I think there has been an appreciable shift of opinion amongst fans of TRFC recently.
Unlike the ‘invest: speculate to accumulate’ rhetoric featured in the press and by ex-players, the ordinary fans are coming to the realisation that there is no quick fix. There are even murmurings that there may never be a fix which involves their club becoming a competitive force.
Poor management of fan expectations has long been an accusation levelled at the TRFC board by SFM. It is possible though that many fans are beginning to manage their own expectations rather better. There are certainly justifiable criticisms of the manager, Mark Warburton, but alongside that is a realism about the limitations and constraints that he is working under.
There is a rather misguided, and possibly not accurate assumption that another liquidation for a team out of Ibrox would result in having to start ‘yet again’ in the bottom division; but in fact there is a growing acceptance that consolidation in the top league is a much better solution than gambling on huge borrowing simply to stop Celtic adding more notches to the goalpost.
Could it be that the fans are about to do the job that the board haven’t had the balls to do –accept the gap between themselves and (at least) Celtic, and settle for mediocrity on the field as a short term price to pay for continuity?
During the 1990s, in the middle of the Murray/BoS fuelled spending spree, and with Celtic in the doldrums, it seemed to many Celtic fans that their club would never be able to bridge that gap. Of course they did, but at the emotional cost of losing the exclusive 9IAR record.
TRFC now find themselves in pretty much the same position, but their road to bridging the current gap is a more difficult one.
There are similarities of course. Like the Celtic of the 90s, Rangers have major infrastructure challenges to meet. Celtic had a stadium to build, Rangers have Ibrox (and Auchenhowie) to fix and improve. Both required massive investment to improve the team, although I would argue that Rangers have a steeper hill to climb in that area.
Unlike RFC of the 90s, Celtic’s accrued wealth has nothing to do with an intravenous hook-up between their bank account and the chairman’s pals at the bank. Their baseline advantage over the current Rangers predicament is a combination of a stadium which holds 10,000 more fans than Ibrox, no debt, a burgeoning cash balance and the current inflow of European cash.
The Euro cash and the cash balance could be depleted, but the 10,000 extra seats won’t.
It also seems difficult to imagine how TRFC can obtain seed capital – even if they were inclined to gamble – given the combination of barriers to achieving that;
- They have a PLC with no stock market listing
- They have NO executive directors on the PLC board
- The current chairman is a convicted criminal, convicted of offences involving money
- The current chairman and vice-chairman are both directors of a previously liquidated club, and therefore associated with the financial mismanagement which brought that about.
- In that climate, sponsorship deals are hard to come by. Major sponsors want to be associated with stability, success and integrity. TRFC don’t tick many boxes in that regard.
- Banks do not lend to football clubs. Pre Murray/Masterton, football clubs were cash businesses with modest overdraft facilities to cover modest cash-flow peaks and troughs. The banks have returned to that model. 1987-2007 was the exception, not the norm.
- They are at war with a powerful and substantial shareholder in Mike Ashley.
- There is still litigation pending on more than one front which could even call into question the ownership of the club’s assets.
- They are in debt already (estimated at around £15m).
- The current onfield situation may require yet another write-off in terms of contracts.
Any one of those bullet points could be enough to derail any plan to get to the top. In combination, there may even be an existential question to answer.
That is why the fans are starting to look a lot smarter than the board, and ultimately the good sense of the fans may well help the board to find a way out of their current dilemma.
But even with realistic expectations from the supporters, is it possible that they can find a way? Is there for instance someone with a magic wand or bag of cash who could come in and turn it around? Perhaps, but who would risk money on a precarious venture like a football club when one of the most powerful businessmen in the country is in dispute with you?
In order for serious inward investment to happen;
- Ashley has to be reconciled with the board (needs King and Murray to go).
- The debt has to be written off .
- The new investor(s) has to be given control of the club (and this would perhaps require another 75% special resolution where current shareholders would be asked to vote to dilute their own influence).
- If they achieved that (and it is a pretty big if) the new investor cash would go into the club’s bank account – not used to pay off the debt – and they would be free to pursue new and better sponsorship deals, improve the merchandising contract with an onside Ashley, and add new revenue streams.
Even then, any new board would need to see the infrastructure challenges as paramount. Having one eye squinting in the direction of Parkhead will blur the bigger picture.
Their priority should be to reduce the losses (whilst increasing wages for better players), fix the stadium and the training ground (both in need of repair and improvement), build a scouting and youth infrastructure, and free up a (relatively modest) wad of cash to improve the playing squad.
In defence of the current board, the challenges facing them are almost vertical in incline. No matter how skilful they are, nothing other than someone with a barrowload of cash and a very long term outlook can put any kind of fix in place.
£50m might buy the debt and equity, and repair the stadium, but progress requires on-field improvement. It also needs stability, and therefore Ashley’s cooperation. The price of that is the head of Dave King.
Rangers will bring in more at the gate than Aberdeen, Hearts or Hibs, but they have a considerably higher cost base than those clubs. With better players, recurring costs will be even higher – much higher.
To square this circle, however unpalatable it appears to be, peace has to be made with Ashley. That is the key to being able to embark upon a journey that has any chance of success. Otherwise, the clocks will have to be reset to 2022, and the end of the SD contract, before progress can be made.
However there is no chance it can go on that long. Rangers fans may be increasingly less demanding in what they expect, but they will need to see some signs – and not just words – that a plan is in place.
The board are getting ready to throw Mark Warburton to the hounds (the MSM lapdogs have already been armed with poison pens to effect that). This will buy them some time, but not enough.
We’ve said it before, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’ll say it again;
For Rangers to have a fighting chance of competing at the top of football, King needs to be gone. If he does go, half of the barriers preventing the club raising cash are dismantled.
So is King’s departure a price worth paying? If he really had Rangers in his heart, he would say ‘Yes’.
Can we just point something about about “Lord Nimmo Smith” as well.
He retired in 2009.
He was not acting as a Judge when he made any of his “pronouncements”, some of which I believe had been misconstrued anyway.
He was asked, as a retired former Judge to be part of a panel put together by a football association. He then expressed an opinion based on the “evidence” they chose to put before him. Let’s not go into Sandy Bryson’s “evidence”.
It was a stitch up and Mr Nimmo Smith’s former occupation was used in attempt to give it some credibility.
This is not a definitive ruling given by a Court, it was an embarrassing sham designed to look like one.
DUNDERHEIDFEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 14:51
John Clark @ 13:36On your reminder about the shameful failure of the SMSM to report the truth … I’d like to emphasise that, worst of all, we have been let down by the publicly funded BBC Scotland.At least the rest of the SMSM can hide behind an excuse of there being a ‘commercial imperative’…
==============================
In my opinion the weeknight BBC Sportsound programme is the most biased pro-Rangers media outlet there is. They appear to have allowed a presenter who never hides the fact he supports the club from Ibrox to completely shape the show to suit his own end.
MARK C, thanks, but I’m not taking the blame for this! My post was in response to WOTTPI so I reckon it’s all his fault….
I’m pretty much in agreement with you, though. Based on what I’ve read and applying my very limited knowledge, new club. I can also see, whilst not agreeing with that view, why some might consider them to be the same club.
Its an emotive subject for some (talk of squirrels and bans) and there is a fair amount of fact/opinion/speculation surrounding the issue. It’s good to discuss it, it won’t dominate SFM for long, and we’ll move on to something else.
So to repeat: new club. I’ll leave that there, stepping away now….
What ever happened to the OC/NC thread?
the simple fact is the club died (or is in the process of liquidation) because they lied.
Don’t particularly want to prolong this other than to say that on the balance of events in front of me I’m still firmly in the new club camp. The evidence of the old club era (and ifd argue there was lots, lots of wishful thinking maybe ) still requires significant leaps of faith to be made to square the circle and no amount of ‘enforced familiarisation’ will change that.
I would pose the question, simply to try to take a new angle on an old debate:
if I am a banker and a club “negatively overinvests” but apparently can now have “the membership,” (notice not a membership, not the spare membership both of which would be equally valid descriptions but THE membership), given the specialist nature and emotional attachment of local fans rendering most stadiums worthless, why the hell would I go anywhere near a football club to lend?
there are those who seem to think this is some kind of fan based tribal game at play. It’s not. There are long term consequences if this new found ethereal Club theory is allowed to take root.
Coming back to the Ibrox 3 resignations / non-resignations.
IIRC, if a club acts in an inappropriate manner wrt transfers of players, e.g. ‘tapping up’, not paying what’s due, etc.
then the relevant FA can step in to resolve and can impose penalties, such as a temporary transfer ban.
So, wrt TRFC having disposed of 3 of their most senior, football personnel…how is the club simply allowed to go out and bring in replacements unimpeded – without so much as a peep, [or chap! 😉 ], coming from the Hampden bunker?
Agreed, the LMA in England has been engaged apparently – but should there not be an obligation on the SFA and/or the SPFL to intervene to at least clarify what has happened ?
If TRFC has indeed treated the Ibrox 3 abysmally for short-term financial reasons – then the club should be penalised for its behaviour and treatment of staff.
What is to protect new recruits from suffering exactly the same fate at some point in the future ?
At the very least, there should be an embargo on TRFC, denying them the ability to recruit replacements until the SFA or SPFL have been satisfied.
Again, there could be legal redress anyway – but I thought the governing bodies were also obligated to protect the image of Scottish football ? TRFC actions do not reflect well at all on the Scottish game.
And this also reminds me of frequently used terminology from RTC days: moral hazard.
STEVIEBCFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 20:26
So, wrt TRFC having disposed of 3 of their most senior, football personnel…how is the club simply allowed to go out and bring in replacements unimpeded – without so much as a peep, [or chap! ? ], coming from the Hampden bunker?
———————-
They could argue that they have not gone out and appointed a replacement.They just have an u20 coach helping out
EASTWOOD, they are some interesting posts re incorporation. So with one of ALLYJAMBOS ‘indisputable facts’ very much in dispute, I’m wondering if that downgrades it to an opinion, speculation or in your own words ‘simply false’.
Who can tell? Such complexities are way above my head but it’s always a school day on SFM. And that’s a fact.
Lest we forget?
We are talking about this same club who couldn’t stop their top players walking away for zilch – couldn’t play even a friendly.
The same club that wasn’t seeded in the cup competitions.
The same club that couldn’t play in Europe.
The same club that UEFAhave told us isn’t in writing.
Come on guys!
If the current board at Ibrox stay in place, and no new investment comes in, I don’t think there will be much debate about OC/NC this time next year. I wonder what we will talk about?
If you’re looking for facts re the continuity myth, Auldheid’s piece is full of them.
http://www.sfmonitor.org/past-the-event-horizon/comment-page-52/#comment-76319
Sevco was already a registered member of the SFA when Rangers full membership status was transfered.
Sevco automatically gained SFA membership when it was accepted into the SFL.
Rangers retained its SFA membership until it relinquished its membership of the SPL.
Sevco played its first game against Brechin when Rangers was still a member of the SPL and a member of the SFA.
Whoever played Brechin, it wasn’t the Rangers of old.
It is my opinion that all of the above is factually correct.
Eastwood February 22, 2017 at 19:26
In 1899, the “Club” as you refer to it did not *become* the 1899 Corporation. Once aspects comprising its business were transferred to the new company, it would have been dissolved.
====================
I disagree. The club when it was formed in 1872/73 would have been a members association (just like many bowling clubs and the like). Those members then sought in 1899 that their “club” should become “incorporated” and it subsequently became a “limited company”.
There was nothing to dissolve. It would simply have adopted the articles of a association of the limited company and continued to exist in a different legal form. The previous committee would probably have formed the bulk of the Board of Directors of the Limited Company.
Similarly, any company that starts as a Plc, then decides to go back to being a private limited company, simply goes through a change of legal form (and vice-versa). It will retain it’s previous company number and the assets will remain with the same company.
BTW – well done to Hibs for their fully merited victory tonight.
……. now, come on Ayr! 🙂
JIMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 21:35
If the current board at Ibrox stay in place, and no new investment comes in, I don’t think there will be much debate about OC/NC this time next year. I wonder what we will talk about?
——————————————————————————————————–
OSFA/NSFA Jimbo.
Whatever happens, that is still the main issue.
Not often that I set finger to keyboard, but please, please mark Mark C as a Troll. Playing on whether Rangers are in liquidation (or about to be) illustrates exacty what he is about. Incredible is also obviously an Ibrox apologist, but does occasionally come up with something sensible.
I should also mention that, following JJ’s incredible mysogyny and comments on the McCanns, etc., I no longer have him on my ‘Favourites’. Can I ask that nobody contributes to his deplorable blog?
In passing, and as a Killie fan, I shall not be attending any further games with the present ex-Sevco incumbent in charge. But then again there is also Michael Johnston – the man who refused to accept the will of the Killie faithful regarding the vote to ‘insert’ Sevco into the League.
Hello John Clark – keep up the good work!
HirsutePursuitFebruary 22, 2017 at 22:10
If you’re looking for facts re the continuity myth, Auldheid’s piece is full of them. http://www.sfmonitor.org/past-the-event-horizon/comment-page-52/#comment-76319
Sevco was already a registered member of the SFA when Rangers full membership status was transfered.
That was a time when the BBC was impartial (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18850864) full story but even allowed quotes such as
“Charles Green’s Sevco consortium will hope the new Rangers will be accepted as SFA members this week and they are now due to travel to face Brechin City, who were expecting to face Dundee, on 28 July.
Airdrie United, who were runners-up in the end-of-season play-offs, will replace Dundee in the First Division, with Stranraer moving up a division to take Airdrie’s place.
Some Scottish Football League clubs had feared that the SPL clubs would reverse their previous decision to reject the application from Sevco to field their new Rangers in the top flight.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18850864
EASYJAMBO
FEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 22:12
===================================
I take what you are both saying to be true, sort of.
Using my own club.
Celtic PLC was incorporated on 12th April 1897.
It was actually The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Ltd which incorporated on that date, and then became Celtic PLC on 15th December 1994.
The date of incorporation for company SC003487 was 12th April 1897, albeit the type of legal entity changed.
However I take you point that it was the original club, formed in 1888 which became the Ltd Company.
Corrupt Official, I understand what you are saying but if a couple of events take place in the future there could or should be huge ramifications for present and past incumbents of Hampden. If the EBTs are found to have been illegal by the Supreme Court it throws the whole LNS findings in disarray. Questions have to be asked, an investigation even. Including one EBT recipient who worked at Hampden.
If heaven forbid, The Rangers go back into administration or even L the monitoring of the Hamden gang into this known risky club should be queried since this would be a second occasion. We know the Hampden beaks were aware of the financial situation at Ibrox late 2011 at the hotel meeting in Glasgow.
Maybe just maybe the stink would be enough for a clear out. Not one hundred per cent certain though. I think all those suits are painted with the same brush.
In your own inimitable way Jimbo you highlight precisely the problem. If you accept this membership transfer nonsense once then you accept it can be done again and again. Indeed, for a cash strapped self appointed “giant” it would be positively remiss not to!
EASYJAMBO FEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 22:12
I appreciate you are expressing a layman’s understanding that is fair enough in common speech, but in terms of drilling down into the detail, the position you express is incorrect. The unincorporated body does not *become* the company.
Rather than just repeat myself, here’s a third party source – Guide to Incorporating Athletics Clubs, but the principles extend across sports and have been the same for over a century. http://www.englandathletics.org/library-media/documents/ea-club-structure-guide-v3c.pdf
Here’s a few snippets relating to our discussion…
“Any decision to reconstitute the club and transfer its property to a new company (and thenwind up the old unincorporated association) is likely to be beyond the implied authority of themanagement committee unless the constitution provides otherwise. This will differ from clubto club and will need to be determined on a case by case basis. Nevertheless, it will likely benecessary for the members to pass a resolution at an annual general meeting or anextraordinary general meeting approving the proposal to:11.5.1 reconstitute as a company;11.5.2 transfer the club’s assets to the company; and11.5.3 subsequently wind up the unincorporated association….
…11.8.4 The company will not come into existence until the Registrar of Companies issues acertificate of incorporation. Registration usually takes about a week as standard…
…Dissolution of the unincorporated club11.37 Once the transfer has completed and the company legally owns all the assets, theunincorporated club will likely wish to dissolve.11.38 However, if for any reason the unincorporated club continues to receive payments (e.g.legacies from wills), or continues to hold assets or contracts which it cannot lawfully assign tothe new company without third party consent, the unincorporated club should continue toexist while these transitional issues are resolved.11.39 This is particularly important because, once the unincorporated club is formally dissolved, itwill cease to exist.”
As you can see, the unincorporated body does not “become” the new company. It transfers its business, then dissolves. If you insist on saying something other than the original constituted body *becomes* the company, perhaps you could explain what that “thing” is? As I said before, beware tip-toeing onto the metaphysical (as someone in Court said) territory of the Sevco fan!
This Old/New squirrel is Old.
Not an opinion; a fact.
Metaphysical question:
If Mark C bought a basket of Steerpike’s assets would that make him Steerpike?
LUGOSIFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 00:42 If Mark C bought a basket of Steerpike’s assets would that make him Steerpike?
If ever a post summed up excellently the point being made, then its the one above. As was stated by ADAMSPARK or WOTTPI, ” both sides can be poorly served by the SMSM and social media when half-truths, speculation and wishful thinking dominate to the exclusion of the facts. ”
If Lugosi bought Steerpike’s BMW 316i with Red Leather seats because Steerpike was bankrupt, then it would still be a BMW 316i with Red Leather seats.
PS – Liquidation and failure of CVA means Rangers are a new Club in my opinion.
In your opinion Mark C do you anticipate any problems if the old Club (notice the insertion of Mackenzie’s capital C) cannot be liquidated, that it is granted immortality as long as one man and his dog wants to see it and is willing to provide and fund a vehicle (Mackenzie’s club) to ‘operate’ it?
i appreciate it’s not the view you yourself hold I’m just trying to get my head around what it is that old Clubbers are getting so hot under the collar about and what the SFA have contorted to try to protect. Thank you for providing the link to the SFA’s transfer announcement which ably demonstrate said contortions beautifully.
If the shareholders of the old club never voted to change the name of sevco scotland to TRFC. and instead could only have had an option to change it to rangers utd or the glasgow rangers utd or something with a rangers in it.
would we still be having the OC/NC debate?
There is no OC/NC debate as far as I can see. Everybody (even an Ibrox apologist like myself, who does occasionally come up with something sensible, thanks Haywire!) acknowledges that they’re a new club. As does MARK C
The point we’re making has been proven though. People using hypothetical situations to prove the ‘truth’ or state that something is a ‘fact’ when it is clearly not.
There are are no trolls or squirrels here. Simply people having an online discussion so engage with it or don’t but keep the name calling out of it. We don’t want this place becoming an eco chamber.
SMUGASFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 06:56
Not a scenario i believe will play out however hypothetically i think it adds a new dimension, especially if, and its a huge if, they win the Duff and Duffer case and also the BTC.
I guess in that scenario, baring in mind that the probability is extremely low, then most of the creditors could actually end up being paid, which brings a completely unknown dimension into it.
The ball would probably be in Kings court at that point and who knows with him what he what do. He doesnt even know what he does day to day so hard for us to second guess him.
And that assumes he is even around at that point to see it of course as well.
Too many ifs.
EastwoodFebruary 22, 2017 at 19:26
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 18:12
In 1899, the “Club” as you refer to it did not *become* the 1899 Corporation. Once aspects comprising its business were transferred to the new company, it would have been dissolved.
Attempting to establish continuity in the stuff that transfers between the two – legally entirely DIFFERENT – entities is exactly the trick being played by same club apologists in recent times.
Incorporation creates a new entity. Attempts to reach back to 1872 may tug on the heart strings of some, but has absolutely no basis in law.
_________________________
Thanks for that, Eastwood, I didn’t choose my words carefully enough (nor understand, perhaps, the mechanics of incorporation) though I was, in fact, trying to avoid making an argument that meant entering the OC/NC debate, itself, in an effort to concentrate on debunking the idea that both sides of the argument could be classed as mere opinion. Perhaps, from reading your post, we might say Rangers Football Club was consumed by the limited company as the best way of maintaining the idea of the continuity of a club that incorporates. Again, however, that is not the point of my earlier post.
Until RFC failed to achieve a CVA there was no separate entity called Rangers FC, not even in the hearts and minds of the supporters. No separate entity called Rangers FC was ever seen, mentioned or discussed in any newspaper, TV program or pub. And, of course, no unincorporated Rangers FC existed in any corporeal form, not on one piece of paper, not even in the virtual world of cyberspace (if you discount PC games
). In short, the idea that Rangers FC continued, in any form, separate from the limited company that entered liquidation, is an idea based solely on the need, in some, for that continuation to be real. Charles Green, who’s credibility has since been shot to pieces (even amongst his once ardent supporters) in everything bar this claim, needed it to make filling Ibrox a possibility, the supporters, including the SMSM, needed it because they really, really needed it, and the SFA/SPL/SFL needed it because they saw Armageddon approaching without it. They were all prepared to accept any lie, from any source, that gave them what they needed. No one put forward any ‘fact’ that supported the claim.
You have put forward a fact that supports the fact that Rangers FC, the limited company, was the only Rangers FC, and that Rangers Football Club dies at the point liquidation formally ends. Without someone coming up with a fact that disproves that, then TRFC has to be a new club, and so that is a fact.
I think it’s also a fact that SFM has always offered a platform for anyone to put forward an argument for the continuity of RFC, but it’s a pointless exercise without using facts as evidence to support it.
HomunculusFebruary 22, 2017 at 19:33
Homunculus,
You have made some very good posts on here over the years, this ranks with the very best. Bravo
“MARK C
LUGOSIFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 00:42 If Mark C bought a basket of Steerpike’s assets would that make him Steerpike?
If ever a post summed up excellently the point being made, then its the one above. As was stated by ADAMSPARK or WOTTPI, ” both sides can be poorly served by the SMSM and social media when half-truths, speculation and wishful thinking dominate to the exclusion of the facts. ”
If Lugosi bought Steerpike’s BMW 316i with Red Leather seats because Steerpike was bankrupt, then it would still be a BMW 316i with Red Leather seats.”
i understand.
so… If Lugosi bought Steerpike’s BMW cos Steerpike had amassed, say… 55 penalty points… and was disbarred from using the roads, would Lugosi also pick up the penalty points?
OC/NC
FISHNISH – again proving the point. My BMW question is also a half truth. I wish people would understand that im not posting for/against NC/OC, im simply backing up the point that all these questions and half truths dont help the situation and for every ying there is a yang.
To your question though, then no you wouldnt pick up the points on the old owners licence. You would however get the full service history of the car along with the previous mileage and to add an additional element, you wouldnt be asked to pay some of the debts remaining on the car nor receive a ban from “transferring” registration plates for a year.
OC/NC is complicated.
Mark CFebruary 23, 2017 at 08:43
FISHNISH – again proving the point. My BMW question is also a half truth. I wish people would understand that im not posting for/against NC/OC, im simply backing up the point that all these questions and half truths dont help the situation and for every ying there is a yang.
To your question though, then no you wouldnt pick up the points on the old owners licence. You would however get the full service history of the car along with the previous mileage and to add an additional element, you wouldnt be asked to pay some of the debts remaining on the car nor receive a ban from “transferring” registration plates for a year.
OC/NC is complicated.
___________________
No it’s not, just as in the sale of Ibrox from Rangers FC Ltd (IL) to Sevco, Ibrox remained Ibrox, a large but rather tattered stadium, in the analogy of the motor bike, Lugosi didn’t become Steerpike! Even if Steerpike had died, and we’ve not heard from him for a while, so he may have, there would have had to be another form of Steerpike for him to have transferred with the bike! I won’t try the metaphysics of how Lugosi could then become Steerpike
OC/NC is simple; there is no doubt that Rangers FC Limited is in liquidation, so, before TRFC could be the same club as RFC, it would be necessary to show a separate entity, also called Rangers Football Club, existed alongside the limited company! Showing that, though, is so complicated, it’s impossible!
So I think we should change your ‘OC/NC is complicated’ to, ‘OC is complicated, NC isn’t’!
If that logic is applied to the current situation then the old Rangers (in liquidation) continues to hold assets (?), contracts and debts that cannot be lawfully assigned to the new T’Rangers.
So both entities currently co-exist.
Therefore the question is which one is the real Rangers?
Metaphysically speaking arguments from analogy can be helpful but they are only used because of inability to achieve direct knowledge of that which is being discussed. Not only that they need to be treated very cautiously because they break down particularly when taken to far or not thought through.
For example and using a bad example I might buy a person’s old tools and even their clapped out old garage but that does not make me either that person or the owner of his vehicle. One might find that vehicle is currently siting in the crusher waiting to be turned into a cube of metal and no amount of attempting to run time backwards will reverse that situation.
Still we are now in a world where palpable lies are claimed to be alternative facts and as the Australian cartoonist says a “nuclear powered orange death pastry” is POTUS
WOTTPIFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 09:46
If that logic is applied to the current situation then the old Rangers (in liquidation) continues to hold assets (?), contracts and debts that cannot be lawfully assigned to the new T’Rangers.
So both entities currently co-exist.
Therefore the question is which one is the real Rangers?
————————————————-
They both are……
A kind of unholy binity……
But you have to be a believer.
Mark C.
thanks for coming back on my question posed. I agree with your points although the pedant in me is obliged to point out that any repYment of creditors would come from the insurance of Collyer Bristow and potentially D&P as opposed to any remaining assets of “Rangers” per se. Regardless, my query wasn’t about Rangers/Sevco/old club/new club but just about the new concept of an ethereal immortal Club and the inherent risks that would bring. I do agree though that the Current Rangers entity still appears most odds on to test it at present.
Two scenarios could have unfolded when the CVA offer was proposed. Success or failure.
In the case of a successful CVA Chuckles needed to purchase wee Craigy’s shares.
In the event as it transpired, and the refusal of the CVA offer, liquidation of the club followed. For this Chuckles DID NOT need to purchase wee Craigy’s shares.
On P29 appendix 3, of Eastwood’s link it says.
http://www.englandathletics.org/library-media/documents/ea-club-structure-guide-v3c.pdf
“1.8 Separate legal identity – A company limited by shares will have a separate legal identity so, ifit becomes insolvent, then the members (i.e. the shareholders) will not be liable for thecompany’s debts other than to the extent that they have not fully paid the company for theshares that they hold.”
So would I be correct in saying wee Craigy, by dint of being the major shareholder (ergo member) was “The Club” .
Therefore in the event of scenario 1, a successful CVA, his shares would have been required and Chuckles in effect would have bought “The Club”
As it turned out, the CVA was unsuccessful, and “The Club” entered liquidation, and buying “The Club” a futile exercise.
Buying wee Craigy’s shares, was in fact buying “The Club”, which included “The Club’s” liabilities, (to be settled by an accepted CVA.
However, the CVA was unsuccessful, “The Club” extinguished, and a liquidation asset sale follows to recompense the creditors for their losses.
Is that too simplistic?
EASTWOODFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 23:17EASYJAMBO FEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 22:12
I appreciate you are expressing a layman’s understanding that is fair enough in common speech, but in terms of drilling down into the detail, the position you express is incorrect. The unincorporated body does not *become* the company.
Rather than just repeat myself, here’s a third party source – Guide to Incorporating Athletics Clubs, but the principles extend across sports and have been the same for over a century. http://www.englandathletics.org/library-media/documents/ea-club-structure-guide-v3c.pdf
Here’s a few snippets relating to our discussion…
“Any decision to reconstitute the club and transfer its property to a new company (and thenwind up the old unincorporated association) is likely to be beyond the implied authority of themanagement committee unless the constitution provides otherwise. This will differ from clubto club and will need to be determined on a case by case basis. Nevertheless, it will likely benecessary for the members to pass a resolution at an annual general meeting or anextraordinary general meeting approving the proposal to:11.5.1 reconstitute as a company;11.5.2 transfer the club’s assets to the company; and11.5.3 subsequently wind up the unincorporated association….
…11.8.4 The company will not come into existence until the Registrar of Companies issues acertificate of incorporation. Registration usually takes about a week as standard…
…Dissolution of the unincorporated club11.37 Once the transfer has completed and the company legally owns all the assets, theunincorporated club will likely wish to dissolve.11.38 However, if for any reason the unincorporated club continues to receive payments (e.g.legacies from wills), or continues to hold assets or contracts which it cannot lawfully assign tothe new company without third party consent, the unincorporated club should continue toexist while these transitional issues are resolved.11.39 This is particularly important because, once the unincorporated club is formally dissolved, itwill cease to exist.”
As you can see, the unincorporated body does not “become” the new company. It transfers its business, then dissolves. If you insist on saying something other than the original constituted body *becomes* the company, perhaps you could explain. what that “thing” is? As I said before, beware tip-toeing onto the metaphysical (as someone in Court said) territory of the Sevco fan!
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
I must admit, I had always been of the belief the Club had become the Limited Company, hence the Ibrox gates have Rangers Football Club Ltd. However from the above we can see this is a misnomer and what should be on those gates and all relevant associated documents should be Rangers Football Ltd.
This is where most of the confusion lies, there are clubs and companies, but using the word club in your company name simply confuses the identity and this confusion is what the Govan faithful have latched on to. When clubs change to incorporated entities, they no longer are clubs and the company is the sole entity, in this case carrying out football operations. RFC PLC failed to achieve a CVA and entered liquidation. If RFC had been Rogers Flooring Contractors, the survival myth would have been unambiguously shown up for the sham it is. The constant use of the word club to describe a company operating a football team leads to the confusion.
And…..
MARK CFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 08:43 5 Votes
FISHNISH – again proving the point. My BMW question is also a half truth. I wish people would understand that im not posting for/against NC/OC, im simply backing up the point that all these questions and half truths dont help the situation and for every ying there is a yang.
To your question though, then no you wouldnt pick up the points on the old owners licence. You would however get the full service history of the car along with the previous mileage and to add an additional element, you wouldnt be asked to pay some of the debts remaining on the car nor receive a ban from “transferring” registration plates for a year.
OC/NC is complicated.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Slight flaw in your argument Mark C, as the buyer of the BMW would be liable for any finance secured on the vehicle and purchasers of 2nd hand cars are advised to do a credit search on the vehicle for this very reason.
Leaving behind debt and carrying on as if nothing has changed is rather difficult to achieve…..
There’s been some interesting debate regarding clubs/companies/incorporation and it’s hard to get your head around things when you’re reading them for the first time. It’s great that we have such well informed posters.
If incorporation took place in 1897, of the club founded in 1888, and that unincorporated club was then dissolved and ceases to exist, would that mean the Celtic centenary should really have been 1997 rather than 1988? Would you celebrate the birth of the club, which is no longer in existence, rather than the company, which is? Or can you, on occasion, make a distinction between the two?
I’m using Celtic as an example because of the dates provided by posters but would this apply to all clubs/companies in this situation?
bfbpuzzledFebruary 23, 2017 at 09:53
‘…Still we are now in a world where palpable lies are claimed to be alternative facts..’
_________
You have never said a truer word, bfbpuzzled.
There has been some arrant nonsense written by ‘believers’ ( as Finloch might call them) who seem to think one’s opinions equate to ‘fact’.
It is my opinion that the Football Authorities deliberately and with malice aforethought entered a wholly corrupt deal under which a new club would be assisted in its false claim to be a much older club ( the Administrators of which were ,laughably, sitting across from it at the meeting when the deal was done!)
It is an absolute FACT that Rangers FC, the club that the late Roger Hynd played for, and the club that Sandy Jardine, Wulllie Henderson, Jim Baxter, George Young, Sammy English and so on, played for with distinction, lost its entitlement to a share in the then SPL, and consequently, its entitlement to membership of the SFA, by suffering the ultimate ‘insolvency event’.
It is conceivable that my opinion as to the integrity of our Scottish Football authorities may be wrong. All those represented at the 5-Way agreement MIGHT just have got things terribly wrong while trying to do good. I lack forensic evidence of the truth of what I opine about their motivation ,and therfore cannot state it as a fact that they acted dishonourably.
But I can state with absolute certainty and a barra-load of evidence that RFC (IL) is in Liquidation and by that very fact, is not and cannot be a professional football club operating in the SPFL.
And I can state with the same certainty that SevcoScotland had to apply as a new club for membership of a league, and that having been, reluctantly enough ,granted, was able to become for the first time a member of the SFA.
There are still people today, I am told, who opine that the earth is flat.
Subject always to the (self-evident) axiom that ‘error’ has no rights, they may be allowed to embarrass themselves by expressing that opinion:
In pretty much the same way as those who claim that CG’s misbegotten creation could possibly be the old Rangers they were supporters of and whose demise [ occasioned by SDM’s hubristical deception of us all, although the actual throat-cutting was done by Jackson’s (what a fool of a man) MBMB with wealth off-the-radar]
I have no doubt whatsoever that the full dirty truth of all that surrounds the ‘saga’ will emerge.
The guilty men may all be as physically dead by that time as they are presently morally dead, in my opinion.
The shame will be on their posterity.
INCREDIBLEADAMSPARKFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 12:16
Maybe we should employ a three strikes and you out rule?
Unincorporated club dies when incorporated (1), incorporated club dies when liquidated (2) any further liquidations of the remaining basket of assets = deid forever (3)
Corrupt officialFebruary 23, 2017 at 11:55
Two scenarios could have unfolded when the CVA offer was proposed. Success or failure. In the case of a successful CVA Chuckles needed to purchase wee Craigy’s shares. In the event as it transpired, and the refusal of the CVA offer, liquidation of the club followed. For this Chuckles DID NOT need to purchase wee Craigy’s shares. On P29 appendix 3, of Eastwood’s link it says.
http://www.englandathletics.org/library-media/documents/ea-club-structure-guide-v3c.pdf
“1.8 Separate legal identity – A company limited by shares will have a separate legal identity so, ifit becomes insolvent, then the members (i.e. the shareholders) will not be liable for thecompany’s debts other than to the extent that they have not fully paid the company for theshares that they hold.” So would I be correct in saying wee Craigy, by dint of being the major shareholder (ergo member) was “The Club” . Therefore in the event of scenario 1, a successful CVA, his shares would have been required and Chuckles in effect would have bought “The Club”As it turned out, the CVA was unsuccessful, and “The Club” entered liquidation, and buying “The Club” a futile exercise. Buying wee Craigy’s shares, was in fact buying “The Club”, which included “The Club’s” liabilities, (to be settled by an accepted CVA. However, the CVA was unsuccessful, “The Club” extinguished, and a liquidation asset sale follows to recompense the creditors for their losses. Is that too simplistic?
_______________________
From memory, and EJ will be able to keep us right on this, I’m sure, Hearts’ CVA wasn’t completed until after the shares held by UBIG were transferred to Bidco (the vehicle Ann Budge used to gain control of Hearts), who then had to make an offer for all remaining shares, so this should back up your assertion.
I am sure, again from memory, that Green made some play of having to have Whyte’s shares transferred to him, even after the CVA failed, which always seemed ludicrous, but, of course, went unchallenged by the media, and was probably too small a point to cause much questioning elsewhere. I am sure it was all part of the smokescreen to give the impression of ‘buying’ the club from Whyte/Duff and Phelps, but as we know, the shares were in a business that is now in liquidation, and the business, with the shares of the business (if a company in liquidation still has shares), are under the control of BDO! If Green had bought the shares of Rangers FC Ltd, he would now be the one chasing the money owed to the old club, and trying to find a way to settle the overwhelming debts.
I may be wrong that Green made out that he had to buy the shares held by Whyte, but something does stick in my mind that that was the story he was pushing for a week or so after the CVA attempt failed.
He was a bit of a wag, wasn’t he
WOTTPI, not a bad idea. It would certainly simplify things.
In terms of same club/new club, there is no debate over what is technically factual and what is opinion. Rangers ‘the club’ were incorporated into Rangers ‘The company’ in 1899 – this means that Rangers Club and Company were one and the same thing. it DOESN’T mean that The Rangers ‘company’ owned The Rangers ‘club’. The clue is in the word ‘incorporated’.
This also means that in order to buy the club, you had to buy the company, again, because they were one and same thing. When Murray bought Rangers in 1986, he didn’t buy the Club from Rangers ‘The Company’, he actually bought the company itself…. because they were one and the same thing.
Now, when Rangers hit the skids back in 2012, there was no un-incorporation of the club and company, and the club ‘sold’ to another company (i.e. Sevco) because, again, CLUB AND COMPANY WERE THE SAME THING!!!!! In order to buy the club, you had to buy the company. This is fact. There is no opinion around this – unless, of course, you regard Scottish Law as merely being an opinion on something. This means the entity currently going through the final stages of liquidation are Rangers ‘The Club’ and Rangers ‘the company’ because, you guessed it, they’re one and the same thing.
The above is why you get the likes of Spiers saying ‘Um, well, um….technically they’re a new club,…..’ because technically, they are a new club!!!! Correct Graham.
It also explains why you get the SFA saying that Scottish Law shouldn’t apply in a sporting context when questioned about it in court.
Now, having said that, I appreciate that a football club would be pretty soulless if the only thing you could hang off it was numbers on a spreadsheet or company numbers at Companies House, so I get that people will regard this new club as sort of the same thing – in the same way that I regard, say, The Tears as sort of the same thing as Suede, or Morrissey as sort of the same thing as The Smiths (just for you, Nawlite – I remember how ruffled you were when I suggested it a few years back!)
I personally have no truck with Rangers fans regarding the old club and new club as the same thing, the problem is when they want this personal opinion of theirs treated as fact. If they are a new club, then the start in division 3, the non-seeding in the following seasons Scottish cup, the lack of European football the following season, the ‘walking away’ of certain players etc. makes sense. In fact, you could argue that they were treated fairly generously,given that the 3 seasons worth of account requirement for membership was waived for them.
However, if they were the same club, then they’ve been treated abysmally and inexplicably – relegated 3 divisions when there’s nothing in the rules allowing that, non-seeding for the Scottish cup, SFA allowing players to walk away for nothing, UEFA not allowing them to take part in Europe when they’d earned it, the UEFA co-efficient that would have been awarded to them if they’d won the Scottish cup last season being that of a brand new club etc. etc. No wonder they’ve got that seething sense of victimhood if they’re constantly told that they’re the same club!
That’s what the SPFL encouraged when they allowed them to claim that they were the same club, period. I’m sure they thought they were doing the right thing in a business sense, but all they allowed was a sense of ill-founded grievance to grow and Scottish football being blighted by it.
That is not a flaw in my argument at all. It is precisely the “argument” im making.
Each statement is a half truth that only serves to further confuse the issue.
JOHN C Genuine question if Rangers in current form “was able to become for the first time a member of the SFA.” why was the existing membership transferred in continuity and why wasnt a new membership issued ?
You’ve basically said in a few sentences what my overblown post took several wordy paragraphs to get to!
AllyjamboFebruary 23, 2017 at 12:46
‘…He was a bit of a wag, wasn’t he.’
_________
Well, if there have to ‘villains of the piece’ we may as well have entertaining ones, and your man Charles was a veritable ray of sunshine compared to the very,very dour lots of chancers who followed him as directors of the new club!
I don’t know which poster on this blog first used the wonderfully evocative epithet ‘snake-oil salesman’ as a description of CG, but he captured (in my OPINION!) the essence of the man.
How wonderfully gifted he was as a ‘salesman’.
I do believe he was talented enough, had he so chosen, to take the whole of Scotttish Football for a ride, and outsmart even the kind of MBMB in awe of whose wealth a certain fatuous clown of a pretendy journalist wet his knickers .
What’s that you say?
Did he really, really, really?
Well, as a character in Philip McCutchan’s novels featuring Lt Halfhyde might have said, ” Well, balls and bang me arse!”
( Very entertaining stories they are, I may say)
The consensus of opinion on SFM – I think – is that The Rangers are a new club. But here’s the thing. Dozens of other social media sites are like minded including clubs from all over Scotland. Isn’t that strange? Now on the assumption that there isn’t an unseen central ‘mind’ directing the thought processes of thousands of bloggers, this is a bit of a coincidence.
Reminds me of the ‘coming together’ threat to boycott season ticket sales when the attempt was on course to shoehorn the new club into the top tier.
Only one club’s fans believe they are the same club. And that’s because of the fear of losing the bragging rights to 54 titles.
Finloch: “Rangers are in a box just waiting the for the lid to be closed when liquidation is complete.”
Aha! The old “Reverse Schroedinger Cat Conundrum” – either dead or alive until the box shuts. Love it. I am using that next time I speak to an intelligent death-denier.
Re the old club (not the new club in any way, shape or form).
As you will be aware the Supreme Court case is due to be heard on 15th and 16th March. That’s then it chaps, it goes no higher, the Supreme Court (in both name and reality) will have ruled. The decision they make is it, no matter what anyone else’s opinion is. Its the law.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0073.html
The points they will be considering are
1. Whether the Court of Session erred in law in reversing the specialist Tribunals below and concluding that payments of “emoluments” or “earnings”, for the purposes of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, had been made by the appellant to its employees.
2. Whether, in order for a payment to constitute earnings for PAYE and NIC purposes, it is sufficient that the payment was “derived from” work done by a particular employee and/or it “it formed part of the employee’s employment package”.
3. Whether the powers which each employee held as protector of a subtrust had the effect that the funds in that subtrust were unreservedly at the disposal of the employee and were earnings for PAYE and NIC purposes.
Not long now … for this particular part.
Oh and, for the record, Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hodge are all Judges, acting as Judges in an actual Court.
Probably a good idea to remind ourselves what they are actually considering, without any spin or obfuscation from the press.
http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2015/%5B2015%5DCSIH77.html
AMFEARLIATHMÒRFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 13:16
You make a good summation. This issue cannot be understood without drawing a clear line between sentiment, and the law.
If an unincorporated club like Stranraer FC was to incorporate, under the law of the land we would not be left with the “same club”, as the original constituted entity would dissolve once its business had been transferred over. What would remain would be a new company, with no history pre-dating the point of its own formation.
This is not hearsay, this is fact, as described in my post above. Another source describing the same process, Rugby this time…
http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document/Governance/LegalandAdmin/01/30/79/04/Incorporating_as_a_CLG_Neutral.pdf
“4. New Constitution4.1 The first step is to analyse your existing constitution to see if you have the ability to dissolve your club (and transfer your assets to a company or other body established for similar purposes to your club). If you do not have this power, your rules will require amendment. This amendment can be effected at the same time as proposing the resolution to transfer the assets and undertaking.4.2 The next step is to identify how the new company should be structured, who the directors should be and which of your rules you would like to retain in the new body. “
Not before I fall under attack from any disgruntled Stranraer fans, let me grant you one thing. Sentimentally, any casual observer would recognise continuity in some metaphysical plane or another. No one would begrudge them that, providing they’d not shafted the Taxpayer for countless millions, cheated the game for decades, like another entity currently lying in liquidation. But this would NOT in any legal sense be continuity of the original, unincorporated club. That club would die.
Mark CFebruary 23, 2017 at 13:18
‘JOHN C Genuine question if Rangers in current form “was able to become for the first time a member of the SFA.” why was the existing membership transferred in continuity and why wasnt a new membership issued ?’
__________
Read the SFA’s Articles, Mark C.
If a new club becomes a member of , say the old SFL, division three, it is by that very fact eligible for membership of the SFA.
The talk of ‘transfer’ of the ‘Ranger’s ‘share’ is just a piece of deceitful nonsense.
The new club in the SFL did not get ‘Rangers’ share’ in the SFA.
They got the share in the SFL that the old Rangers forfeited by suffering the big insolvency event of being put into Liquidation.
It was in virtue of being accepted into the SFL that the new club was automatically admitted to the SFA membership.
The lie that somehow the particular ‘Rangers’ share’ was ‘transferred’ is just that- a bare-faced lie constructed so as to give the impression of ‘continuity Rangers’.
That is the very essence of the ‘Big Lie’.
That’s where the 6th Floor people tried to work the con.
Now, please go away and do some reading, and thinking.
AMFEARLIATHMÒRFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 13:16
I am sure I and other have made this point previously and as you rightly remind us it is still relevant today.
Why, when every penny is a prisoner, is King not suing the pants of the football authorities for such despicable treatment. I am sure the issue of damages could far outweigh anything that is to be gained going to court with Ashley.
The fact is that it was a 5 Way Agreements and not a 4 Way Agreement. Therefore the footballing authorities (SPL SFL & SFA) admit to dealing with two separate entities in 2012 in terms of footballing matters, shares in leagues and memberships of associations etc.
And even today if we are to be led by the SFA Chief executive in the belief that the fans will decide whether or not it is a new club then the chants of ‘Your not Rangers any more’ or ‘Glasgow Rangers you let your club die’ should be enough in this populist Brexit /Trump era to show that the will of the majority of the football supporting people in one that says it is a new club.
T’Rangers fans can hold on to whatever they want to believe re the continuation myth. It is wholly understandable but everything else points to them being a different entity from the one currently in liquidation.
Homunculus February 23, 2017 at 13:50 As you will be aware the Supreme Court case is due to be heard on 15th and 16th March. That’s then it chaps, it goes no higher
Not if you read today’s Daily Record:
“And whatever the Supreme Court decides, it’s possible there could be a further appeal to the European Court of Justice.”
On a serious note, expect to see more of this type of patronising guff in the rags as the SC date draws near. Level 5 will be drafting all sorts of puff pieces for its client to soften the blow to the Ibrox fans, should the EBT ruling go in favour of HMR&C. You and I both know that the SC verdict is final, but suggesting to the poor fans that this EBT can could be kicked further down the road, thus giving them some degree of optimism, is nothing less than cruel.
HomunculusFebruary 23, 2017 at 13:52
‘..Probably a good idea to remind ourselves what they are actually considering, without any spin or obfuscation from the press.’
________
A very good idea, indeed.
But it may also be a good idea to keep in mind that the’Law’ can sometimes be an ass. It is possible that the supreme Court might not uphold the Court of Session’s judgment.
So it is necessary to remind ourselves that whether SDM cheated us as taxpayers is ,in the purely narrow context of football as a sport, really neither here nor there: he seriously infringed the rules of the SFA and cheated us all as football supporters.
And his malign influence was powerful enough to ensure that his cheating was not ‘detected ‘ by those who had personally benefited from and therefore must have known about his cheating, and whose bounden duty as officers of the SFA was to blow the whistle.
Which they did not do.
(Of course, if the Supreme Court supports the Court of Session judgment, we can nail the LNS ridiculous ‘no sporting advantage’ nonsense,which will certainly require the stripping of various illicitly won titles and what-not)
HOMUNCULUS
FEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 13:50
Re the old club (not the new club in any way, shape or form).
As you will be aware the Supreme Court case is due to be heard on 15th and 16th March…
==========================================
Does that mean that there could be a result delivered for Paddy’s Day ?!
INCREDIBLEADAMSPARKFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 07:31
Was there a (single) spelling mistake, or a wee dig at a previous poster ?
PADDY, just looked back on that post and there was a typo. Eco instead of echo but confused re a dig at a previous poster. What do you mean?
Firstly, my humble apologies for daring to have a different opinion to you on the membership. My opinion is born from actually doing some reading so in relation to your “opinion” on the matter can you explain why the SFA said:
“Sevco Scotland Ltd bought Rangers Football Club PLC’s share in the SPL and membership of the Scottish FA as part of their acquisition of assets. Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements.”
They then went on to say:
“We are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club. “
How can that be any clearer. Its in black and white. The SFA membership was transferred and is not a “bare-faced lie” as you have described.
Mark C at 13.18
Sorry I don’t follow (again – you’ll find that’s a recurring theme with me on here!). Why is the secured finance arguement flawed? And I don’t see how arguing the point assists your old club confusion arguement either.
And just to to continue the theme…if the BMW in question was Colin Macrae’s and he had won the world championship with it, and you’ve bought the motor (having checked the HP is cleared) does that make you world champion?
MARK CFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 13:18
JOHN C Genuine question if Rangers in current form “was able to become for the first time a member of the SFA.” why was the existing membership transferred in continuity and why wasnt a new membership issued ?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Mark C
Genuine question. If the new club is the same club, why the need to transfer the membership?
I own my house, but it would be madness and a waste of money to transfer the ownership to me!!!!!
Before quoting statements from our rancid governing bodies, remember they are entirely conflicted and when the need arises have no qualms about lying to achieve their desired result. These money grabbing, morally bankrupt individuals will be trumped by the rule of law and they will be shown up for what they are.
Their ethereal club can rot in hell beside them
SMUGAS FEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 16:33
Am I now a world champion?
Earlier I was bandying half truths (which makes me a half liar), speculation and wishful thinking.
Well my day just got better.
my golf club has room/ facilities for 300 full members. Full member Old Jock died. I was fortunate enough to get “his” full membership else I would have had to wait. The club could possibly have taken on another member, maybe one that had been waiting a while. But, whether deserved or otherwise, I got the call. I am a new member. The other cases would have been new members also. In fact the only thing we can agree on is that Old Jock definitely doesn’t want, or more correctly can’t have, the space that he himself created even if I go to the lengths of calling myself Old Jock! Does the golf club have 300 full memberships or 300 full memberships plus one new membership less one old membership?
its fascecious I know but given the lengths the SFA have gone to on this you will excuse me if I treat their announcement with caution. Particularly given the press release you quote from jumps happily between the legal club (sevco when discussing contracts and suchlike) and the Club (Rangers Football Club) for matters (apparently) such as memberships. The particular highlight obviously being the scrutiny they intended to place the sevco (club) financials under.
EASTWOOD,
I noticed that when making your case you used the regulations from athletics and rugby to back it up.
I’d assumed therefore that there was no such rule that covers football, but it appears that the English FA have their own guidelines.
According to them, if a club wishes to incorporate, the previous entity does not dissolve, but merely changes it’s structure and carries on as before.
I’d imagine it would be the same in Scotland!
normanbatesmumfcFebruary 23, 2017 at 16:58 3 Votes
MARK CFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 13:18 JOHN C Genuine question if Rangers in current form “was able to become for the first time a member of the SFA.” why was the existing membership transferred in continuity and why wasnt a new membership issued ? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Mark C Genuine question. If the new club is the same club, why the need to transfer the membership?
=============================
OK, I’ll have a go, and then log off for a day or two, by which time this discussion might have exhausted itself.
As a matter of FACT, the membership of the SFA held by RFC was transferred to Sevco Scotland Ltd, under the terms of the 5 way agreement. The administrators of RFC had already sold that membership to Sevco Scotland as part of a basket of assets, but that membership could only be transferred with the consent of the SFA.
Sevco Scotland had no other means of acquiring membership of the SFA. As a newly incorporated company, they did not, and could not, meet the criteria for entry to the SFA as a new member.
Without the membership transfer, Charles Green was going nowhere. He had a company holding a basket of assets, but there would have been no “Rangers” playing in Scottish Senior Football for the 2012/13 season.
The transfer of membership had to be done at the “discretion” of the SFA Board, since the rules themselves did not allow for such a transfer, except by discretion.
It could be said that the SFA had Charles Green over a barrel. However Green was smart enough to see that in fact it was he who had the SFA over a barrel, since Scottish Football without a “Rangers” was simply inconceivable to the SFA. The SFA were terrified that Green would simply sell the assets and walk away if they didn’t give him what he required to get the show on the road.
And so the 5 way agreement was cobbled together, from which flows the LNS farce, a nice chateau in Normandy, the total trashing of any claim to integrity the SFA ever had, and much else besides, no doubt.
As regards OC/NC, it gets us nowhere, unless you take the view that the Club IS the SFA membership- and I’ve seen that argued.
The fundamental question is this, in my opinion. Who played Brechin?
I never said it made your argument flawed, i was acknowledging that the original point was flawed. To point out the flaws, i made an equally flawed statement, knowing it was flawed to make the precise point that was made yesterday about half truths.
I didnt actually comment on your point but as you have asked then quite simply its not comparable. Buying a car with outstanding HP or houses with outstanding mortgages is completely different from what happens in business be it straight forward sales, distressed sales, sales from administration or sales whilst in liquidation. Its just daft to compare them. It once again enforces the point made that “both sides can be poorly served by the SMSM and social media when half-truths, speculation and wishful thinking dominate to the exclusion of the facts.”
.
I get that. If JC was accusing the SFA of telling a bare faced lie on the membership then fair enough. The way I read it was that he was saying i told a bare faced lie about the membership transfer.
I am happy for him to clear that up but again i would suggest that unless anyone has 100% evidence that the SFA 2 statements are absolute lies then the idea that the membership was new is an opinion. And not a fact as stated.
“Either way both sides can be poorly served by the SMSM and social media when half-truths, speculation and wishful thinking dominate to the exclusion of the facts. “
STEVIEBCFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 15:01
Does that mean that there could be a result delivered for Paddy’s Day ?!
—————————–
Well down ibrox way they do like there dates
14th Feb.
4th July.
31st Oct.
SERGIO BISCUITSFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 17:28
EASTWOOD,I noticed that when making your case you used the regulations from athletics and rugby to back it up.I’d assumed therefore that there was no such rule that covers football, but it appears that the English FA have their own guidelines.According to them, if a club wishes to incorporate, the previous entity does not dissolve, but merely changes it’s structure and carries on as before.I’d imagine it would be the same in Scotland!
__________________
Sergio,
The two sources i used with regards athletics and rugby were not regulations, just legal guidance issued by the authorities to explain the process of incorporation. You’re correct that The FA issue similar guidelines, google “Football Club Structures 2015 – The FA” to find them.
Your unreferenced attempt at paraphrasing aside, there is nothing in those guidelines that will conflict with the points I made above. I’ve already acknowledged that in common speech, layman’s terms “the club became a company… the club adopted a new structure” etc are perfectly fine to describe the incorporation process. But they are, from a legal perspective, simply wrong.
Think about it. Once the new company has been formed and the business, assets, liabilities, football memberships etc have been transferred across, there is no reason not to dissolve the empty shell of the unincorporated body. It doesn’t do anything anymore. The original “club”, in the legal sense, is put to death, leaving the newly-formed company to carry on its business.
Re the membership…and the last word from me on it.
An ibrox club had a membership, then an ibrox club did not.Then an ibrox club had a conditional membership and then an ibrox club had a membership transfered?
So basically there was a break in this membership, ….Why was that?
Sergio Biscuits
February 23, 2017 at 17:28
—————————————————–
In my post last night I included a copy of the Memorandum of Association from 27th May 1899 where the intention was stated that:-
“We the several persons whose names and addresses are subscribed are desirous
of being formed into a Company…..”
Extract as above.
Also
Some other information.
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/analysis-of-yesterdays-sfa-statement-re-rangers-fc/
CLUSTER ONEFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 18:13 1 Vote
STEVIEBCFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 15:01Does that mean that there could be a result delivered for Paddy’s Day ?! —————————–Well down ibrox way they do like there dates14th Feb.4th July.31st Oct.
————
I forgot one 12th july 2012
BILLY BOYCEFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 14:27
Not if you read today’s Daily Record:
—————-
I did notice the front page of the Record this morning.
Why today was my first thought,why not a week before the case in march. Are we going to get coverage over the next 4 weeks. to me it was very strange.
INCREDIBLEADAMSPARKFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 16:09
Sorry to take so long to reply – I was out enjoying the refreshing spring weather .
I was enquiring if your comment was a kind of back-handed compliment to Ecob(h?)oy or Eco as he/she was often referred to . Their posts were always immaculately researched and well presented but were,for some palates, somewhat dry and long . I had presumed that you knew of their existence and thought that your remark was related to their posts . And all from a missing “h” ! Sorry , me bad .
Was to good to hear tonight Graham Spiers reinforcing what I mentioned on here a few weeks ago. The idea that getting to the Europa League would be the answer to all of The Rangers financial problems next season. He said it was nonsense. I said it was a false hope.
Not that it’s my problem, but they have bigger priorities than trying to be something bigger than they are at the moment. I can understand that they might get an emotional lift by being in Europe for the first time, but that’s as far as it goes.