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.
bigboab1916 29th December 2019 at 01:42
……………..
Just get the kid a season ticket for ibrox and his mindset will become my dad is a hero, the kid when older may even get a few free rounds in the pub it it gets known what his dad did.
……..
Ps. Site very slow when typing, or i may still have some Ghosts in the machine.
Highlander 29th December 2019 at 10:31
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.
………….
Only 250 hearty souls tried to make it viable. But we all know that would never work.
I often wonder why those 250 souls bought a season ticket.
Was it the chance to go to ibrox?
Was the season ticket that much reduced that it was a chance to not grab it?
Was the season ticket bought by others as birthday presents and such?
Was it the chance to see a better club formed and get rid of all the baggage?
Was it the Debenture holders trying to reclaim their seats( would love to see a stat on that, how many debenture holders have the same seat as the season before, and when did they buy their Season ticket)And if i remember correctly 25% of debenture holders made a claim, wonder if it was some of the 250 hearty souls.
Was it the chance to see murray park produce something?
Was it the chance to visit some small away grounds and start in the early rounds of the cups?
I wonder if todays 250 find this is not what i wanted when i bought a season ticket back in 2012?
Cluster One 29th December 2019 at 10:37
'..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.'
++++++++++++++
It would be tedious job to go through a big enough sample to be able to draw any definite conclusions.
I've looked at three listings:
First , at some of the residential up-market flats in the west-end of Glasgow,
https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/200374946-1-and-2-grosvenor-crescent-glasgow#.XgiNbG52uT8
There is no mention at all of who may have occupied these flats at any time.
Second, Pollok House in Glasgow
portal.historicenvironment.scot/designation/LB33457
Again no mention of any owner/changes of ownership
Third, the Riddrie picture house (Glasgow)
https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/200399927-722-cumbernauld-road-nb-leisure-bingo-former-riddrie-picture-house-including-sweet-shop-and-power-house-glasgow#.XgiLPW52uT8
Here they mention the first owner, and the fact that it was sold to a second owner.
As I say, a small sample .
AvatarEastwood 29th December 2019 at 11:56 Allyjambo, I won't pretend to know precisely how the rules deal with/dealt with the situation you describe. However in answering the question, the distinction (conveniently glossed over by some) between (X) being in liquidation and (Y) "beginning the liquidation process" needs to be recognised. X occurs when liquidators take control of the company. In the case of OldCo, it was October 2012. The business has ceased to operate, no employees, no payroll to meet etc. No participation in leagues/cup or the like remotely possible! Y occurs when a CVA has been rejected and the company is therefore resigned to its fate, ie. 14 June 2012. However the business remains operating under the control of admins, payroll to be met, a going concern in (hopeful) search of a new owner and operator. The company remains in administration until liquidators are appointed. For this reason, given the membership was transferred to Sevco in August (yes, i know, AFTER the Brechin game! #rabbithole), the SFA never recognised Rangers FC as being in liquidation. "Rangers FC (In Administration)" was used in all of the SFA press releases/statements but the phrase "Rangers FC (In Liquidation)" never appeared. Happily.
_____________
I didn't ask for anyone to answer precisely how the rules deal/dealt with the situation I described, I asked why there was NO rules covering the situation (two situations, actually. The real, non fantasy, one and the one you would try to have us accept as some sort of reality.
In short, and it's easy to understand, the rules/laws of Scottish football did not cover these situations because there was no need. Failure to come out of administration (and you can play around with dates all you like but the administrators proposed a CVA, which always has an execution date and time, and Rangers ceased to be a going concern at the precise moment the CVA result was announced.) has only one outcome – liquidation, and as far as Scottish football was concerned there was never, ever any need to cover such a scenario, for whatever emerged owning the assets was going to be a new club, and would have to apply for membership in the established way as covered by the rules/laws.
Besides, if what you describe here as happening ie Rangers remained in administration, then what happened to the debts, for surely they remain liable and real throughout the course of administration, and as in any scenario when a company, or football club, is bought out of administration, but without a CVA having been proposed, all the company's/club's debts go with it.
You see, a failure to gain a CVA means the debts have not been extinguished and so the money is still owed, so even if what you describe acrually held some water, it could only result in your old club being bought out of administration along with it's debts. I know that debts and other peoples money is a mere distraction to whatever club plays out of Ibrox, but a CVA and liquidation are the only two routes out of paying them.
Eastwood: "I won't pretend to know precisely how the rules deal with/dealt with the situation you describe."
As if to prove my point a few posts above, you waffle away with speculative irrelevances while completely ignoring Allyjambo's valid factual point that there were no rules or regulations regarding clubs which went into liquidation for the patently obvious fact that such rules would be an exercise in futility because liquidation meant the end of a club. Gretna, Clydebank, Airdrieonians and even Third Lanark were all incorporated clubs, ie football clubs which were businesses that died, precisely as Rangers did. No amount of semantics or verbal gymnastics alters that, nor does the fact that all these other clubs lacked that Rangers didn't was potential commercial clout.
As Allyjambo rightly pointed out, never in the century and more of existence was even one solitary mention made of an Ibrox club as a separate entity from its 'operating company', until, surprise surprise, such a fabricated construct became essential for the 'same club' myth. Fundamental facts that are impossible to argue against, as Allyjambo's above, are simply ignored and peripheral tosh is propagated by you instead.
Edit: Just noticed Allyjambo has replied far more comprehensively and eloquently than I could muster.
Am I the only one who thinks Eastwood is a bit of a Clint?
Liquidation of Oldco happened, of course it did, but only as the planned end point of the 'New Company scenario' being enacted
—————————————————————
Well that takes the feckin proverbial biscuit!!!
LUGOSI 29th December 2019 at 20:57
Am I the only one who thinks Eastwood is a bit of a Clint?
——————————————————–
More of a steerpike/lawman/JasBoyd if you ask me.
==================================
Highlander 29th December 2019 at 13:36
………. never in the century and more of existence was even one solitary mention made of an Ibrox club as a separate entity from its 'operating company', until, surprise surprise, such a fabricated construct became essential for the 'same club' myth.
—————————————————–
I refer you to the CVA proposal that Eastwood espoused earlier.
4. BACKGROUND TO THE COMPANY AND OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL
Overview
4.2 Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872 and incorporated as the Company in 1899.
———————————————————
Seems to suggest that the football club and company were one and the same.
We know that an apparent sale of the "business and assets" took place in June 2012. I know what constituted the assets (they are listed in the proposal), but I'm at a loss to know what constituted the "business".
What is IMO been argued here is that players signed for the club which require contracts in place with the SFA and then contracts would have been signed separately with the company to pay the players, which would require the company informing the SFA that they are undertaking to pay the players wages for football services and to have in use enforcable employment laws.
So the players in this would be free to TUPE if the company is liquidated, if this is the case then they would still be in contract to the same club and therefore not free if the club was not liquidated been a seperate entity and had players in contract. Cannot have it both ways.
So are we talking about other types of dual contracts in play.
Button, back and zip logic in play.
Any of the jambos at the game today? Myself and 3 boys were. Thought Tynie was great as usual ( as opposed to the shuttle bus arena proposed for us) but the product was pretty dire! £134 for us plus food and drink! Family friendly I think not.
Saw a ridiculous VAR decision in the Liverpool v Wolves game on TV in the pub after (ruining the game in my view).
Anyway the bigotfest seems to have happened fairly peacefully? Duopoly well and truly re-established. 35 years and probably another 35 if you know what I mean!
Bordersdon, if the duopoly continues as you rightly predict, it will in part be due to the abject failure of the likes of cretinous tw@ts such as Stewart Milne who sold his soul and remained silent throughout his entire boardroom tenure at Pittodrie yet miraculously found a dissenting voice immediately after he'd given up the right to voice it!
Eastwood 29th December 2019 at 20:41
THREE scenarios in play:
………………
The Bill Miller incubator firm. He had already registered a new company Rangers FC Acquisitions at companys house. But he walked away when he had a look at the books.
Eastwood 29th December 2019 at 23:13
'..Fans are downtrodden enough in the game these days without having the ecstasy of scoring goals diminished by worrying whether a VAR check will intervene. '
++++++++++++++
Yes, indeed, Eastwood, but they have been even more trodden upon by the SFA's 5-way Agreement that allows a 7 year old club to masquerade as an old geezer of 147 years of age!
When a sports governance body is complicit in a total fantasy that a club that they themselves had to admit for the first time into Scottish football in 2012 is somehow a club that was founded in 1872, the whole game's a bogey!
We have never had any explanation from the SFA as to how precisely TRFC is Rangers of 1872.
Regan could not explain ( and buggered off from further questioning, aided and abetted by Professor whatever his name is of Edinburgh University ).
And Doncaster opined that it was what people opined.
I call you out, Eastwood, as a propagandist for the most wicked and damaging lie ever perpetrated by a football club.
And I call out the SFA as being art and part of that lie.
Well I now know what is involved in running a football club (if I didn't already know), but I still have no idea what was purchased by Charles Green other than the assets of an insolvent club.
Saw 70 minutes of the derby game and scoreline looked fair enough to me. Cheque book out in January for Celtic I think.
Standard of football in our game was light years behind sadly. Dire stuff indeed.
A welcome 3 week break from it all thankfully
As we approach the end of another year (and, No, it's not the end of the decade; that's next year) prior to feigning Best Wishes to some who you do not wish anything of the sort thoughts turn to the past year(s).
Our recent/current houseguest(s) remind me of just how low some will stoop and go a long way to explain The Donald, The Boris and The Emperor Andrew.
Despite Spoutpish (insert aliases here) bleating that he isn't given a fair hearing this site didn't just not give him a well-deserved Order Of The Boot it gave him his own thread; The OC/NC Bonkers Thread. It's still there. Unused by Spoutpish. Unhappily, The Thoughts Of Chairman Spoutpish were of no interest to anyone. Including Spoutpish. Following a later particularly egregious, even by his standards, attempt to throttle the site, sub nomine Ernest Becker, Spoutpish was again not simply defenestrated but again humoured and given another thread; The Ernie B Thread. It's still there. Unused by Spoutpish. Or anyone.
I recall when Spoutpish was identified (by himself in a typical Mindermast moment) as Niall Walker, a normal bloke who hit the Press for his behaviour at his Mother's Nursing Home. Lots of loud, abusive ranting at staff (sound familiar?) led to a ban. Let that sink in. A ban. From a Nursing Home. For someone who comes on here to tell us where we're going wrong.
One of the oddest things I read was that circa 2003 Niall Walker was elected to Glasgow City Council as Local Councillor for Hillhead. Liberal Democrat seemingly. Neither of which words would apply to Spoutpish. The odd part is that third place went to James Doleman. Remember the good old days when we were on the other side of the looking glass?
You don't hear James Doleman on here whining about not having his own thread(s). There's a reason for this.
Some say Spoutpish is a hard man to dislike but I say it's well worth the effort.
A Good New Year, when it comes, to (nearly) all.
This may be of assistance to some (or not) .https://www.brothertonaccountants.co.uk/disincorporation-removing-business-limited-company/
Is this bit important ?
Procedures for Winding-up the Company
To effect the transfer of the business out of the company to the shareholders it will usually be necessary to wind-up the company and this can be done either by a formal liquidation or it may be possible to consider an informal dissolution under Section 1003 Companies Act 2006 This would involve paying off the company’s creditors and then distributing the remaining assets to the shareholders prior to arranging for the company to be struck off the register.
Or am I barking up the wrong tree , or just barking ?!
AvatarEastwood 29th December 2019 at 20:41 AllyJambo, I'm not sure why you think the only two options were a CVA or liquidation. In their CVA proposal, Duff and Phelps were very clear there were THREE scenarios in play: "4.25. An Estimate Outcome Statement is also attached at Schedule 4 and provides a comparison of the estimated funds available to creditors of the Company under the following scenarios: The proposed CVA The proposed New Company scenario A liquidation of the company" They went onto to clarify: "Under the liquidation scenario, the club ceases to trade and therefore the player contracts terminate and registrations revert to the SFA" This would have meant no TUPE, no 3 year legal dispute/employment tribunal with PFA Scotland on how TUPE regulations were followed. No fat contracts for McCoist, Durrant and McDowall to continue to enjoy whilst playing fourth tier opposition. Liquidation of Oldco happened, of course it did, but only as the planned end point of the 'New Company scenario' being enacted.
_____________
You do realise that Duff and Phelps are/were not the gods of administration whose word is law? Don't you? They were being paid to produce an end result and didn't care one jot for the truth of the matter. They made up a scenario to suit their paymasters and as long as they did not break any laws in doing so were clearly quite happy to play along.
And, of course, as is your usual style, you completely ignore the point of the post you are supposedly answering, in fact two points. Why was/is there no reference in the football rules/laws to what happens to a club after it fails to achieve a CVA/enters liquidation, or, indeed, any reference to any scenario that might be dreamed up about your old club's end? And the fresh point I made that for your dreamed up scenario to hold any water, ie Rangers' administration continued even after the CVA failed, the massive debts would have had to accompany the sale of the company/club, for the only way for the debt to be extinguished/reduced was/is by way of a CVA.
paddy malarkeypaddy malarkey 30th December 2019 at 11:58 This may be of assistance to some (or not) .https://www.brothertonaccountants.co.uk/disincorporation-removing-business-limited-company/ Is this bit important ? Procedures for Winding-up the Company To effect the transfer of the business out of the company to the shareholders it will usually be necessary to wind-up the company and this can be done either by a formal liquidation or it may be possible to consider an informal dissolution under Section 1003 Companies Act 2006 This would involve paying off the company’s creditors and then distributing the remaining assets to the shareholders prior to arranging for the company to be struck off the register. Or am I barking up the wrong tree , or just barking ?!
________________
You are not barking up the wrong tree, Paddy, and you're definitely not the one who is barking, for what you have posted lends weight to my post where I pointed out to those who bark that in the event that Rangers' administration did continue after it's failed CVA, then his notion that the sale of the company/club, and let's say transfer of business, could then take place, while dumping the vast bulk of the debt is, well, very barking, indeed.
paddy malarkey 28th December 2019 at 19:51
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 ?
I agree that VAR is changing the game radically, and not for the better.
Regarding abandoning offside altogether, I think the game would quickly evolve to resemble Aussie Rules football, where a Full Forward remains in front of the goals all game, marked by a Full Back. Our football has goalkeepers of course, but the biggest factor would be the size of the pitch. Aussie Rules ovals are much bigger than football pitches, and it takes more than one big kick to get the ball from one end to the other. I fear football would become Quizball's Route 1 only, and the breathtaking skills of good playmakers for example would be lost.
Just tell the VAR officials this is sport, not science or mathematics so start using the technology for the limited purpose for which it was intended, before they expand their remit to examine every tackle and stop each game about 100 times.
One reason I like Aussie rules but not American football is that the game very rarely stops in the former, and VAR is rapidly moving football in the wrong direction as well as nullifying skills and goals that almost all fans would recognise as legitimate.
What a difference a day / game makes!
And it could have major implications not just for CFC – but for Scottish football in general.
If TRFC wins all its remaining league games, it wins the title.
Easier said than done of course, but the league is TRFC's to lose now.
And what will actually happen IF TRFC wins the league?
Judging by yesterday's reaction there will be tumultuous and prolonged celebrating, gloating, finger pointing, etc. down Govan way.
Fair enough.
But, what will actually happen at Hampden?
Will the SPFL – and possibly the SFA – declare this title win as a "record breaking 55th title for Rangers"?
Knowing as we do, just how spineless the blazers are, I would guess that they will all scurry off down the Hampden bunker to avoid being asked such questions.
But a title win would, IMO, embolden TRFC to DEMAND that both the SPFL and the SFA publicly declare that the title win is indeed number '55'.
And for good measure: TRFC will DEMAND that both incompetent organisations publicly declare that TRFC is indeed Rangers FC – the same club.
TRFC could instruct all their media poodles to harass the Hampden blazers to ensure that they obtain such declarations.
…and IF that actually occurred, where would that leave Scottish football?
Well, the equally spineless / complicit clubs will all do as they have always done WRT the Ibrox club – and weakly look the other way in silence.
[The late Turnbull Hutton excepted.]
As for the supporters, aka the paying customers…?
Are we expected to just suck it up as well?
Are we to continue putting our money into the senior clubs via tickets, merchandise, TV subs, etc. ?
I still feel a bit guilty attending matches and buying my kids merchandise – when I have been harping on since RTC days about the corruption at Hampden and by default, in the Scottish senior game.
If Hampden bends over – again – for the Ibrox club IF they win the title, I would find it extremely difficult – if not impossible – to support Scottish football in any capacity whatsoever in future.
And I'm guessing a few others might feel the same?
Allyjambo 30th December 2019 at 12:55
You do realise that Duff and Phelps are/were not the gods of administration whose word is law? Don’t you? They were being paid to produce an end result and didn’t care one jot for the truth of the matter. They made up a scenario to suit their paymasters and as long as they did not break any laws in doing so were clearly quite happy to play along.
………………
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1211649718012522501/photo/1
………….
Walk away with millions in fees.
Allyjambo 30th December 2019 at 13:15
……… then his notion that the sale of the company/club, and let's say transfer of business, could then take place, while dumping the vast bulk of the debt is, well, very barking, indeed.
What he suggests in transferring business/assets from an insolvent company is possible. Normally such transactions would involve a pre-pack administration (similar in practical terms to what actually happened with RFC plc), or the sale of the profitable parts of a company along with associated assets (e.g. a newco/competitor/creditor takes on 50 profitable stores of 100 outlets in an insolvent retail business, leaving the rest to be sold in a liquidation sale). The newco may “buy” a “brand name” as part of a sale, but is it legally the same business? I think not.
The problem with that scenario is that the SFA's rules didn't and still don't (on the face of it) contemplate the dumping of debt and transferring assets to a newco. Indeed the rule is headed "Prohibition on transfer of membership". "Ah but …… (I hear from the back) ……… what about the SFA Board's discretion?.
That "discretion" resulted in the widely discredited 5-way agreement. The football authorities will treat you as the same club if you act like a club that has come out of administration with a CVA, i.e. pay the oldco's football creditors. However, because you're a newco you can't play in Europe for at least three years, you will start in the lowest tier of the SPL, but at least you won't be liable for oldco's historical indiscretions and liabilities.
Well it is what it is ……… and guess what? We have just completed another circular argument that started a few days ago. Has anyone's views changed? Nah! I didn't think so.
Hi , Eastwood . Thanks for your reply . A couple of things . I've no interest in Clyde Football Club , nor it's trials and tribulations . I'm more interested in the wee bits of paper that would have been lodged with the financial and footballing authorities confirming that this legal process had been completed . So , if you would be a good chap and post those relevant to the disincorporation of RFC(IL) , or a link to them , I would be very obliged . Without them , in my opinion , what Craig Whyte sent to liquidation was the club . I don't need anybody to interpret them for me . Thanks in advance .
Statement o'clock again at Ibrox.
Takeaway points;
(Guess that's an SFA charge coming their way now?)
(Except he is playing in Scotland, where it is an offensive gesture.)
(They're having a laugh at Ibrox.)
Oh, and Scottish football has not been 'welcoming' to Morelos…
said the least welcoming football club in the whole of the 20th Century!
Just another deflective, Ibrox statement and severely lacking any self-awareness…
Has he got to the annual “we’re just like Leeds” punchline yet?
So there I was off enjoying my Christmas and when I look back in again a tomato/tœmato argument has broken out. Without adding anything to prolong the argument it’s worth remembering that whilst a tomato is a fruit you wouldn’t want to put a tomato in a fruit salad.
On the Clyde example by the way.
Did the Creditors agree to the small payment and approve the disincorporation?
Asking for a disinterested friend.
Whilst it is sometimes interesting to go over some aspects of the OC/NC debate especially when a new person or new disguise enters the debate I believe that Jingso.Jimsie 27th Dec 2019 at 1934 answers it all below.
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?
Incidentally, in bringing 'disincorporation' into the discussion Eastwood is at the madam!
Disincorporation has nothing to do with what the Administrators arranged: it is a mechanism that can used by solvent companies only, when a part or parts of the business are sold to an individual or number of individuals who owns , or who own, shares in the company., who intend to carry on the business as an unincorporated sole trader or partnership!
It does not apply where the assets of an company are sold to a shareholder/s in a brand new,unconnected company!
Oh, the mental gymnastics of the propagandists for the Big Lie!
How much easier it would have been, could still be, if the SFA were to produce an absolutely straight up and true account, in plain English, of the grounds on which they allow a 7 year old club to claim falsely the honours and titles (but not the company number or date of incorporation or date of original foundation) of Rangers Football Club of 1872?
Regan and Doncaster and their then respective Boards could not do it at the time. Why not?
Because they could not justify such a ridiculously untrue and pernicious decision.
For a certainty, if they could have then, or could now, produce a reasoned, truthful account , don't you think it would have been trumpeted abroad at the time? And would even now be banner headlines !
There would have been no need of a 'blood oath' dirty-little-secret cabal of twisted betrayers of their offices of trust, and greedy grasping chancers.
7 years later we can still work ourselves into a tizzy over the OC/NC position – and rightly so.
The shenanigans around Ibrox in 2011/12 will never – and should never – be forgotten.
And it seems apparent that there is – absolutely – no middle ground on the debate, unsurprisingly.
And as alluded to earlier: if/when TRFC wins its first league title this debate could blow up across Scottish football – and it could very well drag up all the frustration, anger and accusations which arose in 2012.
Nobody will be "moving on", but rather "moving back" and revisiting the unresolved issues perpetrated by the Hampden blazers, for the benefit of the Ibrox club.
StevieBC 30th December 2019 at 18:56
7 years later we can still work ourselves into a tizzy over the OC/NC position – and rightly so.
The shenanigans around Ibrox in 2011/12 will never – and should never – be forgotten.
==========================
I agree, but the media have already written those events out of history. Rangers* victory at Celtic Park yesterday has only enhanced their Od Frm infatuation, amidst their palpable excitement that this current Ibrox team might actually win the league. They were worthy winners yesterday but nothing since has convinced me that a title win would not be celebrated in the most resentful, vicious manner possible. Perhaps the Celtic Board might start being careful what they wish for, as it might actually come true, and all being done yet again on money Rangers* don't have.
Eastwood 30th December 2019 at 19:09
'…with reference to a verifiable example.'
++++++++++++
An important point about the 'Clyde' example you cite :
The Clyde Football and Athletic Club was founded ( as generally accepted) in 1877 as a private members club
It incorporated as 'the Clyde Football and Athletic Club Ltd' on 6 May 1898.
It got into financial difficulties.
"Unable to pay, a liquidation order for the company was issued on 16th November 1899 and it emerged only £1100 of share capital had been raised."
It looked like the end of for Clyde. However, at a creditors' meeting former members of Clyde (when it was a private members club) agreed to acquire the assets and players of the company and provide a modest payment to the creditors. Through the disincorporation process Clyde Football Club was saved and was once again a private members club."(my bold)
It is virtually certain , indeed, legally it must have been the case, that the 'former members' of the 'private club' were shareholders in the distressed club, who bought all of the assets, and settled with their creditors with their voluntary agreement , and were thus able to say that the club was solvent. And thus meeting the conditions for 'disincorporation'.
That is, it was not an 'outside' new company set up by non-Clyde shareholders who had bought merely some of the assets (because they could not legally buy them all ( as was the case in the CG/ SevcoScotland example, in which case CG got an expensive and very rude awakening !)
In other words, under the rules governing 'disincorporation' it was existing members/shareholders of 'The Clyde Football and Athletic Club Ltd' who were deemed to be rendering the club solvent who kept the football club in existence, and had it re-incorporated again on 6 May 1898 as 'the Clyde Football Club'.
It's really important to get these things right!
The Clyde example does nothing to support the myth that TRFC is RFC of 1872.
easyJambo 30th December 2019 at 15:36 Allyjambo 30th December 2019 at 13:15 ……… then his notion that the sale of the company/club, and let's say transfer of business, could then take place, while dumping the vast bulk of the debt is, well, very barking, indeed. What he suggests in transferring business/assets from an insolvent company is possible. Normally such transactions would involve a pre-pack administration (similar in practical terms to what actually happened with RFC plc), or the sale of the profitable parts of a company along with associated assets (e.g. a newco/competitor/creditor takes on 50 profitable stores of 100 outlets in an insolvent retail business, leaving the rest to be sold in a liquidation sale). The newco may “buy” a “brand name” as part of a sale, but is it legally the same business? I think not. The problem with that scenario is that the SFA's rules didn't and still don't (on the face of it) contemplate the dumping of debt and transferring assets to a newco. Indeed the rule is headed "Prohibition on transfer of membership". "Ah but …… (I hear from the back) ……… what about the SFA Board's discretion?. That "discretion" resulted in the widely discredited 5-way agreement. The football authorities will treat you as the same club if you act like a club that has come out of administration with a CVA, i.e. pay the oldco's football creditors. However, because you're a newco you can't play in Europe for at least three years, you will start in the lowest tier of the SPL, but at least you won't be liable for oldco's historical indiscretions and liabilities. Well it is what it is ……… and guess what? We have just completed another circular argument that started a few days ago. Has anyone's views changed? Nah! I didn't think so.
_____________________
While I think we agree on what's being said can I add that I was of the belief that a pre-pack administration was a rather underhand way of squirming out of debt and had to take place before a CVA, and indeed almost before anyone knew the business/club had entered administration and that that was how Whyte had tried to play it with Duff and Phelps but was stymied by HMRC's intervention.
On the selling off of assets after a failed CVA but prior to the liquidation order. Surely, for the business/club to remain the same business/club, the debts either have to be repaid by the purchaser or the liabilities be transferred along with the assets as happens with the purchase of a solvent business. Has it not been reported that Mike Ashley has come to regret the purchase of Debenhams because of the onerous debts and other liabilities that came with it, or did he, like Green, merely purchase the assets of the business without the liabilities?
In truth, does the selling off of assets by the administrators without the underlying debt amount to much the same thing as liquidation, itself, does? The raising of as much capital as possible for the business/club's creditors from the assets of a failed business/football club?
On the buying of the/a brand name; in the same way as buying the 'istory of a football club, it's hardly necessary to buy the brand if you have, in fact, bought the business/club, is it?
PS, EJ, I hope this doesn't come across as challenging your post rather than adding to it, as is my intention, and your thoughts on the points I make would be welcome.
The comprehensive and deserved win by Gerrard's team will have one very meaningful consequence through January and beyond.
Many of us had already expected that the business brains at the blue club would have identified their most valuable and liquid playing assets as a way to make their numbers work.
Fair enough from a business point of view given the constant cash attrition.
What we will see now is a real clash where the football management team, Gerrard et al, with their tails rightly up.
Why would the manager allow his chance of winning the league to be hampered by the increasingly stretched money men.
Mr Gerrard and his management team will do their utmost not just to stop most valued player sales but to actively strengthen their squad because they surmise they have a real chance of glory based on the points they have on the board and boosted by the recent league cup final and Sundays Celtic home game.
The imminent Ashley court case conclusion is a further iceberg heading the way of the current Rangers business model.
Interesting times indeed.
John Clark 30th December 2019 at 17:38 Incidentally, in bringing 'disincorporation' into the discussion Eastwood is at the madam! Disincorporation has nothing to do with what the Administrators arranged: it is a mechanism that can used by solvent companies only, when a part or parts of the business are sold to an individual or number of individuals who owns , or who own, shares in the company., who intend to carry on the business as an unincorporated sole trader or partnership! It does not apply where the assets of an company are sold to a shareholder/s in a brand new,unconnected company! Oh, the mental gymnastics of the propagandists for the Big Lie! How much easier it would have been, could still be, if the SFA were to produce an absolutely straight up and true account, in plain English, of the grounds on which they allow a 7 year old club to claim falsely the honours and titles (but not the company number or date of incorporation or date of original foundation) of Rangers Football Club of 1872? Regan and Doncaster and their then respective Boards could not do it at the time. Why not? Because they could not justify such a ridiculously untrue and pernicious decision. For a certainty, if they could have then, or could now, produce a reasoned, truthful account , don't you think it would have been trumpeted abroad at the time? And would even now be banner headlines ! There would have been no need of a 'blood oath' dirty-little-secret cabal of twisted betrayers of their offices of trust, and greedy grasping chancers.
___________________________
Strangely enough, John, I was about to write something along similar lines just prior to reading your post, but making the point that, after over seven years since Rangers' insolvency, no one has yet written a book, or media article, entitled 'How The Rangers Football Club was Saved' or similar. At the very least, I'd have thought Duff & Phelps would have commissioned an article in some insolvency practitioners' publication trumpeting their magnificent achievement in pulling off what many thought impossible.
But no, it's almost as if such a literary publication would be a non-starter or something…or, if researched properly and written honestly, maybe end up with a very different title!
It's a sobering thought that Celtic's Player Of The Season 2019/20 might be Mike Ashley.
Allyjambo 31st December 2019 at 08:25
'..no one has yet written a book, or media article, entitled 'How The Rangers Football Club was Saved' or similar. At the very least, I'd have thought Duff & Phelps would have commissioned an article in some insolvency practitioners' publication no one has yet written a book, or media article, entitled 'How The Rangers Football Club was Saved' or similar. '
+++++++++++++++++++++,
Whitehouse and Clark had other things on their minds, Aj, these last few years!
Even if each wins his damages claim, I'm sure the last thing they would want to do is bring attention to themselves as having been involved in any way shape or form with what must have been one of the most suspicious 'Administrations' ever to survive a judge's scrutiny.
And in any case I don’t think they would say anything: their lips are sealed by the 5-Way agreement.!
Incidentally, there was an interesting Supreme Court judgment on 4 December in relation to 'gratuitous alienation' [when there has been a transfer of an asset at undervalue prior to an insolvency] ( MacDonald &Another as Liquidators of Grampian Maclennan's Distribution Services Ltd versus Carnbroe Estates Ltd.)
Something that keeps puzzling me about the many and continuous efforts that have been made over the past seven years to convince us all that TRFC is the same club as RFC was/is that question, 'why now?' that I raised the other day. But not just the 'why now?' as in why should it be raised at this particular moment in time, but why has it taken so long for these explanations to arise, and, more importantly, why do they only come from spurious, and anonymous, sources? For, if even one such explanation held even a modicum of the reality about it, then within days of Rangers' assets being sold to Charles Green/Sevco that explanation would have been released from an official source such as Duff & Phelps, or from the even less trustworthy Green, himself.
But no such explanation was ever made. Instead we got spurious claims such as, 'I bought the 'istory…', and the idea of a hitherto unheard of separation of club and company was born.
Now, even in the immediate aftermath of Rangers failed CVA everyone was trumpeting that Rangers had died, so it is more than reasonable to have expected some detailed explanation from the administrators as to how they managed to keep a business/club alive after failing to achieve a CVA.
No such detailed explanation was given, so they clearly had none, and yet in the intervening period of seven years we have had these quite woeful claims, such as Eastwood's now, that have been constructed after the event, when, quite simply, if Rangers Football Club is not currently in liquidation, that detailed explanation would have been made within 24 hours of the CVA failure. Indeed, if there was even the slightest possibility that RFC did not die along with the CVA, then such a legal argument would have been used, and most likely have succeeded (whether it held water or not, for the SFA/SPL would have been delighted with such an outcome), that all the club should have suffered as a result of it's insolvency was a points deduction with no need to apply for 're-admission' to the League and SFA.
For let's be clear on this, Eastwood is not reiterating, or even embellishing, what Duff & Phelps said, he is pushing something he has come up with, himself. He clearly has no more insight into what machinations went on between D&P and Green than we ourselves do, yet expects us to believe something, that, if in the least accurate, would have come from official sources (whether truthful, or not) more than seven years ago.
So, could the answer to the 'why now?' (as in why are efforts continuing to be made now) question be that it takes a long time to convince people that a lie is true if they already know it to be a lie? And, of course, you don't convince people that a lie is true in these circumstances, you, at best, might wear down resistance to the lie and bring it closer to becoming the accepted 'truth'.
John Clark 31st December 2019 at 10:01 Allyjambo 31st December 2019 at 08:25 '..no one has yet written a book, or media article, entitled 'How The Rangers Football Club was Saved' or similar. At the very least, I'd have thought Duff & Phelps would have commissioned an article in some insolvency practitioners' publication no one has yet written a book, or media article, entitled 'How The Rangers Football Club was Saved' or similar. ' +++++++++++++++++++++, Whitehouse and Clark had other things on their minds, Aj, these last few years! Even if each wins his damages claim, I'm sure the last thing they would want to do is bring attention to themselves as having been involved in any way shape or form with what must have been one of the most suspicious 'Administrations' ever to survive a judge's scrutiny. And in any case I don’t think they would say anything: their lips are sealed by the 5-Way agreement.! Incidentally, there was an interesting Supreme Court judgment on 4 December in relation to 'gratuitous alienation' [when there has been a transfer of an asset at undervalue prior to an insolvency] ( MacDonald &Another as Liquidators of Grampian Maclennan's Distribution Services Ltd versus Carnbroe Estates Ltd.)
______________
John, that is something of the point I was making. There is/was nothing about the Rangers' administration that anyone would want to write about, as, for one reason or another, it would bring out something they don't want the public to know/have confirmed.
It would not (as I refer to in my previous post), though, have prevented them clarifying, at the crucial time, why it might be that Rangers didn't die along with it's attempted CVA. This would, at the very least, have presented people like Eastwood with something to embellish rather than leaving them to invent unevidenced scenarios
Re the TRFC statement released yesterday:
What a strange piece of work that is! It's a scatter-gun, panicked piece of PR p*sh.
Stewart Robertson is quoted as saying, 'This is not a criticism of referees…' The next ten sentences are nothing but critical of refereeing decisions!
The defence of Morelos, is expected, but misplaced. Making any gesture towards the crowd when leaving the pitch after being sent off is inflammatory. Morelos has made the walk of shame enough times to know that by now. Incidentally, there's no specific mention of the alleged racist abuse of Morelos in the statement.
The call for VAR is crowd-pleasing nonsense. It's clearly not working as intended in England (IFAB has sent a letter to the FA & PGMOL, the referees' association, to clarify its use, apparently.) Why call for an imperfect system to be implemented by officials who appear to be less competent than their English counterparts? Surely not because it may have been beneficial to one team on Sunday?
This year-end statement should have been about the club, how well they've done under Gerrard & how they've just beaten CFC on their own midden & still in the Europa League, but for some reason it isn't.
As a keen student of 'reading between the lines', I have to wonder what requires a statement like that.
Morelos is banned for the next two league games. He may be liable for for further sanctions for his excellent impression of Danny Trejo. Does this put paid to a putative transfer? Something else?
Watch this space, I suppose…
The OC/NC arguments put up by those who insist that it’s the same club inevitably focus on matters of opinion rather than hard truths.Alan Roughs opinion when he was a pundit on Real Radio was that it (RFC Admin) was the strangest administration he had ever encountered. That’s just his opinion of course. It may also be his opinion that tomatoes are a great addition to a fruit salad. Chacque un à son gôut.
Happy New Year when it comes.
J.J. totally agree.
For the first time in 7 years, TRFC had an opportunity to give an end of year, positive, ambitious message to its support, (about their football progress anyway).
Robertson could have taken the high ground, and simply mentioned the significant win at Parkhead in passing.
But no, it's the usual rambling, snarling, deflective type of statement we are well accustomed to.
Even when they're winning they're raging!
Oh and Happy New Year fellow Bampots.
My resolution for 2020 is to try and be more welcoming and understanding towards the Ibrox club…
I note that the Compliance Officer has cited Ryan Christie, presumably for making contact with a certain Colombian's cojones; said act being missed by the match officials.
Has there recently been a similar incident, seen by the referee, in a match between the same two teams which resulted in a sending off?
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/
Tuesday 31 December 2019
Fast Track Notice of Complaint | Ryan Christie, Player, Celtic FC
Player: Ryan Christie, Celtic FC
Match: Celtic FC v Rangers FC
Date: Sunday 29 December 2019
Competition: Scottish Premiership
Disciplinary Rule allegedly breached: Disciplinary Rule 200: Where any one of the sending off offences of (A1) serious foul play, (A2) violent conduct, and (A3) spitting at an opponent or any other person is committed by a player at a match, but that sending off offence was not seen by any of the match officials at the time that it was committed, the mandatory suspension for that sending off offence as provided for in Annex C of the Judicial Panel Protocol shall be applied to the player.
Any Fast Track Notice of Complaint alleging a breach of this Rule shall be Determined by a Fast Track Tribunal subject to the provisions of Section 13.
Hearing Date: Monday 6 January 2020
Allyjambo 31st December 2019 at 11:01
'.. that is something of the point I was making.'
+++++++++++++
And very well you made it, Aj.
It must be a bit troubling for RIFC plc and its puppet directors on the Board of TRFC that they cannot give any convincing evidence that TRFC is RFC of 1872, whereas company law and the whole sports history of the SFA tell us plainly that a liquidated football club ceases to exist as a football playing entity.
And only a touch of lunacy would enable any person to assert that a club that was founded 7 years ago is now in its 147th year.
And, of course, those wicked men ( not 'honestly mistaken' but deniers of what they knew and know to be the Truth) on the SFA and SPL and SFL boards who signed the 5-Way Agreement, (soiling and disgracing themselves by abandoning principle and governance integrity) have never themselves dared to declare publicly and officially their belief, and reasons for that belief ,that TRFC is Rangers of 1872.
Jingso.Jimsie 31st December 2019 at 16:20
Hearts Steven Maclean got a two game ban for getting a grip of Eboue Kouassi's crown jewels in last season's League Cup semi final. Willie Collum missed it so it was another C.O. inspired call.
Jingso.jimsie, I think you're referring to an incident where Moreles grabbed RC by the stones. He was not sent off or punished retrospectively for that 'assault'. iirc Moreles was involved in 4(four) incidents during that game including stepping on Ralstons back, another late challenge on RC and one which I cannot remember atm. I'm sure RC will be similarly leniently.
weejoe 31st December 2019 at 17:31
This one? I assume that Christie will use it in his defence. Kevin Clancy had a clear view of the incident and gave a free kick for the “tug”. I’m surprised that Clancy didn’t do a John Beaton and say that he saw it and took the right decision at the time.
A couple of wee paragraphs in yesterday's 'El Universal''s sports pages recording the fact that Morelos picked up another tarjeta roja , his seventh, making him the third most sent off Colombian player playing in a European league. It doesn't mention the reason for the red car, which it surely would comment upon if his gesture was a common one in Colombia which only meant 'the game is finished'! Honest to God!
Alfredo Morelos, el tercer colombiano más expulsado en Europa
'…https://www.eluniversal.com.co/deportes/alfredo-morelos-el-tercer-colombiano-mas-expulsado-en-europa-JJ2193694
Oh well, after all the noise around a poor game of footy has subsided…
as mentioned earlier. we will soon get back to the real issues at Ibrox – and a certain Court hearing in January.
Which will be nice.
I would suggest that , should Señor Morelos be cleared of offending for his throat-cut gesture , we may see lots of players doing the same to opposition fans when they score , the authorities obviously finding it acceptable . Or is grace only given to South Americans ?
'SLIT'S ALL KICKING OFF'
'GERS GO FOR THE THROAT'
(sports headlines from today's DR)
Any decent minded human, not necessarily football supporters, being would hopefully find these as disgusting, shameless and inflammatory as I have.
Also, it seems that the SMSM are now in full operational mode to try and undermine CFC in the hope that it helps TRFC to their first Premier League title.
What was the purpose of this vile journalism (!!!)?
Their attempts to 'balance' this (what a laugh!) with a piece by Chris Sutton calling for a 5-match ban for Morelos is pathetic and tokenistic. The damage to decency had already been done with the banner headlines.
I have e-mailed the rag and complained.
I hope to God CFC don't let this threatening and vicious action pass without challenge
To the Editor and Gavin Berry- Happy New Year – not!
StevieBC 31st December 2019 at 19:12
''we will soon get back to the real issues at Ibrox – and a certain Court hearing in January.
Which will be nice".?
————————-
SBC – Can't help feeling it will end up another can kicking exercise.
Anyway, A Guid New Year to all the frequent posters on the site and, of course, the same to all my fellow lurkers.
sc
Hopefully , the authorities , football and other , now understand what they have done in this fiasco , and accept blame . My feeling is that it will get worse before it gets better .
A Happy New Year to everyone at SFM, with a big thank you to the mods for the Sterling work they've done, and continue to do, to keep our show on the road.
A happy new year to all on SFM.
A Happy and prosperous New Year to all SFM forum members.
We have something to treasure here when you look around the rest of the Internet, and see the abuse that can be levelled between fans who supposedly support the same team! We are a diverse community, and for those of you who think there is too much of a Celtic slant, please encourage like minded fans of your own team to join, as long as they generally show the same respect as most of us do.
A special thanks to Big Pink and Tris for keeping things the way they are.
Happy New Year all.
Some astonishing allegations on the John James blog today.
upthehoops 1st January 2020 at 10:52
'..A special thanks to Big Pink and Tris..'
'…We have something to treasure here when you look around the rest of the Internet, and see the abuse that can be levelled between fans who supposedly support the same team! '
+++++++++++
I wholeheartedly endorse the vote of thanks to the providers and administrators of the sfm.scot blog.
And the virtually total absence of anything like the foul- mouthed vituperation that one comes across on other sites is something of a minor miracle given the depth of feeling about a really vital, rather than peripheral , question of Football Governance, namely, was it already essentially corrupt a decade ago, or was it corrupted by the 2012 Liquidation of RFC of 1872, with the 5-Way Agreement merely being another example?
Watching the English footy . Aston Villa goal ruled out by VAR for a heel offside in the build up . That can't be what it was intended for . While we await it's possible introduction in Scotland , refs should be prevented from officiating in games involving teams they support . Personally , I would prefer any cash to be spent to be used to remove plastic pitches .
Jingojimsie@12.00
Just read the JJ blog piece. All sorts of innuendo flying around. Strange that none of that stuff received SMSM attention.
Ex Ludo 1st January 2020 at 15:10
Just read the JJ blog piece. All sorts of innuendo flying around. Strange that none of that stuff received SMSM attention.
========================
If these allegations are true, and the Police are involved, why would the main suspect be allowed to hop on a plane to Colombia after the game? Surely the normal process is to hold people in a cell until the first available court scheduling? What we are being told is a man injured two other men to the point one required emergency surgery, and the other was not fit to travel with his teammates abroad. Would the Police allow someone charged with such serious offences to leave the country?
I don't know the answer to any of the above, but Rangers PR certainly seem to be retaliating first with regards to one particular individual.
upthehoops 1st January 2020 at 15:28
'..If these allegations are true..'
+++++++++++++
I am intrigued, but sadly blocked (years ago) from JJ.
Can you safely describe the nature of the allegations (without putting yourself at risk of a charge of defamation)
John Clark 1st January 2020 at 15:47
————————–
John, I have sent you a PM.
JohnClark @15.47
I think a lot of caution is required with this developing story. It could prove to be a major scandal.
Happy New year to everyone at SFM and everyone who looks in
HNY and thanks again to BP and Tris for managing SFM.
The Christie charge is interesting.
Everybody can see the inconsistency as Morelos escaped any punishment for doing the same to Christie last year.
IIRC, the ref Beaton also stated afterwards that he saw the incident and chose not to take any action: hence the lack of any retrospective charge for Morelos.
So, I guess CFC can appeal a ban for Christie?
If it is quashed: on what grounds would the SFA cite?
If a ban is upheld: what can CFC do?
Could CFC simply go to the Court of Session, (if possible?), and claim that the SFA is operating a flawed conduct review / punishment process?
And, CFC can quote a precedent: when the Ibrox club referred to the CoS to review their transfer ban imposed by the SFA.
Additionally, there was zero punishment from Hampden for referring to a civil court.
StevieBC 31st December 2019 at 19:12
'..and a certain Court hearing in January..'
+++++++++++++++
StevieBC,
Save an auld man the worry of worrying whether he had made a note of the date of next hearing and what it was about but has forgotten where he put it, or the worry of worrying why the hell he didn't make a note and foolishly relied confidently on his memory- and gie's a reminder, please, if you can.
I'm thinking the 'counter claim'Elite quasi joint defence thingy?
Nothing in the Court of Session? [ but Alex Salmond's trial is coming up in the High Court soon, not that that's of any particular relevance to RIFC /TRFC's legal stresses]
JC, was referring to the next hearing about Big Mike's claim;
"…Judge Persey oversaw a preliminary hearing in that latest stage of the litigation at the High Court in London [in October].
He is due to oversee a further hearing on January 17…"
He is due to oversee a further hearing on January 17…”
………………
We also have Memorial walls witness statements for Jan 10, concluding on March 2020. Close loans repayment for Feb 2020, And then someone has a book out on Feb 2020. EBT self assesments deadline for Jan 31 2020, and the huge investment at ibrox in Jan we were told about.(just some notes i had lying about, happy to be corrected)And who knows we may even hear or may not anything from the SFA at some point on anything.
StevieBC 1st January 2020 at 22:40
'..
"…Judge Persey oversaw a preliminary hearing in that latest stage of the litigation at the High Court in London [in October].
He is due to oversee a further hearing on January 17…"
Cluster One 1st January 2020 at 23:47
He is due to oversee a further hearing on January 17…=(and other stuff)
+++++++++++++
Thank you, gentlemen ,both.
my main concern was that I might miss something that I could attend in the CoS.
I can handle the Court of Session Rolls, but the English courts give me difficulties in finding their cases listed for the next week or weeks.Not their fault, but mine: I haven't cracked their system.
(I'll look out for Memorial Walls,because I like their readiness to take on TRFC)
Does anybody think we'll get Alastair Johnston's Fit and Proper assessment published this decade ?
On this day in 1971, 66 people who had left home just to watch a football match never returned, having been tragically killed during a crush at Ibrox Stadium. For many of us who attended games in the 1970's, potentially dangerous crushing inside and exiting many of the stadiums in those days was an occupational hazard of being a fan. It could have been any of us, and it could have been any of our mothers, fathers, wives, brothers and sisters who never saw their loved one return. That is why football will never be more important than life or death. The loss of human life transcends any rivalry, and decent people will always remember that on this sad anniversary.
paddy malarkey 2nd January 2020 at 01:41
Does anybody think we’ll get Alastair Johnston’s Fit and Proper assessment published this decade ?
………………
The SFA now don’t have to find king fit and proper now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50016954
So they may move on to finding if AJ is fit and proper some time this year maybe.
Cluster One 2nd January 2020 at 11:24 paddy malarkey 2nd January 2020 at 01:41 Does anybody think we’ll get Alastair Johnston’s Fit and Proper assessment published this decade ? ……………… The SFA now don’t have to find king fit and proper now. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50016954 So they may move on to finding if AJ is fit and proper some time this year maybe.
_________
CO,
No doubt discussed at the time of the article, but worth repeating about the way the media, at least, view Dave King's status at TRFC, and there's also no doubt that it's the same way that the SFA and SPFL view him as well – that is, as chairman of TRFC rather than as the man who evaded being declared 'not fit and proper' by the SFA purely on the grounds that he was not directly involved with the limited football club, and therefor cannot possibly be the club chairman.
From the article you link to:
"Rangers chairman Dave King's status as "fit and proper" will be discussed by the Scottish FA at their next board meeting after he was sanctioned by the Takeover panel."
It is also worth noting that the article completely ignores the fact that King has already been investigated by the SFA with regards to his 'fit and proper' status due to his own tax cheating and lying in court, only escaping banishment by the usual SFA complicity with all the hooks and crooks that darken the 'Blue Room' at Ibrox.
Still, with all the illegal activity, cheating and dishonest chicanery that surrounds the clubs of Ibrox, it may well be a bit much to expect our hard pressed media to keep up with and to consider accurate and full reporting as something to be valued.