs folding, shedding their debt, and starting again with the benefits of “continuity” within the authorities. Of most importance therefore should surely be not forgetting the behaviours that led to the collapse instead of arguing black is white over what happened after.
And a Merry Christmas and hope fantastic new year to you too CO. And all the rest on SFM! For all our differences I’m sure the often quoted “there’s more that we share than divides us” is true.
Darkbeforedawn 27th December 2019 at 14:25
'.. a handful of comments a day and most of these are JC inevitably mentioning “cannot possibly be the same club that is now in liquidation” in relation to some body or organisation he has written to and never got the response he wanted.'
++++++++
The really important thing to me, DBD, is that the truth is self-evident. I know the truth, you know that a liquidated football club ceases to exist as football club, and the SFA knows the truth.
I know that the SFA runs scared of the truth, as witness their refusal to investigate the other major 'corruption' allegation ( Res 12 refers).
I for one will not yield to liars, whatever the passage of time.
And whatever otherwise interesting and important 'football' issues that there may be that we all would like to concentrate on, our interest in them must take second place to destroying the absurd notion that a new club can have the SFA membership of a club that lost its entitlement to membership 'transferred' to it as if it were being transferred from the owner of club in membership to new owner of that club( as is what happens if a solvent club simply changes hands)
The bodies who 'supported' the SFA, namely the ASA and the BBC Editorial Panel [ happily now itself as defunct as RFC of 1872] accepted the tissue of lies provided as 'evidence' by the very accused!
As for my letters to the FCA, they have not yet been replied to in substance. They have said they will investigate.
If they do seriously investigate the extent to which the IPO may have been deliberately misleading, I reckon it will take some time, and would not expect expect a speedy answer, whatever the answer may be. After all,it took the TOP a long time to deal in another connection with one director of RIFC plc; it may take a considerable time to deal with two questions concerning a full board of directors: first, was there a stock exchange major fiddle? second, and if so, how was a possibly misleading Prospectus allowed to be presented to the public?
I have an abundance of patience. I can wait, in clear conscience.
Diddling the Stock Exchange would be a much more serious matter than hoodwinking(with their consent) a petty little forsworn governance body like the SFA.
There are likely to be many whose consciences (in so far as they are human enough to have a conscience) who may be a little afraid.
And , of course, it's early days for me to expect a reply from Mr Ceferin of UEFA!
Truth will, ultimately, out.
God speed the day, but as I say, I have lots of patience.
DBD……I think the statement you refer to by HMRC simply said "Football can continue to be played at Ibrox". I don't think they stated by who. (happy to be corrected).
However you are correct regarding a company going bust and it's ability to continue…..It can't !
Buying a business means buying its outstanding debts too. Whether that be invoices for glass needed for double glazing, or materials received to stuff couches……or outstanding taxes.
I don't give any weight to the, "Everybody else says", argument. As my maw would say, "If a' yir pals jumped in the Clyde, wid ye dae it tae!?"
In fact its one of the problems I alluded to. Propaganda led group thinking. It's not a good thing in fitba', or life in general, nor acceptable in what we are led to believe is a liberated free thinking society.
It MUST be resisted by all who have a mind of their own.
easyJambo,
I 'd say that Newco purchasing the "business and assets" of Oldco is as established a fact as any in this saga. At various times phrases have been used mischeivously like "basket of assets", "asset fire sale" with the intention of diminishing the integrity of the business that was transferred. And yes, assets were included, so those such phrases carry some truth! It was a TUPE relevant transfer, therefore recognised as "a transfer of an economic entity – an organised grouping of resources – which retains its identity". A business, in short.
Re. your second contentious point, there has been some conflation of the use of the term "going concern" applied to the company (was clearly not a going concern post rejected CVA) and the business up for sale (was and remained a going concern throughout the course of the administration). Going concern in respect of the business I would understand as meaning it is operating (still paying the wages etc, albeit during the off-season) and fit to continue operating under a new owner. Both applied in Rangers' case.
You're correct in recognising that the football authorities treat Rangers as a continuing club, but I suppose, as with any referee's decision, the punters are at liberty to call foul and often do according to their tribal instincts!
JC, I could never possibly claim to be privy to what you “know” to be the truth so I find it very presumptuous for you to claim you know what I know. Contrary to your belief, there is not a wide army of Rangers fans in “denial” who secretly believe we’re a new club but don’t let on. My views have been regularly stated on the archives here and I like to think I am one of the more clued up Rangers fans on what has happened. I have no doubt the majority who go to games are not even aware there is any debate. For them they will go to games no doubt “knowing” they are watching the same Rangers they always have (without a site such as this, how would they even know there was a different opinion by others?). Who am I to criticise when you are incredibly passionate about your beliefs, however different to my own, so credit for your resolve. It will be interesting to hear if you do get responses from either but I would be very surprised if they were fruitful for what you are hoping – and I can’t see UEFA changing which seems to be a policy they adopt for all Phoenix clubs just because a Celtic fan from Scotland has written a letter but we will see. If I was a betting man I would expect some sort of fudge along the lines of the company / club, clubs being more than the business etc etc. To change their stance on Rangers would involve them having to claim back money they have awarded, changing the coefficients and updating their history for not just Rangers but a host of other clubs all across Europe. It may be that I am more cynical than some, but even if it was something I felt strongly about as you do, the thought of corrupt organisations such as UEFA or any financial authority doing the “right thing” would be a long shot.
The HMRC quote is as follows:
“It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start,”
I took that as quite clear and concise that they did not believe that would be the end of Rangers. “A new club can make a fresh start” would be along the lines of the beliefs on here. But those were clearly not HMRCs
I guess the most straight forward comparison would be I could run up huge debts that I knew I couldn’t ever pay back, go for voluntary bankruptcy and shed 90% of them. Yes, like Rangers I will be affected (credit score ruined for 6 years, payments made as much as possible) but after that period I would still be Darkbeforedawn – not a new person. Apologies for the frivalty of that
. And on larger scales businesses do that all the time – shed the bad parts and keep the best. To hell with everyone that is owed debts and how do we repay them? We make them president of the USA!
Jeez, it's nearly 2020 & there's still a debate over who played Brechin on 29.07.12.
It couldn't have been 'Rangers' as they finished second in the SPL in season 2011-12 & didn't qualify for the Ramsdens Cup on league placing.
Which club, 'Rangers' or 'The Rangers' got a special, one-off, never-before, never-again, temporary membership from the SFA on 27.07.12? 'Rangers' wouldn't have needed it if they had a valid membership, would they? Which club, 'Rangers' or 'The Rangers' became an 'associate member' (not a 'full member') of the SFA a few days after the Brechin match?
Which club held the registrations of the players who played against Brechin; was it 'Rangers' or 'The Rangers'? It was actually the administrators of 'Rangers', Duff & Phelps, who held the registrations & gave written permission for them to play. In another integrity bypass, the SFA allowed fifteen loanees to be named for one team to the detriment of their opponents.
Incidentally, which team, 'Rangers' or 'The Rangers' were unable to play any pre-season friendlies or testimonials before the Brechin match as they weren't a recognised football club by the SFA?
I'm not that bothered about the perennial OC/NC debate.
However, the perennial question should be;
"Why is there a football club playing at Ibrox – and in the SPFL?"
Any/all Ibrox teams/clubs should have died permanently in 2012 – and should have been excluded permanently from the professional leagues.
The very last thing that massively cheating club deserved, was a place in ANY Scottish league.
But we all know now that money trumps rules at Hampden.
'Rangers' – forever a blight on Scottish football.
In a world where Qatar is hosting the next World Cup, Boris has a resounding majority and we’re about to be plunged into a hard Brexit I don’t think it’s just Hampden where money trumps rules sadly
Eastwood 27th December 2019 at 18:59
I'll step back from getting into a debate with you. As I said earlier, the arguments have been well rehearsed. Both you and I have differing views on the circumstances of the club's demise and I suspect that no end of circular arguments will change either of our views.
Darkbeforedawn 27th December 2019 at 17:45
Instead I see more big clubs folding, shedding their debt, and starting again with the benefits of “continuity” within the authorities.
……………..
Are you suggesting that it is ok for big clubs to fold shed their debt and because they are a big club the authorities deem them a continuity, but small clubs who fold shedding their debt and no one buys their assets are seen within the authorities as a dead club.
Ie. it’s ok if you can keep a large group of fans onside and keep the cash cow rolling, and the cash going into the authorities.
Eastwood 27th December 2019 at 18:59
'.. It was a TUPE relevant transfer, .'
++++++++++++++++++++
It was not a 'TUPE relevant ransfer'.
If it had been , HMRC would have pursued Green for the outstanding taxes, and the players who had the sense to walk away would have been in breach of contract, and the others who did not would not have had to sign new contracts with a new club: their Rangers' contracts would have remained in force for at leaast one day under the supposed 'new 'owner,so that if they were to be made redundant their conditions of service would have been those that they had under the original contract.
It does not help if you try to introduce incorrect factual material to confuse the lieges.
And, of course,HMRC has no more power than the BBC Editorial Committee or the ASA or the Daily Record to decide that an entity is or is not a 'football club'.
[And I suspect that the HMRC officer who added his little bit was probably disciplined, and if not, should have been for going away beyond his brief, which does not include comforting the fans of a liquidated football club!]
A really interesting game in Dundee. I intend to agree with Willie Miller that Dundee played with less skill but greater endeavour.
Whether an element of complacency has crept into the United mentality is a moot point, but the result is a useful reminder to successful clubs that failure is only 90 minutes away.
Eastwood 27th December 2019 at 18:59
rejected CVA) and the business up for sale (was and remained a going concern throughout the course of the administration). Going concern in respect of the business I would understand as meaning it is operating (still paying the wages etc, albeit during the off-season)
…………..
I would understand as meaning it is operating (still paying the wages etc,……. but not paying the debt. Only being able to afford to pay the wages and not meet the debt only leads one place.
……………..
I would understand that meaning not operating but clinging to survival
Darkbeforedawn 27th December 2019 at 19:15
1
9
Rate This
The HMRC quote is as follows:
“It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start,”
…………….
First HMRC have no authority on football matters and second of course a new company would be free from claims or litigation if the CVA is rejected, if the CVA was achievable the new company would have to pay the debt.
…………..
Charles Green paid £3mill less to not be hit with a big tax bill and 276 creditors.
Not at all CO. I have always said I don’t agree with how big clubs, banks, businesses you name it can screw over the little guy and get off Scot free. The biggest problem in the whole OC/NC debate is the muddying or the water between moral, legal, and accepted views. On the first subject of morals even I would struggle to argue against the fact it’s morally abhorrent that it has been allowed. On the legalities even the lawyers and judges argued over what made a football club. The third and final part which is what is the regularly accepted view by all, is the only one I will debate as it has been proven without doubt it’s deemed as the same club by the authorities. Is it morally right? No. Is it even legal? Very debatable and probably close on impossible to completely prove one way or the other. Is it accepted by everyone that we are the same club? Yes. Unequivocally
And it would seem less power than a number of bloggers on a Scottish football forum in your opinion? Who does have this power? I would have thought UEFA have the ultimate say on that?
John Clark 27th December 2019 at 18:12
And , of course, it’s early days for me to expect a reply from Mr Ceferin of UEFA!
…………….
JC this may be the responce.
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1210683710783266816/photo/1
…………..
Ps i see the OC/NC thing has raised it’s head again these last few days. I wonder why.
I may be wrong but I thought it came up again after the UEFA prize money was distributed this week to include the years before 2012. That then led to a few letters sent, posts on Twitter and the topic being discussed again.
I actually think everyone is so entrenched in their views that it would not matter who declared anything, it would be ignored. I can’t see the regulars on here accepting it if Aleksander Čeferin, Boris Johnson, Sajid Javid and Gianni Infantino all poses with Gerrard and King to announce their long history. The MSM are regularly hated on here and (often rightly so) slaughtered, but the “new clubbers” will regularly use old footage from the press as a justification for their argument. When pressed on how they can be trusted then but not the other 99% of the time it is always “well they were honest for a few days”. Until it flagged up on my Twitter i didn’t even think it was a discussion anymore other than folk like Jas Boyd and JC. And then from one completely innocent comment by myself today that I was glad to see another view point on the site it has led to the same argument from when I last logged on a year ago! I can’t understand why we don’t all just agree to disagree. To me the club will always be the same club, and I won’t go to any trouble to write letters, constantly email people or clogg up twitter feeds to argue that. I accept other people don’t have the same view and will never be changed. But I feel that’s very much a one way view.
John Clark,
It most certainly was a TUPE "relevant transfer", although I understand why you would prefer this not to be the case, given the criteria that render it so, which I described in my previous post!
If it was not a TUPE "relevant transfer", it would be very strange indeed – and a colossal waste of money – for the Scottish PFA, OldCo and NewCo to be in dispute for months/years over how the finer points of the TUPE regulations were followed during the course of the sale.
Very strange indeed.
As it happens, the details of the Employment Tribunal that ruled on the dispute are available here: https://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed24375
It's pretty dense reading but one line is particularly relevant: The claim arises from the sale of Rangers Football Club by the second respondent/OldCo to the first respondent/NewCo in June 2012. According to the claimant/PFA Scotland, and by concession of both respondents, that was a relevant transfer within the TUPE regulations.
Are we to believe that OldCo, NewCo, and PFA Scotland all maintained the pretence in order to allow a punter on the internet like me to point to the TUPE regulations and say, "See. Same club"? Or more simply… it just was a TUPE "relevant transfer".
Darkbeforedawn 27th December 2019 at 21:57
'… I would have thought UEFA have the ultimate say on that? '
++++++++
Dearie me, DBD:
Under the articles of association of the then SPL , a club that went into Liquidation lost its share in that league.
Under the Articles of Association of the SFA , that club automatically lost its membership of the SFA.
Every club in Scotland which suffered the insolvency event of Administration was penalised in football terms by deduction of points. If they failed to exit Administration ( by, for example, a CVA, or by some sugar daddy paying all their debts) and suffered the insolvency event of Liquidation they died as a football club.
And were lost to Scottish Football permanently on that account.
No need for UEFA to be involved: the SPL's and SFA's are crystal clear, no room for argument. (Hence the resort to lying, subterfuge, secret agreements and vile propaganda)
The fact that UEFA has treated TRFC as being 10 years old simply means they were lied to and accepted the lie (whether knowingly or innocently is the question)
Perhaps Ceferin will respond to my email on the point, and let me know .But, of course, I am as ready to believe that UEFA is as liable to lie as the SFA,[there has been some very mucky work] and as prepared to collude in the lies of others. That is why I wrote in the terms I did-with distrust.
—
ps. the analogy you draw in your post of 19.22 is tosh!
If being solvent as Dbd was a fundamental requirement of your employment as, say, the representative of a Finance House, your becoming insolvent would result in your ceasing to be able to operate as a representative of a Finance House.[just as being accused (unjustly) of a crime meant the Administrators of Rangers FC (IA) seem not to have been able to work as Insolvency practitioners and are consequently seeking sizeable damages]
You would not just suffer a few years loss of credit and loss of face at being declared bankrupt! You would not be allowed to operate in that line of business, just as Rangers FC going into Liquidation meant its death as a football club.
Eastwood 27th December 2019 at 22:34
',.. As it happens, the details of the Employment Tribunal that ruled on the dispute are available here: https://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed24375 '
+++++++++++
What kind of a dolt do you imagine me , or the general run of this blog's readership,to be, Eastwood?
Have you even read that judgment? Do you begin to understand what it was about?
It was about TRFC's appeal against the decision that the Professional Footballers' Association representaives (of the players who walked away ) who had said they were acting for their clients as 'employee representatives' could to be allowed to amend their ET1 by adding an alternative case that the claimant, rather than being an 'employee representative under regulation 13 (3)(b)(i) of TUPE' they were an 'independent trade union' for the purpose of TUPE.
Buugger all to do with whether TRFC was a new club or continuity Rangers! Nothing to do with how a liquidated entity is dealt with under TUPE.
More to do with CG finding to his shock that he had not bought Rangers FC of 1872 because liquidation had annulled all contracts of employment ,and staff ( of any kind) could tear up their contracts of employment and walk away. ( I wonder now what information was actually given to staff about their legal employment position? Were they just bullied into staying schtum, or else?)
And as we know, TRFC lost their appeal.
The problem you have, Eastwood, is that Truth is on my side
.Not even the original Jabba could change that,
Nor could the devil himself .!
What is the difference between a sevconite supporter and Prince Andrew?
Answer: Nothing neither thing they have done anything wrong.
It is almost a waste of time trying to convince these type of PEOPLE that they are NOT superior or entitled.
Not to mention their ability to blame and never accept responsibility.
Happy New Year to all positive supporters to this wonderful site.
There is no Old club/New club debate. It is a misnomer. The Rangers Football Club plc was not a 'club'. It was a completely different legal entity. It is an 'artificial entity recognized by the law as a legal person that exists independently with rights and liability.' When it was liquidated this person died. There was no 'engine room subsidiary'. There was no metaphysical entity with everlasting life. There was only a failed company.
A company was liquidated. A new company bought the assets and business from the liquidated company.
The new company was free to enter any business area it chose to. Given the assets they had, it would not have made much sense to organise Highland Dancing competitions every Saturday, so they chose the football business. Although I'm pretty sure a car park would have made more money.
Personally, I couldn't care less what they do. They are now and always will be, in the shadow of their richer more successful neighbours in the business of playing professional football.
What I do care about is the fact that they were awarded all the titles and history of the business which was liquidated. Many of those titles were won by cheating and should have been stripped from the history of the liquidated business. There was also a conspiracy between the business which runs organised football competitions in Scotland and the business which went into liquidation to hide financial doping and competition rule breaking and to divert potential revenue from one business to another. Allegedly.
Sadly, it is being allowed to happen again. The only thing different this time is that it is millionaires who have lost fortunes and not tax payers or face painters. If there are any villages looking for an idiot, look no further than the director's box at Ibrox.
And yet, it should have been so different. Had the SFA and SPFL dealt the appropriate punishments out; had the new business not marketed itself on bigotry, entitlement and a faux sense of injustice; had they followed financial commonsense during the 'journey', they would probably still be where they are now in pushing for silverware but far from a perilous financial position.
I fully expect the RFC business to be sold at some point next year. At a song, to some conglomerate of investors. Ashley will be involved some how. The Ibrox House of Fraser Stadium? Merchandise only available exclusively at House of Frasers? Take your pick. As one of the Onion Bears was asked when presented with two shovels. Ashley will get his pound of flesh.
The fact is that Rangers liquidation was only a minor paragraph in the bigger story, where a bank was able to loan close to a billion quid to a company which had no hope of paying it back, and was completely whitewashed by the media in Scotland. Now there is a story which reaches to the highest levels of business, the law and government which few have dared to tread. Watch Paul Larkin's films for a taster.
Darkbeforedawn 27th December 2019 at 17:45
until HMRC – the very people who can liquidate a company – stated that it was in the clubs interest to reject the CVA so they could move forward.
…………………..
Because if the CVA was not rejected Charles Greens club would have to start the following season with a 10 point deduction a £50,000 fine for going into administration a registration embargo a fined of £50,000 by the PLUS Stock Exchange for failing to disclose Craig Whyte’s previous disqualification as a director when the businessman completed his takeover of the club.They would also have to have paid the LNS fine of £250,000 and a large tax bill i believe that now stands at £68mill and a small tax bill that i believe is in the region of £14mill add in over 270 creditors and you can see why HMRC said that it was in the clubs interest to reject the CVA so they could move forward. With that kind of debt and the consiquences of going into administration how could charles Green take the club foward?
Agree again CO. And it may be that HMRC are quite lax when it comes to the taxes (£679m per week in tax avoidance/evasion). But they also gave the go ahead to shed that debt and continue without it.
God loves a trier. Probably loves two even more?
However, it is getting boring. Further flat-earth stuff will be moved to the Loony OC/NC thread.
And don’t feed the trolls guys. Please. Arguments are worthless.
Darkbeforedawn 27th December 2019 at 22:33
The MSM are regularly hated on here and (often rightly so) slaughtered, but the “new clubbers” will regularly use old footage from the press as a justification for their argument. When pressed on how they can be trusted then but not the other 99% of the time it is always “well they were honest for a few days”.
…………..
It shows how the administration and liquidatio of rangers football club was reported at the time, No mythical holding company or engine room thingy.Later footage will go on to show how the narrative changed. (“well they were honest for a few days”)They reported with quotes in real time ie. what was said that day.Are you suggesting for the days and weeks at the beginning of the ibrox saga that the media were lying and the statements and quotes at the time were all fabricated lies and now months and years later they have been telling the truth.(Why no retraction if it was months of lies?) As a footnote the narrative began to change around about July 27, 2012.
Darkbeforedawn 28th December 2019 at 02:14
But they also gave the go ahead to shed that debt and continue without it.
………………….
They were offered a pence in the pound agreement, it was rejected, after that they became a creditor like everyone else
They also invested in Partick Thistle Football Club which led to the youth set-up being rebranded the Thistle Weir Youth Academy and a section of their Firhill Stadium being named the Colin Weir Stand.
In November of this year Mr Weir secured a majority shareholding at the club and promised to give the 55% shareholding directly to a fans group by March 2020.
………….
Bit of a sad one for Thistle fans. RIP Colin Weir.
It's nice to see a seasonal reworking of A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens with the introduction of the Ghost Of Spoutpish Past; the morphing into the Ghost Of Darkbeforedawn Present and a real possibility of the Ghost Of Eastwood Future.
Staying with the Present Ghost:-
Darkbeforedawn 28th December 2019 at 03:03
"How very Soviet Union of you…I'm out."
I don't think Darkbeforedawn knows what "I'm out" means.
Darkbeforedawn 28th December 2019 at 04:46
"No, I'm suggesting…"
If you're "out" just after three in the morning you can't be "in" again an hour and three quarters later. This is a football site; it's not The Hokey Cokey.
Previously:-
Darkbeforedawn 27th December 2019 at 21:53
"Is it accepted by everyone that we are the same club? Yes. Unequivocally."
I don't think Darkbeforedawn knows what "unequivocally" means. Or, for that matter, "everyone".
If it's unequivocally accepted by everyone who are all these supporters singing "You let your club die" and "You're not Rangers anymore"?
As The Pogues put it:-
A Fairytale Of New Rangers.
LUGOSI 28th December 2019 at 08:53
This is a football site; it’s not The Hokey Cokey.
………….
Now that had me laughing;-)
I came on this morning to wish everyone a belated Merry Xmas expecting to find no more than one or two posts since I last checked the blog a couple of days ago, but to my surprise I find the OC/NC debate has been re-opened. My first thought/question was 'why now?', what new angle has the instigator come up with? And to my absolute unsurprisedness I discover the answer is 'nothing new at all'.
Still, it does add to the plethora of words claiming separation of club from company that have appeared since Rangers failed to continue as a going concern – having failed to achieve a CVA – in contrast to the zero references to such a separation prior to that event. Indeed, there have been, no doubt, millions of words written about Rangers Football Club since the date the club was incorporated, with the incorporation, I'm sure, having been described from time to time, possibly by people who were present at the event, yet no reference has been unearthed by death deniers of words suggesting the club had two separate forms, one of a limited company, the other of something else (what the Falkirk is that something else, anyway?).
For a club like Rangers, a club so very full of hubris and self-importance, to have this separate ethereal body within it's hallowed walls go unmentioned in over one hundred years only to be discovered in the immediate aftermath of the hitherto sole recognised body, in words written and spoken, as said club, enters liquidation is, dare I suggest, a tad suspicious, as though it was something thought up in a hurray to fool people into thinking a pile of assets was, in fact, a football club.
It is nice to see, though, that it is still of major significance to supporters of both clubs, one dead one alive, that we, not just we here on SFM but we football supporters who refuse to be conned for the benefit of one club, should accept as truth what we know to be a lie. Over seven years on and they are still trying to convince us all. It matters – and it is clearly still hurting.
Quite simply, Rangers Football Club was a very important part of very many people's lives. If there was, indeed, two forms of Rangers existing at the same time, even if one was only in the minds of the supporters, there would be a clear record of it's existence/the belief of it's existence in words both written and spoken. There is no such record, for no such words were ever written or spoken until Rangers Football Club, a corporate body, entered liquidation.
Still, that question remains. 'Why now?'
PS I've written this after reading only a few of the truth-denying posts so maybe the question has been answered or the answer has become apparent since. But I doubt it.
PPS MERRY XMAS everyone.
Since there has been a revisitation of the 'flogging a dead horse / company' variety…
If we revisit the pattern of play at the recent League Cup Final – and we consider Karma's role in repaying past misdeeds…
The Rangers should lose the Glasgow Derby by another 'controversial' goal
– and a goal which ANY cheapo version of VAR would have immediately ruled out.
That would be much more enjoyable than a circular debate about a dead club.
And talking of dead clubs…
It always makes me smile that TRFC supporters claim to be supporting the original Rangers.
Honours won by the old club aside…
Why would you want your club to masquerade as a massively cheating, dead club?
A club which stiffed HMRC, (i.e. NHS, Army, etc.), 200+ trade creditors including the Ambulance Service – and never forgetting the face painter!
A club which also ripped off its own supporters – and OAP's – like my father-in-law who lost his debenture/named seat.
And a club which cheated the whole of Scottish football over many years: clubs and supporters alike.
I wouldn't really want to pretend I was supporting the reincarnation of such a dishonourable football club.
Back in 2012, if the Ibrox club had claimed to start up as a new club with different values, and named after a traditional club like e.g. Third Lanark
– or even named as something a bit more exotic like New York Cosmos –
at least it would have put a bit of distance between the current outfit and their thoroughly corrupt predecessors!
Despite this though, it's apparently all about "Going for 55"… for a 7 year old club!
So, fingers crossed that Karma lands a sore one to the goolies of the dodgy new club tomorrow.
This club deserves – absolutely – nothing more.
Help .
Whyte (Wavetower ) acquires the football club and holding company from Murray , sends the holding company to liquidation , and still owns the football club ?
confused.com
Darkbeforedawn 27th December 2019 at 21:53
======================
Why did Fergus McCann pay all of Celtic's debts in 1994? Why did other clubs such as Hearts, Dunfermline and Dundee fight tooth and nail to avoid liquidation? There has to be a very good reason for that.
As an aside I do not believe ANY of the clubs I mention above would be regarded as the same club had they gone down the liquidation route. My opinion is the Rangers 'same club' line was invented by Rangers fans who held power within the relevant authorities and could not stomach the notion of them being a new club. I just wish they had been as concerned about all the money Rangers stole from the public purse.
I take a much more basic line to all of the events post 2012 DBD. You’re correct your line will be just as entrenched as mine, your selected facts no doubt just as selectively gathered and nurtured as my own.
So please, just take this one fact that is hopefully acceptable to both of us.
Because of the way the entire matter has been handled since 1999 the game, my game, your game, is simply dead to me. It has no more relevance to my life than WWE wrestling. It’s a circus act which will inexorably follow the path of the dancing tiger and the ghoulish deformity stalls. Enjoy.
Rangers(I.L.) obviously knew they were cheating both the tax-man, and the fitba' public.
Rangers(I.L.) fans are now well aware of those facts. Facts that led to their liquidation.
Cheating so abhorrent it is too difficult to face. Crimes so heinous that a sine die ban from Scottish fitba' for anything even remotely "Rangersy", would be considered, lenient.
Far easier to pretend, it never happened. Far easier to blame what cannot be hidden, on the non-Rangersiness that is wee Craigy.
Therein lies the true depths of unlawfulness, cheating, and corruption they brought to our game. Crimes so disgusting, that hardened cursing ship-builders, battle-scarred marchers, and regular weekend lie-inners cannot even begin to contemplate it.
Far easier to let the real villains off Scot-free, than acknowledge, and accept the crimes committed, for there cannot be one without the other.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnfoUJxI2dM
I have been bingeing on TV Fitba today – real thing tomorrow. 2 brilliant goals ruled out by VAR – Dan Burn for Brighton and Teemu Pukki for Norwich .
Is this really what VAR was intended for ? Microscopic Offside decisions ? In my opinion it’s ruining the English game and it will ruin ours too .
28 Dec at 18:06
Dear Dr Candy,
Thank you for your rather extraordinary email in which you seem to me to express an academically unacceptable readiness to let a piece of factually incorrect information remain in a publication of the HES even when it has been particularly drawn to your attention.
In the "Statement of Special Interest" the two sentences
clearly imply that it is still the home of that club.
This is factually incorrect, and it is a disgrace that any responsible academic /historian should be unwilling to correct that error.
The fact is that Ibrox stadium was the home of Rangers Football Club ,founded in 1812.
It ceased to the home of that club when that club entered Liquidation in 2012 and in consequence ceased to exist as a recognised football club able to participate as a going concern in Scottish Professional Football ..( Re-named 'RFC 2012', the Companies House records show its status as being 'in Compulsory Liquidation 31 October 2012, Commencement of winding-up 30 October 2012)
The stadium has been the home since then of a quite different football club newly created in 2012- 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd, formerly named SevcoScotland , incorporated on 29 May 2012.
You observe that " In this instance ,we consider the detail in the more recent legal history of Rangers (albeit of importance to the football world) adds little to an understanding of the architectural and historic interest of the building"
I suggest that if it was/is worth mentioning for 'historic interest' the body which first had the Stadium as its home, it is a requirement for historical truth and accuracy to reflect the fact that that body no longer exists, and that the stadium is home to a quite different entity; rather than mislead the reader.
I am copying this email to the Minister for Culture etc in the Scottish Parliament.
Yours sincerely,
JC"
Paradisebhoy 28th December 2019 at 19:02
VAR is making a mockery of some aspects of football . Why don't we just abandon the offside law ?
Hmm, this is curious.
The other day we had reports in a French publication – L'Equipe – speculating that the striker Giroud of Chelsea 'was being connected' with The Rangers: typical, Traynor-grade p!sh.
Tonight The DR carries a report that ANOTHER French publication – Paris Match this time – has a glowing article about the tactical prowess of Gerrard, with headline as follows;
=====
"The Steven Gerrard hybrid Rangers system that has wowed Ballon d'Or organisers
The former Liverpool midfielder has been catching the eye across the continent this season…"
=====
Ignoring the bollox content of the article, what is puzzling me is: who placed this article?
Was it Traynor – or was it Gerrard's PR people?
Having watched a fair few TRFC games recently, and judging by the bears' own disparaging comments about the quality of football on offer at Ibrox,
…looks like Gerrard is hedging his bets WRT his current, managerial options.
Smart move.
StevieBC 28th December 2019 at 20:23
'..The other day we had reports in a French publication – L'Equipe
…Tonight The DR carries a report that ANOTHER French publication – Paris Match…'
+++++++++++
And then there is the piece in the Record earlier this afternoon (by Gabriel Mckay) ,'more or less (ha!) lifted from a report in Thursday's 'El Universal' (Cartagena, Colombia) about Gerrard knocking back an offer of £11.1 million pounds for Morelos a few days before.
Of course, 'no names no pack-drill' as to which Colombian club may have made such a realistic offer!
Modern 'journalism'- feed a bogus un-attributable story to a foreign paper, and then steal it back again and print it as if it originated in that foreign country?
Sounds like a wizard wheeze to fill a few paragraphs with minimal effort.
I'm so glad our SMSM chaps and chap-esses are men and women of sterling journalistic integrity who would recoil in horror at the suggestion that they might fabricate wee stories.
Are there any editors or sub-editors these days who insist on chapter and verse verification before they print?
Darkbeforedawn 27th December 2019 at 19:04
JC, I could never possibly claim to be privy to what you “know” to be the truth so I find it very presumptuous for you to claim you know what I know.
Contrary to your belief, there is not a wide army of Rangers fans in “denial” who secretly believe we’re a new club but don’t let on.
(yes there is that’s wh y the took banners claiming sink us and we will sink you and we will not let our club die they seen it coming and they read about it in their rags, 8 minutes it took to kill them and some left in tears and is documented)
My views have been regularly stated on the archives here and I like to think I am one of the more clued up Rangers fans on what has happened.
(Your club did indeed die and it was very nearly unable to play in a cup fixture, but before receiving the go ahead it was unable to compete in a friendly testimonial v Kelty Hearts as it was not an affiliated member)
I have no doubt the majority who go to games are not even aware there is any debate. For them they will go to games no doubt “knowing” they are watching the same Rangers they always have (without a site such as this, how would they even know there was a different opinion by others?).
(They know alright it is in the banners and the protests and the tears and anger and the media who ran the stories, the SFA never confirmed it was a continuation they gave the response it will be Rangers in the minds of the fans, similar answer given by a well-known barrister)
Who am I to criticise when you are incredibly passionate about your beliefs, however different to my own, so credit for your resolve.
It will be interesting to hear if you do get responses from either but I would be very surprised if they were fruitful for what you are hoping – and I can’t see UEFA changing which seems to be a policy they adopt for all Phoenix clubs just because a Celtic fan from Scotland has written a letter but we will see.
( the thing is though TheRangers are not a phoenix, they are a new club, not from any ashes as the ashes of the old are still to be created, and as stated by Donald Findlay who does not recognise this entity and who has made it clear will have to establish their own history)
If I was a betting man I would expect some sort of fudge along the lines of the company / club, clubs being more than the business etc etc.
(A betting man lost his bet Albert Findloch as the new club was not the same therefore his bet they were relegated was lost)
To change their stance on Rangers would involve them having to claim back money they have awarded, changing the coefficients and updating their history for not just Rangers but a host of other clubs all across Europe.
(that still does not make the lie any less of a lie)
It may be that I am more cynical than some, but even if it was something I felt strongly about as you do, the thought of corrupt organisations such as UEFA or any financial authority doing the “right thing” would be a long shot.
(therefore rests the case that organisations will use corrupt methods to extort situations best suited to their income streams, glad you have seen the light, Rangers FC 1872 PLC is lying in a morgue and its certificate is available via Companies House)
bigboab1916 28th December 2019 at 22:49
'..(that still does not make the lie any less of a lie)'
+++++++++++++
Good post, bigboab.
For anyone to suggest that a Court of Law should base its judgment on the financial cost it might result in for one of the parties is the equivalent of saying that an innocent man should be found guilty rather than that foul-ups (or fit-ups) by the Police or other prosecution agents should be exposed!
If the clearing up of the dirty mess our SFA has made were to cost an arm and leg and damages to other clubs, then so be it.
'Let justice be done though the heavens fall'.
And there's not one single person , whether supporter, director, PR person,, BBC person, or other Press person propagandist for the Big Lie who ,though innocent of any criminal charge levelled against them would be happy to say " let me be found guilty so that the guilty will not be inconvenienced!
19 mins 46 seconds, straight from the horses mouth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19j95pGNzI8&feature=emb_logo
Eastwood 29th December 2019 at 00:33
'…Thing is, everyone accepts that football clubs have an existence that TRANSCENDS the existence of their Company.'
++++++++++++
Eastwood!
Are you the QC who babbled on in the Court of Session about the 'what it's all aboutness' the 'what it stands for', 'the ethereal essence of a club ', 'the passion' etc etc? [I don't have my notes to hand of that comical episode in the Court, when e'en the judge had to smile! but essentially that was what that QC was on about]
Go and have a wee word with yourself, as Steven Gerrard ( to his credit) told himself recently to do
Honest to God!
Whit ur ye like, with that nonsense!
Eastwood 29th December 2019 at 00:33
"…I know who my money is on!"
Spoutpish?
StevieBC,
Having watched a fair few TRFC games recently, and judging by the bears' own disparaging comments about the quality of football on offer at Ibrox
I'm not sure who are your sources within the Rangers support but from my perspective, as a supporter who has watched almost every minute of every game under Gerrard (albeit usually on the telly), the quality of football has been consistently outstanding.
We are not a long ball team, we are not a 'park the bus' team. I watch – week in week out – fast, skillful, passing football from an attack-minded 4-3-3.
I doubt many Rangers fans will agree with me, but Mark Warburton deserves immense credit for introducing a culture change at Ibrox regarding the way football is/should be played. Hoof-ball is far more likely to get the crowd moaning and groaning than patient, intricate build up play.
The team's weakness is one that would be found in any side that has gone so long without a major trophy – the absence of a true winning mentality that renders us less resilient to set-backs during games.
We will need to over-compensate with the quality of play to make up for this shortfall in mentality to achieve success. That over-compensation was in evidence in the League Cup Final, where we totally outplayed our opposition in general play, but were – for the lack of a better term – unlucky.
How Sunday's Old Firm game will play out is a mystery but I am confident that we can outplay our opposition again and this time receive our rewards. But I recognise that Celtic are unlikely to under-perform as they did in the LCF and so a more even game is a near certainty. I am excited already! Kick off can't come soon enough.
Imagine eh, the stuff that the media fill your head with daily.
50 mill for Freddy
Liverpool eye up Slippy
French club on the sniff
Try to have people imagine and sell a lie liquidation never meant death
Imagine this, having to leave the house and kids for work and knowing all the while you are going into an office to be told what to write,
Now Imagine the kids when they grow up and when they find out what their Dad did for a living,
I would imagine that would be something to dread.
It strikes me that Eastwood isn't interested in the whole picture, preferring to dissect insignificant minutiae to the nth degree in order to argue his case, whilst completely ignoring the 99.9% of facts that destroy his myth-making. I have no doubt at all that he could produce a robust and convincing moral defence of the use of Auschwitz and Belsen on the basis they became successful tourist attractions after the war.
However, I don't intend to participate in his and DBD's circular arguments other than to highlight the hypocrisy of them coming onto this site to explain how unaffected they are by the general consensus on here that a cheating football club died, not just a meaningless expendable company, yet they still somehow felt compelled to 'correct' us, despite insisting we hold views that are representative of an insignificant minority!
Moving on though, let’s not neglect the fact that the football authorities were only capable of carrying out their dirty work with the acquiescence and collusion of all the other clubs in the league setup. Indeed, the football authorities were those clubs.
It is abundantly clear that the football authorities calculated that the death and permanent disappearance of Rangers spelled financial Armageddon for the game in Scotland. The birth of a brand-new club, even one that was connected to the defunct one by virtue of stadium, team colours and support base, but with no history of titles or trophies, was clearly deemed to be financially non-viable, presumably based on the apparent superiority complex prevalent amongst the support of the recently deceased club.
It seems our club chairmen, from Glasgow giants to budget-conscious third-tier part-timers, voted to accept a deal which involved retaining as much TV and other money as possible by agreeing to abide by a five-way agreement which was concocted specifically to treat a recently purchased basket of assets as if it was the original, defunct club.
So, while the SFA and SPFL (a trade organisation solely fixated on the financial well-being of its members) may well be the target of our angst, let’s remember they are doing the bidding of all our clubs. All of our clubs are guilty of concocting and maintaining the big continuity lie. As a Hearts fan, I am truly ashamed of the silent part my club undoubtedly played in this.
Had some problems my way, with a Reboot and select proper boot device. Fixed, i think.
……..
John Clark 28th December 2019 at 19:06
I have given some thought as to how to reply to Dr Candy’s ( of Historic Environment Scotland) refusal to amend the entry referring to Ibrox Stadium in the list of Scottish listed buildings.
In the “Statement of Special Interest” the two sentences
” Ibrox has been the home of the Rangers Football Club since 1887.The club was first formed in 1872..”
clearly imply that it is still the home of that club.
……….
I Have not been on Historic Environment Scotland site but my question is this.
Under “Statement of Special Interest” for any other historical buildings do Historic Environment Scotland Refer to new owners of an historical building taking over said, building, or do they imply that it is still the home of the original owners.
JC, if you can see where i’m coming from.
Eastwood 29th December 2019 at 00:55
…………….
Was going to reply about todays game, but i will leave that for other forums.
It is some time since I last read the rules/laws of Scottish football, both league and SFA, but from memory there was no mention, prior to Rangers* entering and failing to leave alive, administration, of what happens to a club should it fail to achieve a CVA and so begin the process of liquidation.
There is, as we know, quite clear and precise wording of what happens should a club enter administration, and the effect on such a club after it exits having achieved a CVA.
But as I say, the rules did not cover what happens in the event of a club failing to achieve a CVA, or indeed, what should happen to a club that has an ethereal club, thingy, whatdoyacallit, to grab onto the history and trophies of the incorporated football club that had hitherto never been seen as anything but the club, the only club, to pay for the players and assets of the club to enable it to win trophies, by fair means or foul, (hope you can work out which club is which club in this rather convoluted scenario which is unavoidable when dealing with something that doesn't exist except in the desperate minds of those desperate to live believing in a fantasy and to convince us all that something never before seen, or spoken of, or written about truly existed…just there, look there it is – oh no it's not (well it is panto time which is very fitting when discussing fairy tales like this)).
Anyway, back to the point of this post. Can anyone tell me why it could possibly be that, while the rules/laws of Scottish football at the time covered administration they did not cover liquidation – or even the scenario that some would have us believe existed at Rangers when it entered and failed to exit administration?
*There may be now, you know, just in case…