A special place for the posts of Ernest and those wishing to engage.
435 thoughts on “The Ernie B Thread”
It is an urban myth that no tax was paid during Whyte’s tenure, or that HMRC sat idly by on the sidelines throughout.
Glad to hear it,although enabling non payment of September through to February( 6 months) hardly addresses my complaint.
Ernest Becker November 24, 2017 at 18:23 It is an urban myth that no tax was paid during Whyte’s tenure, or that HMRC sat idly by on the sidelines throughout.
Glad to hear it,although enabling non payment of September through to February( 6 months) hardly addresses my complaint.
========================
There you go again
19th September 2011 to 14th February 2012 is less than five months.
19th September 2011 to 14th February 2012 is less than five months.
PAYE is due on the 19th of every month for the preceding month, CW did not pay PAYE owed for August,September,October,November,January and half of February if you really want an anorak for Christmas.
HMRC are normally on your case if you miss one payment, maybe two if you are lucky,missing 4 payments with another days away is negligence to the tune of extra millions.
AULDHEID,
Given that the deal for the SPL fell through and SFL 3 was the last port in the storm you can see why that commercial reasons Green insisted on a transfer of SFA Membership as opposed to following the normal Registered/Associate/ Full Membership route applicable to all new clubs under the rules.
I was under the impression the SPL and SFL votes were taken after SFA membership transfer was agreed, and it was on this premise votes were cast.
Membership transfer was being discussed as early as February so CG wouldn’t have to push too hard.
Discretion to transfer membership with conditions could be called a conditional membership,lawyers would have a field day on that one.
Ernest Becker
Oh HMRC did not sit back. They pursued payment of wee tax bill from CW’S Takeover from 6th May but lost patience when Lee Wallace was signed at end of July 2011 and sent in the Sherriff Officer within a fortnight.
On the supposed appeal of the wee tax case after SOs called and HMRC patience ending in Dec 2011 they started administration proceedings 6 weeks later.
If anything they were too lax in 2011, so much so one would think there was political interference and it took non payment of PAYE/VAT along with their patience re RFC delaying paying the wee tax case in December 2011 to say enough is enough.
I see Oscar Pistorious had his sentence increased for lack of remorse,maybe if SDM had shown some remorse Scottish football would have accepted the sentence imposed by the governing body of Scottish football in the best interests of Scottish football.
However tax avoidance became cheating just as manslaughter became murder,juries are just as fickle as fans.
Very coincidental the number of SPL clubs who voted NO to RFC have suffered either insolvency or relegation,or had to rely on debt write offs or fan bail outs. Celtic of course got what they wanted, a Golden Era.
On the other hand the lower divisions have blossomed and there is little difference now between Championship clubs and most of the Premier clubs.
At least some good came out of an obvious injustice,maybe i will write a sequel to ” To Kill a Mocking Bird “.
I must thank all the Rangers haters for their bitterness, what do you think has kept the Rangers fans from drifting away during the last 5 shambolic years,certainly hasn’t been hubris or heaven forbid good football.
Three cheers for the Rangers fans is the order of the day, and i am thoroughly enjoying my night off.
AULDHEID,
That is precisely my point, how could HMRC allow RFC to miss more than one payment of PAYE or VAT given their brief but atrocious compliance record under CW.
If CW missed the 19th of September and October the Sheriff Officers should have been sent in the very next day saving millions of taxpayers money, unbelievable lenience given the circumstances.
No, no such membership category existed, exists or will ever exist.
Discretion is a wonderful thing.
Ernie B really is helping bring this stuff back up again. Sometimes one falls victim to the propaganda and forgets the basics.
My pleasure but please don’t forget, i am the propaganda.
ERNEST BECKER
NOVEMBER 24, 2017 at 20:59 My pleasure but please don’t forget, i am the propaganda.
=====================================
Forgive me, but if you are you really aren’t very good at it.
Auldheid November 24, 2017 at 20:00
Ernest Becker
Oh HMRC did not sit back. They pursued payment of wee tax bill from CW’S Takeover from 6th May but lost patience when Lee Wallace was signed at end of July 2011 and sent in the Sherriff Officer within a fortnight.
On the supposed appeal of the wee tax case after SOs called and HMRC patience ending in Dec 2011 they started administration proceedings 6 weeks later.
If anything they were too lax in 2011, so much so one would think there was political interference and it took non payment of PAYE/VAT along with their patience re RFC delaying paying the wee tax case in December 2011 to say enough is enough.
===========================
From the first D&P Creditors Report.
9.26 In September 2011 HMRC arrested approximately £2.9m held in the Company‟s accounts with BOS in respect of tax arrears. On 24 November 2011, the Company agreed to release the arrested funds to HMRC, which were used to settle certain outstanding VAT arrears on instruction of the Company.
ERNEST BECKERNOVEMBER 24, 2017 at 10:27
Interesting season ticket pitch being proposed,please read this with a Yorkshire accent.Roll up roll up, Rangers is dead,Ally,the first team and Murray Park are all gone not to mention all your history and titles but don’t worry you can pretend it is your old club because….
———–
The truth being
Roll up roll up, Rangers is dead,Oop’s sorry, i bought the history and it’s not dead now.Ally,the first team and Murray Park are all gone. But hold on a minute if i can get Ally to TUPE over and some players also keep Murray park going even though we really can’ afford it and Ally say’s it’s still the same club with all your history and titles will you buy a season ticket? Yes you will! smashing.
Charles Green thinks to himself….
ok i need to get a share issue going here as i need money fast to keep this show on the road.Who cares what happens when the money runs out i will be long gone, when the fans and the media’s expectations don’t materialise
what did they really expect after Liquidation. Greatness? europe? the good auld day’s?
9.26 In September 2011 HMRC arrested approximately £2.9m held in the Company‟s accounts with BOS in respect of tax arrears. On 24 November 2011, the Company agreed to release the arrested funds to HMRC, which were used to settle certain outstanding VAT arrears on instruction of the Company.
I hate being right all of the time, and yet they allowed CW to trade until Mid February with no further compliance…shocking.
ERNEST BECKER
NOVEMBER 24, 2017 at 21:29
I hate being right all of the time
Well that’s fortuitous.
Remind me again just why a packed Ibrox crowd held aloft red cards and banners declaring ‘NO TO LIQUIDATION’ back in 2012, if liquidation only meant the death of a meaningless company rather than a football club?
You seem extremely reluctant to answer this seemingly simple question – this is my 3rd attempt to elicit a response.
Easy Jambo
Ernest Becker 21.08.
The money in question was that seized as result of non payment of wee tax liability.
It was a matter of chagrin to CW and Olverman that HMRC allocated it against the unpaid PAYE and VAT.
It should be a matter of interest to the SFA Compliance Officer that CW claimed at end of September that £500k of it was paid to HMRC towards the wtc liability.
There was a supposed appeal on the wtc liability ( I say supposed because it was only the interest that was being appealed ) so whilst that appeal charade was going on HMRC did RFC a favour using it to offset the PAYE.
Taxpayers have some reason to be annoyed at HMRC’ s strategy for collecting but certainly not supporters of Rangers at the time.
Ernest Becker November 24, 2017 at 21:29
I hate being right all of the time,
================================
“CW managed to get away with not paying anything toward VAT and PAYE for 9 months”
Would you like to point out exactly what bit of the above statement is “right”
On second thoughts, just don’t bother, just don’t.
You seem extremely reluctant to answer this seemingly simple question – this is my 3rd attempt to elicit a response.
Apologies, it is not evasion or reluctance but if i answered every single question on every post i would be living on beans and toast.
I assume because membership transfer hadn’t been done before and in the past liquidation meant a new club with a new history,understandable fear.
Anyway after tonight’s omnishambles i am attending the AGM as a guest of Imran Ahmad’s mum,i do not forget how instrumental she was in saving my club.
Would you like to point out exactly what bit of the above statement is “right”
If you wish to continue with pedantics i will be your huckleberry.
CW never paid anything,the company paid therefore my statement is empirically factual and your anorak is in the post.
The company had over 2 million HRMC arrears by September forcing HMRC to seize a bank account but then allowed RFC months and months of further non compliance.
Disgusting leniency.
I often wondered why CG that BIG handed Yorkshire man was willing to pay £8.5m to get a CVA when it would only cost him £5.5m after liquidation
Simple business decision,it guaranteed RFC a place in the SPL,liquidation put him at the mercy of Rangers haters with vested interests.
FINLOCH
Please ignore and the lack of oxygen will make his paymasters question the efficacy of their strategy.
I have matured and mellowed somewhat over the years, carry on.
Ernest Becker
I’ve explained what HMRC did.
The money seized was iro the wtc liability.
That was August.
CW stopped paying PAYE/Vat in Sept.
The wtc money was assigned to the PAYE arguably covering Sept maybe Oct.
It was December when HMRC got fed up with obvious delaying tactics and non PAYE/VAT payment and began administration proceedings.
It’s all on Celtic Underground blog. The Wee Tax Case Appeal.
One question you did not answer was:
If for reasons argued and to comply with UEFA regulations it was recognised that under football rules TRFC’s SFA Membership began in 2012 and with it any trophy count, but under same reasoning no sanctions including removal of titles could be applied to RFC, which is what Traverso said in effect , would you accept that as a reasonable price to pay to restore lost integrity?
(Or are bragging rights paramount?)
If for reasons argued and to comply with UEFA regulations it was recognised that under football rules TRFC’s SFA Membership began in 2012 and with it any trophy count, but under same reasoning no sanctions including removal of titles could be applied to RFC, which is what Traverso said in effect , would you accept that as a reasonable price to pay to restore lost integrity?
AULDHEID,
We will have to disagree about any loss to sporting integrity.
Purely from a sporting integrity point of view there is no difference between a club shedding debt via a CVA and a liquidated club shedding debt,how a creditor loses money has nothing to do with sporting integrity and the unfair sporting advantage does not vanish just because creditors agree to losing money,it is called a non sequitur.
Another non sequitur in terms of sporting integrity is where in the accounts ledger overspending took place s long as no criminal fraud took place.
It matters not a jot if the overspending debt was directly on players because all overspending debt indirectly enables un-affordable players. So the make up of the creditor has nothing to do with sporting integrity.
What is important to sporting integrity is INSOLVENCY and the act of spending beyond ones means and in doing so gaining a sporting advantage,it is actually CHEATING.
The rules should punish all cheats equally to protect sporting integrity, so my position is simple, from a sporting integrity point of view RFC should have been punished no different to Hearts or Dunfermline because they all overspent.
It is illogical to suggest the 20 million or so owed to a bank by Hearts was not spent on un-affordable players going back years,and yet because it was written off Hearts suddenly could afford the players and are applauded for their sporting integrity lol !!
As they the old saying goes,you couldn’t make this shit up.
So to answer your question,UEFA’s interrupted membership obviously allows the new club/company to inherit the history of the old club/company and that is good enough fudge for me,nothing to with sporting integrity tbh.
This from a bloke who has spent nearly a fortnight on here telling us that the appliance of discretion was the determining factor in Rangers* continuity.
Nope,please revisit my first post and you will see the determining factor was Article 14 enabling membership and within this rule lies the discretion.
Basically once they agreed to the transfer the job was done as far as RFC was concerned,RFC is not dead because the SFA screwed up the process.
HIRSUTEPURSUITNOVEMBER 24, 2017 at 23:07 2 0 Rate This
This was the nub of the ‘conditional membership’
10.7 Each club in full membership or associate membership shall in its Official Return register its ground and playing field dimensions and no such club shall remove to another ground without first obtaining the consent of the Board. Any club in full membership or associate membership wishing to make any alteration to its name, its registered ground or its playing field dimensions must first obtain the prior written consent of the Board. No club in registered membership shall adopt in whole or in part the name of a club in full membership or associate membership without the prior written consent of the Board.
—————
AULDHEIDNOVEMBER 25, 2017 at 01:02
The SFA might have argued that a Registered Membership of the SFA was sufficient to allow the Brechin game to go ahead on 29th July, but that would have clearly made Sevco a team/club holding an SFA Membership at the same time as Rangers and using Rangers name or one damn like it.
———–
Tuesday 31 July 2012
Rangers shareholders will change name of newco from Sevco Scotland Limited to The Rangers Football Club Limited.
• Rangers chief executive Charles Green says name change is “penultimate piece of the jigsaw”
An extraordinary general meeting of ‘oldco’ shareholders took place at Ibrox today, where procedures were approved to enable the name change.
Charles Green’s Sevco consortium completed the purchase of the business and assets of Rangers in June after the club was consigned to liquidation following failure to secure a Company Voluntary Arrangement in order to exit administration.
They were granted conditional Scottish Football Association membership on Friday night, which will be completed when the formal transfer of ‘oldco’ Rangers’ Scottish Premier League share to Dundee takes place later this week. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-newco-rangers-shareholders-vote-to-change-sevco-name-1-2441980
—————
This bit i love Roll up Roll up.
Green told http://www.rangers.co.uk: “The process that took place today is the penultimate piece of the jigsaw that will see The Rangers Football Club move forward, with the transfer of SFA membership being the final piece.
“As every fan knows, Rangers is Rangers – it always has been and it always will be.
“The club still has its 140 years of history and we are now embarking on the next 140 years.
“We are back playing football and the board is focused on rebuilding this great club over the next few years.
“Our fans were fantastic on Sunday at Brechin and their support at Ibrox and away from home this season will be instrumental in helping the team achieve the success we all desire.”
————-
And if ERNEST BECKER was at this extraordinary general meeting of ‘oldco’ shareholders where procedures were approved to enable the name change. he win’s the internet for today
ERNEST BECKERNOVEMBER 25, 2017,
“RFC is not dead because the SFA screwed up the process”
Mr Steerp… ehhh ah mean Walke….jeezo ma memory’s away, .. ah mean Mr Becker,
The rfc 1872, (inc.1899) to whom you refer are extremely dead, they lie in a filing cabinet, somewhere in the BDO offices awaiting final disposal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20141946
AULDHEID,
I am quite content to agree to disagree on the issue of sporting integrity,by your moral compass Hearts could afford their players and despite ordinary creditors getting nothing they did not shed debt and gain a long term unfair sporting advantage. All good stuff.
My problem with Andrea(funny name for a guy) is he has never repeated the term ” new club/company ” as a public statement of UEFA’s position and this i find odd given UEFA’s public position is one of same club continuous history(confirmed by FIFA)
I have always felt ” interruption of membership ” to be a strange term to describe ” termination of club”, the only thing that explains the above is the membership is suspended rather than cancelled.
In effect it was a 3 year ban.
yesterday SFA were following process and using their discretion. Today they screwed up the process. I’d say he’s doing a splendid job. Just splendid.
Yesterday SFA were applying Article 14,using their discretion and screwing up the process.
Inventing my position and attacking it is called a straw man argument.
So are we now to assume “the process” is what we mere mortals call “the rules” and you are actually arguing that they used their discretion to circumvent the rules?
My position has always been clear.
Once the SFA agreed to the transfer at their discretion and RFC agreed to the conditions it was up to the SFA to make sure the process did not circumvent any rules.Therefore procedural errors are not evidence against the legitimacy of the transfer agreement in of itself,they are evidence the SFA screwed up the process.
If you want to make a case the rule based transfer was impossible without circumventing other rules then again this is a SFA problem for having a rule that was impossible to implement without discretion.
Can you imagine the justified outcry if the SFA announced the agreement was null and void not because RFC failed to meet conditions or Article 14 but because the SFA failed to do their job right or had conflicting rules??
Ernest BeckerNovember 25, 2017 at 13:01 (Edit) Rate This
AULDHEID,
I am quite content to agree to disagree on the issue of sporting integrity,by your moral compass Hearts could afford their players and despite ordinary creditors getting nothing they did not shed debt and gain a long term unfair sporting advantage. All good stuff. Now now Ernest in explaining the difference with Hearts I’m not saying I agree with how they kept going, so don’t confuse my moral compass with that of the world. My moral compass on debt has kept me well clear of any that I have not been able to honour in full. In UEFA terms if an agreement is reached by all parties to settle a debt which leaves the club involved intact, UEFA are not going to become moral judges. They need rules that can apply across the European football spectrum with CAS as court of appeal if a club feels hard done by and UEFA rules state that for a club to be eligible to apply for a UEFA licence they must have three consecutive years as a member of their national association and TRFC did not fulfil that requirement until 2015 The SFA recognised that rules as did Sevco when applying for the Transfer of SFA Membership and Sevco never appealed the ruling to CAS, possibly because if successful they would have had a mountain of debt to repay or that CAS would simply confirm the UEFA position in terms of protecting the integrity of their competition was correct. From the 5 Way; ” Sevco irrevocably undertakes to and agrees with the SFA that on (in respect of all monetary obligations) and from (in respect of all other obligations) Completion it shall: acknowledge that under UEFA Regulations, Sevco/Rangers FC is currently ineligible to participate in UEFA Competitions”
====== It did not articulate why.
My problem with Andrea(funny name for a guy) is he has never repeated the term ” new club/company ” as a public statement of UEFA’s position and this i find odd given UEFA’s public position is one of same club continuous history(confirmed by FIFA) Apart from it never being confirmed by FIFA I find it even funnier that the SFA, having received a copy of the Traverso letter, never queried his interpretation publicly nor corrected the STV Article that published contents of it but omitting the new club/company reference in SFA’s copy (see main blog). The STV story is that independently with no knowledge of what Traverso had written and no urging, approached the UEFA Media Department who provided them with a different statement.Now why would STV go to UEFA if the SFA had a copy and why having received a reply from UEFA was it’s contents not confirmed with SFA by STV before publishing or corrected by the SFA after STV published it? If we are into funny stuff the questions should begin at home not UEFA. What Traverso was saying in his letter was that UEFA were not willing to investigate further because they could not sanction Rangers FC because Rangers FC were no longer the same club as the current or future applicant for a UEFA license. If Traverso is wrong then his new club/company reason for not sanctioning Rangers does not stand and if breaches of the licensing rules by RFC did occur in 2011 then TRFC can face sanctions.
I have always felt ” interruption of membership ” to be a strange term to describe ” termination of club”, the only thing that explains the above is the membership is suspended rather than cancelled. In effect it was a 3 year ban. Not if the interruption of membership was caused by the termination of the club that had applied for and been granted a UEFA Licence in all the years prior to 2012 or was that MIH or some other “holding company” and not Rangers FC who had applied pre 2012? It is simple to UEFA: Is the club from Ibrox now applying for a UEFA Licence the same club that applied and was granted a licence in years previous to 2012? Do their accounts in support of a current licence application continue from 2011 or begin afresh from 2012? If continuous what happened to the tax due? If not then who is the applicant providing those accounts? Is the company number of the club applying the same or different from that pre 2012? Which company do those pre 2012 accounts and post 2012 relate to? etc etc That is why to UEFA the applicant for a UEFA Licence from Ibrox who can only be a club/company post 2012 as defined in Art 12 a) and b) is a new club/company and not the same, which is just as well as the application would be rejected for unpaid tax and continue to be until it was paid in full.
The STV story is that independently with no knowledge of what Traverso had written and no urging, approached the UEFA Media Department who provided them with a different statement.
AULDHEID
The statement read: “As a consequence of decisions taken against Rangers FC in 2012 as well as the administration of the club and the events and measures that followed (including the club being ineligible to apply for a licence to participate in UEFA competitions for three seasons), there is no need for UEFA to investigate this matter any further since the club was not granted a licence to participate in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions, the club entered the fourth tier of Scottish football and it was not able to play in UEFA competitions for the next three years in any event.”
The only difference seems to be new club/company becomes ” club”.
I’ve been involved with SFM since it’s inception and cannot remember much, if anything, being made of the legitimacy of the transfer,
Then i do not understand why so many posters objected to my very first statement quoting numerous procedural reasons.
Ernest BeckerNovember 25, 2017 at 16:36
I’ve been involved with SFM since it’s inception and cannot remember much, if anything, being made of the legitimacy of the transfer,
Then i do not understand why so many posters objected to my very first statement quoting numerous procedural reasons.
_______________
I think the objections were mostly regarding the lack of any point to the post, and, basically, total confusion over what it was you were trying to say.
For me, and I think most others, the legitimacy of the transfer is no big deal, and the only point worth making in the transfer of the membership, regardless of it’s legitimacy, is that nothing is ever transferred from one entity to that same entity.
So, if I, personally, say that I accept the legitimacy of that transfer of membership, can you tell me what it is you think you are claiming it proves? Or are you just here to say that as there was one thing in the whole saga that the SFA got right, we should all accept that everything they did and said was legitimate and honest?
but would they be willing to throw tens of millions into a black hole in order to get Rangers into a position where they can win the league and get a crack at the Champions League?
The simple answer is no,at the moment the commercial gulf between CFC and RFC is probably bigger than the commercial gulf between RFC and Aberdeen.
RFC has only one hope, CFC fail to qualify for both CL and Europa over the next 5 years and have to rely purely on a domestic turnover,this is an unrealistic hope given where CFC is.
Ernest BeckerNovember 25, 2017 at 16:25 (Edit)
The STV story is that independently with no knowledge of what Traverso had written and no urging, approached the UEFA Media Department who provided them with a different statement. AULDHEID
The statement read: “As a consequence of decisions taken against Rangers FC in 2012 as well as the administration of the club and the events and measures that followed (including the club being ineligible to apply for a licence to participate in UEFA competitions for three seasons), there is no need for UEFA to investigate this matter any further since the club was not granted a licence to participate in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions, the club entered the fourth tier of Scottish football and it was not able to play in UEFA competitions for the next three years in any event.”
The only difference seems to be new club/company becomes ” club”.
========================
This is what Traverso said in the para above his name, role and signature which gives it top authority in licensing regulation terms. “To sum up, as a consequence of decisions taken in 2012 as well as the administration of the club and the events/measures that followed (including the new club/company being ineligible to apply for a licence to participate in UEFA competitions for three seasons), there is clearly no need for UEFA to investigate this matter any further since the club was not granted a licence to participate in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions, the new club/company entered the fourth tier of Scottish football and it was not able to play in UEFA competitions for the next three years in any event”
The reason that the club was ” ineligible to apply for a licence to participate in UEFA competitions for three seasons” was that “the club” in question was in fact TRFC/TRIFC (the new club/company) and did not have three years consecutive membership of the SFA as stipulated by Article 12 of UEFA FFP.
That three year membership of the SFA requirement is the ONLY reason that a club cannot get a licence for three years. What it is saying is do not try to use insolvency trickery as a way of circumventing UEFA rules to obtain a UEFA licence.
The “events/measures that followed the administration of the club” (RFC – my insert) – in 2012″ were that RFC was liquidated as a footballing business.
No way were UEFA going to allow a liquidated footballing business to resurrect and recapitalise itself using UEFA money, the pursuit of which largely contributed to their liquidation, and the debt of which deprived other clubs, acting financially prudently, of the money that their prudence deserved, because unpaid debt fuelled the players that won the titles that gave debt dodging rival clubs access to UEFA competition at prudent clubs’ expense.
When Traverso said
“there is clearly no need for UEFA to investigate this matter any further since the club (RFC – my insert) was not granted a licence to participate in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions”
he was referring to the UEFA Licence application of 2012 from RFC that was rejected because of the inability of the club (RFC) to produce audited and ratified accounts for 2011/12 under Article 47 of UEFA FFP.
When Traverso said “the new club/company (TRFC/TRIFC my insert) entered the fourth tier of Scottish football and it was not able to play in UEFA competitions for the next three years in any event”
He meant that apart from being ineligible to apply for a UEFA licence for 3 years under Art 12, TRFC/TRIFC (NOT RFC) were not in a position to obtain a place that would qualify them to apply for a licence since that opportunity was only open to clubs in the SPL by reason of their league position.
Thus if you omit “new” and just say club it fudges what sanctions applied to whom and for what reason. Thus folk thought 3 years accounts were a requirement for example or thought that the Transfer of SFA Membership conveyed a continuity that UEFA FFP challenges.
That is the difference.
Traverso used the term “club/company” after “new” because, being Head of Club Licensing he knew the Club Licensing Articles and how Art 12 1(a) and (b) defined the different constructs an applicant club could take.
Traverso’s letter was dated 8th June 2016 and was copied to the SFA who do not appear to have queried its meaning with UEFA, nor correct what STV published a week later in the interests of the clarity of understanding that honest reporting to the public of what Traverso had written would have provided.
Celtic also were sent a copy and it raised a few eyebrows at the detail UEFA had provided. but at that point the further questions the reply raised in relation to the processing of the UEFA licence in 2011(nothing to do with the issue under discussion here, which was not part of any enquiry to UEFA) were pursued by the shareholders representatives until UEFA refused to answer those questions in October 2016
At that point following the Nov 2016 AGM the matter was handed back to Celtic, who are following the consequent SFA Compliance Officer investigation into the processing of the UEFA licence application made by RFC in 2011 with keen interest.
I know we tend to discount TU/TDs,
Speak for yourself, i keep a spreadsheet
but it is an unusual pattern, and may indicate a concerted visit.
I have a big family.
DarkbeforedawnNovember 25, 2017 at 23:49
I agree totally except for the weird bit where you blamed me??
(and for Ernest’s sake I’ll tell him that, in Italy, what we might think of as a feminine sounding name is the norm for a number of guys’ names –
We may have stumbled across the origins of transgender fluidity !!!
In the beginning was the word.
DBD,
Nothing has changed!
I think Bomber is off the gin tbf.
Ernest BeckerNovember 26, 2017 at 03:31
(and for Ernest’s sake I’ll tell him that, in Italy, what we might think of as a feminine sounding name is the norm for a number of guys’ names –
We may have stumbled across the origins of transgender fluidity !!!In the beginning was the word.
______________________
The tradition of bigotry and homophobia is strong in you, I see. Like so many at Ibrox, you just can’t help yourself.
Is it members of the transgendered community or Italians you feel the need to disrespect, or was it just the mindless need to take a pop at someone (by taking the mickey out of his name), of ultimate authority on the matter in hand, who has pointed out, unequivocally, that your football club died, and that the one you support now is, indeed, a new club?
I had been away & missed the emergence of EB.
I note that his nom de plume references German philosopher Ernest Becker, whose best-known work is the 1974 Pulitzer Prize-winning ‘The Denial Of Death’. Very apt, EB!
::
::
As an aside, I have been told that a certain manager-less SPFL club may attempt to continue to the end of the season with a player-coach (and existing DoF/coaching staff), rather than appoint externally.
This is (of course!) to be spun as ‘continuity/steadying the ship’, rather than an admission of lack of funds & that the league has all-but passed for said club.
SMUGAS
still no mention of creditors then? Or debt? Or facilities paid for by said debt?
==================================== In order to protect sporting integrity i am sure all the shafted creditors of Hearts FC were invited to attend the opening of the new stand.
ERNEST BECKER
NOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 13:25
==========================
Ah the classic tu quoque response.
ALLYJAMBO
I wonder if EB =========
No,i am not a Mason despite influence from Regan and Doncaster.
As an all inclusive kind of guy(much like this site),i accept harmless difference( much like this site) and treat cultural quirks no different to my own culture’s quirks( much like this site).
Therefore my sense of humour finds lots of different things funny regardless of their origins,it is as egalitarian as this site and it was in a spirit of harmless levity my observation was made.
Now my second response was a clever parody aimed at you because i found your over reaction and attempt to portray me as a homophobic xenophobe absolutely hilarious,it had me grinning like a Cheshire cat to be honest.
Your particular quirk of seeking offence and extrapolating to ludicrous extremes must desist forthwith before i have a heart attack from laughing,you have gone from homophobic xenophobe to a SFA inspired racist bigot lol. This is off the charts funny.
Finally there is a famous quote from James Joyce “Ulysses ” which encapsulates Becker’s terror management theory on difference, “History is a nightmare from which i am trying to awake “, i suggest you apply this to our past history and wake up to the fact i love you as my neighbour,despite our past and presentdifferences.
Peace xx
DBD Plenty of people have disagreed with my posts above without really answering the main points I raised. The biggest thing was I have not noticed a difference and nor have any Rangers fans I know.
I think you are missing the point, the main objection is RFC was afforded what some believe to be preferential treatment given to no other liquidated club.
It is impossible to deny this,the question is was it fair.
I believe it was justified.
ERNEST BECKER
NOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 15:07
===============================
What preferential treatment do you believe Rangers received.
They applied to join the SPL and that was denied, an overwhelming no from the member clubs.
They applied to join the SFL and were admitted to it’s lowest division.
You could argue that someone else could have gotten the place in the SFL, but the members democratically voted the new club in.
The new club also didn’t get seeded in the cup and had to start along with the other lower division clubs.
That all seems fair enough to me.
Ernest BeckerNovember 26, 2017 at 14:49
ALLYJAMBOI wonder if EB=========
No,i am not a Mason despite influence from Regan and Doncaster.As an all inclusive kind of guy(much like this site),i accept harmless difference( much like this site) and treat cultural quirks no different to my own culture’s quirks( much like this site).Therefore my sense of humour finds lots of different things funny regardless of their origins,it is as egalitarian as this site and it was in a spirit of harmless levity my observation was made.Now my second response was a clever parody aimed at you because i found your over reaction and attempt to portray me as a homophobic xenophobe absolutely hilarious,it had me grinning like a Cheshire cat to be honest.Your particular quirk of seeking offence and extrapolating to ludicrous extremes must desist forthwith before i have a heart attack from laughing,you have gone from homophobic xenophobe to a SFA inspired racist bigot lol. This is off the charts funny.Finally there is a famous quote from James Joyce “Ulysses ” which encapsulates Becker’s terror management theory on difference, “History is a nightmare from which i am trying to awake “, i suggest you apply this to our past history and wake up to the fact i love you as my neighbour,despite our past and presentdifferences.Peace xx
_________________
As I suspected, no answer to any question asked, and a load of wordy drivel instead. Note the amount of words used to defend himself on a matter totally unrelated to the topic at hand, having lost the opportunity to defend himself in a believable way when he failed to withdraw his smirking attitude towards Andrea Traverso’s name, and instead introduced a level of homophobia. I, personally, was not offended by his remark but took it as evidence of his lack of respect for those of a different culture or leanings to himself, the obvious mark of a bigot.
Oh, and why the Mason denial? I am fully aware that it’s not only Masons who display these traits, and made no reference to them in my previous posts!
Finally, the bit in bold above, can anybody translate it for me?
there was no remorse at they way their club had died, no denial. Better to get rid than face the shame of what their club did,it happend and let’s see what happens next.
I wish the fans who pressurised their clubs to deny RFC entry into the SPL had waited to see what happened next on the issue of EBTs,but no, they presumed guilt instead of innocence and called it sporting integrity. They should all be ashamed of themselves.
I weep for their souls.
ERNEST BECKER
NOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 00:03
==================================
The Rangers tax case has given HMRC an astonishing win at the Supreme Court.
It has basically rendered all disguised remuneration tax avoidance schemes unlawful and will save the country an enormous amount of money. Certainly hundreds of millions of pounds.
It’s almost as if it was a policy all along, and that they wanted to go all the way to the highest Court in the UK.
You don’t feck with the wongs.
Ernest BeckerNovember 27, 2017 at 00:03
‘… who pressurised their clubs to deny RFC entry into the SPL ‘
___________
No, wrong again.
It was Charles Green’s new creation that was denied entry into the SPL.
RFC was gone- into liquidation, membership of the SFA and ‘share’ in the SPL both lost,in consequence of ‘insolvency’ writ large.
It was a brand new club that was denied entry into the SPL.
It would be useful if your observations had any basis in fact.
But you are, I’m afraid, just making a bloody nuisance of yourself.
And I,long-suffering and patient as I am, now call upon the moderators of this blog to declare you to be a troll , with nothing in the way of truth to add to the blog.
And I personally consign you to the appropriate circle in Dante’s ‘Inferno’.
A football club is its fans end of story,it lives or dies in the hearts of its fans.
I don’t watch CFC playing even OF games, they are dead in spirit as far as i am concerned and their fans killed it,real football fans would have done their very best to save their greatest rival and preserve the history of a 134 year old football world renowned rivalry.
I bet Real Madrid and Barcelona fans wouldn’t want El Cllassico consigned to the archives by the Insolvency Act and i bet neither would want the other extinct,they are real football fans who would prefer to win on the field of football, where it matters.
I dislike the use of analogies because analogies don’t win arguments and most of them are fallacious but i will make an exception for the fans who killed CFC.
In the midst of unspeakable slaughter two bitter opponents took a time out to play a game of football,when the Huns were winning the other team checked the legality of this unofficial amnesty and shot them rather than lose.
Horror…..the horror.
Ernest BeckerNovember 27, 2017 at 00:39
‘..real football fans would have done their very best to save their greatest rival and preserve the history of a 134 year old football world renowned rivalry.’
_____________
No, real football fans recognise real truth, and could not stomach the absolutely evil cheating of ‘a greatest rival’.
God Almighty, man, are you so far gone as to think that any honest football club would be at all interested in pretending that a five year old club had any history worth preserving?
Real football fans honour the spirit of sporting integrity.
And I acknowledge your frank admission that Scottish Football clubs and fans did not save the history of a 134 year old football club.
And I,long-suffering and patient as I am, now call upon the moderators of this blog to declare you to be a troll , with nothing in the way of truth to add to the blog.
If you mean i support the opinions of the governing bodies of football then that is the truth,the truth is you have an opinion and i have an opinion and neither are even close to the actual definition of truth.
Rangers are dead is not a self evident axiom nor is it a logical absolute.
A fan who would rather see his opponent removed from the scene rather than compete,i sense a pattern here.
And I acknowledge your frank admission that Scottish Football clubs and fans fans did not save the history of a 134 year old football club.
Calm down before you injure yourself, the OF rivalry began in 1888, in 2012 CFC did not fight to save a 134 year old rivalry.
CFC fans should have supported entry into SPL and waited for the EBT case be resolved, if guilty then title stripping for bringing the game into dispute would have been understandable.
But they just couldn’t wait, they wanted their opponents dead, out of the way so they had a one horse race…..sporting integrity pfft.
Make that 124 years.
ERNEST BECKER
NOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 00:03
I wish the fans who pressurised their clubs to deny RFC entry into the SPL had waited to see what happened next on the issue of EBTs
Have you thought of writing a book, EB? I only ask because you’re trying to rewrite history. Your book would of course be stocked in the fiction section of Waterstones etc.
Rangers Football Club weren’t denied entry to the SPL. It was already deceased by the time Charles Green’s new club had to apply to join the league structure, firstly applying to join the SPL, then the SFL.
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, there would have been no need for RFC to apply for a position in a league it already inhabited, had it been the same club as the one which succumbed to administration and liquidation.
But then you already know all this, because you’ve been told it umpteen times, both on here and in the voices in your head which torture you incessantly with the truth of the demise of your old club, hence your futile mission to convert the unbelievers .
But because it doesn’t suit your pre-programmed agenda, you ignore the truth and waffle on incessantly in a childish and ultimately futile endeavour to convince the rest of us that the world is flat.
It’s not going to happen. Do yourself a favour and write that book! You could do worse than start the first chapter with a hundred lines of ‘OK, I ADMIT IT, RANGERS ARE DEAD’.
ERNEST BECKERNOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 01:05
waited for the EBT case be resolved, if guilty then title stripping for bringing the game into dispute would have been understandable.
————–
The EBT case has been resolved now and the old rangers have been found guilty, do you agree now then that there should be title stripping?
Ernest BeckerNovember 27, 2017 at 00:58
A fan who would rather see his opponent removed from the scene rather than compete,i sense a pattern here.
A pattern Neil Doncaster is determined we will all eventually, meekly accept as a surreal reality. Thankfully debaters like you make sure that won’t be the case.
Ernest BeckerNovember 26, 2017 at 13:25
SMUGAS
still no mention of creditors then? Or debt? Or facilities paid for by said debt?
====================================In order to protect sporting integrity i am sure all the shafted creditors of Hearts FC were invited to attend the opening of the new stand.
Em no. The procedures re an indebted and ultimately insolvent club entering and then exiting administration are long established with regards to protecting sporting integrity, from Scotland right up to Uefa. The clue (in Scotland) with specific regards to the creditors is in the SFA’s use of the helpful words ‘Voluntary’ and ‘Agreement.’
The EBT case has been resolved now and the old rangers have been found guilty, do you agree now then that there should be title stripping?
Nope,from MY sporting integrity point of view it was either starting from the bottom or title stripping,not both,I argued for the latter as i knew the financial implications of starting from the bottom would be catastrophic and long lasting.
I do find it a little peculiar those who want titles stripped from a club they consider to be extinct?
Bit like hanging a dead man to be honest,anyway each to their own.
ERNEST BECKERNOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 14:20 1 12 Rate This
The EBT case has been resolved now and the old rangers have been found guilty, do you agree now then that there should be title stripping?
Nope,from MY sporting integrity point of view it was either starting from the bottom or title stripping,not both,I argued for the latter as i knew the financial implications of starting from the bottom would be catastrophic and long lasting.I do find it a little peculiar those who want titles stripped from a club they consider to be extinct?
————–
Why not both?
Starting at the bottom (and charles Green and Ally McCoist both thanked the clubs for letting them join) was the only place for a new club to start. would your sporting integrity have them leap frog higher up the divisions in front of other clubs who have played there football to try and reach higher divisions.Anyway who was going to drop out a higher division to let them in?
Title stripping would have nothing to do with the new club as i believe TRFC never used EBT’s.
———–
as i knew the financial implications of starting from the bottom would be catastrophic and long lasting.
—————–
So did charles Green. But what did he expect after buying a basket of assets…Champions league.
———–
I do find it a little peculiar those who want titles stripped from a club they consider to be extinct?
——–
ERNEST BECKERNOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 01:05
waited for the EBT case be resolved, if guilty then title stripping for bringing the game into dispute would have been understandable.
————-
Is it not understandable. that some of the titles won by the old club Even though it is extinct the record books should show the club was found guilty.
So if an athlete dies but it is discovered he/she had won medals through doping and cheating they should be allowed to keep them because they are extinct.
Fallacious analogy warning !!
I accept RFC brought the game into dispute, nothing else,nothing to do with being dead or cheats.
Stripping medals from a dead sportsmen for bringing the game into disrepute seems a tad heartless.
Why not both?
Same answer as above, i accept one of the punishments is appropriate on the grounds of sporting integrity and bringing the game into disrepute,i don’t accept they cheated nor are deceased.
This is my opinion, it is not a fact, the truth or evil.
when they might personally be facing a huge liability
Oh dear,why do you think the liability may be huge?
Ernest BeckerNovember 28, 2017 at 00:21
‘…This is my opinion, it is not a fact, the truth or evil.’
____________
IT is a fact that even the compromised LNS inquiry had to conclude that there was cheating,and on a scale just short of match-fixing!
It is a fact that Liquidation means what it says: the entity dies in the market place,attempts to save it have failed, and when the Liquidators have finished , the entity is dissolved. The entity, the only entity, that was Rangers Football Club , which, on incorporation in 1899,was given the number SC004276 is the entity, the very same identical entity,bearing the same number SC004276, that was liquidated.There was nothing else there, no holding company, no other company,just the football club, to be liquidated.
And lying is, in fact,regarded worldwide and in every human society, as evil enough as to make being accused of being a liar just about the biggest offence to be accused of.
In uttering your ‘opinion’, EB, you are in fact, (and I can accept that you might not be able to realise the fact) uttering and repeating untruths.
Have a serious think to yourself.
Not for my sake, but for your own.
Realise that what you say makes you either a blithering idiot or fork-tongued.
It is a fact that Liquidation means what it says: the entity dies in the market place,attempts to save it have failed, and when the Liquidators have finished , the entity is dissolved. The entity, the only entity, that was Rangers Football Club , which, on incorporation in 1899,was given the number SC004276 is the entity, the very same identical entity,bearing the same number SC004276, that was liquidated.There was nothing else there, no holding company, no other company,just the football club, to be liquidated.
Facts need to be incontrovertible my friend.
This leaves no doubt as to the fact that a Club is a recognisable entity that can be owned and also be operated by a company. We do not, of course, suggest that a club has a separate legal personality. It is clear that it does not. It is the company who enters into contractual transactions, but, we submit, the company’s actions may affect the club itself.It is also submitted that a club could be purchased and sold as a continuous entity.
Dr Ioannidis promises that his report will be co-written by Tracy Campbell-Hynd. She is a highly experienced solicitor in business, insolvency and contract matters, who appeared on TV on a number of occasions providing expert legal analysis of the issues surrounding the Rangers debacle. https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/as-we-await-the-nimmo-smith-decision-my-reasons-for-saying-rangers-fc-is-not-a-new-club/
I was tired of telling all of you all,nothing to do with Insolvency Laws and everything to do with SFA Articles.
Rangers is the same club in the opinion of many legal experts,that is a FACT.
So, as far as I am concerned, Rangers Football Club is the same Football Club today as it was one year ago, two years ago etc.
I concur.
UEFA’s public position on RFC club status.
“Whatever sanctions are taken in the case of Rangers FC are up the the SFA and SPL as they run their domestic game according to the regulations they have passed.
“UEFA rules and regulations apply only to European competitions.”
And lying is, in fact,regarded worldwide and in every human society, as evil enough as to make being accused of being a liar just about the biggest offence to be accused of.
Are your pants on fire?
Let me repeat, i have never claimed i know anything for a fact and my opinion is not a lie just because your opinion differs from mine.
So to summarise for those struggling to come to terms with opposing opinions,here is my flip chart.
1. RFC according to SFA articles was a separate entity from its owner/operator RFC PLC.
2. RFC according to SFA articles could be sold by RFC PLC and bought by Sevco (Scotland) Ltd.
3. SFA Article 14 enables a membership transfer with discretion,and it was transferred from RFC PLC to Sevco(Scotland) Ltd.
4. SFA declare RFC owned and operated by Sevco(Scotland) Ltd as same club with continuous history in accordance with Articles.
5. UEFA accepts the legitimacy of SFA Articles.
6. Scottish football is governed in accordance with its Articles not Insolvency or Company laws.
Now i am not claiming anything above is a fact but let us be clear,anyone who claims Rangers is dead is not stating a fact, it is their opinion,one i happen to disagree with based on the evidence available.
Ernest Becker
Had you been a longer term reader you would know that all of your points have been discussed in some detail before and fortunately, to save the blog being tied up with explaining it all again the myths created in 2012 and how are set out at http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/neil-doncaster-and-the-birth-of-monster-myths/
I will cover only one which is near the end of the article and that is prior to 2005 there was nothing in SFA Articles that separated a club from anything . A club was a club.
So if somehow in 2005 Rangers split into two entities and that is accepted ( even though they didn’t) then the SFA membership of that split entity began in 2005 because SFA Articles, being your bible on the matter say so.
Now can we all agree you have done this to death. Have raised nothing new that stands scrutiny and you believe what you want but stop treating everyone else like idiots.
Your village is wondering where you are.
ERNEST BECKERNOVEMBER 28, 2017 at 00:21 1 13 Rate This
Why not both?
Same answer as above, i accept one of the punishments
—————
But ONE was not a punishment one was the consequence of bad management and liquidation.
the other (title stripping could be seen as a punishment,but what do you expect NO punishment after being found guilty?
ERNEST BECKER
NOVEMBER 28, 2017 at 01:12
Facts need to be incontrovertible my friend.
It is the company who enters into contractual transactions, but, we submit, the company’s actions may affect the club itself.
It is also submitted that a club could be purchased and sold as a continuous entity.
“Facts need to be incontrovertible”, says the man who proceeds to post mere ‘submissions’ as incontrovertible facts.
Your double-standards border on rank hypocrisy.
The information you quote is fact-free. It is full of opinion – opinion which formed part of the totally discredited LNS inquiry, which we now know was a predetermined whitewash – a sham.
Ernest Baker, it is way too late for you to leave here with your reputation intact, but please, please, quit while you’re behind! You are beyond embarrassing now and well into cringeworthy territory.
AULDHEID, So if somehow in 2005 Rangers split into two entities and that is accepted ( even though they didn’t) then the SFA membership of that split entity began in 2005 because SFA Articles, being your bible on the matter say so.
This non sequitur actually disappoints me,amended Articles of Association REPLACE their predecessors,obsolete Articles are DEAD and not my bible, and cannot be used to determine anything.What is patently true is RFC existed before any Articles were written so the change merely confirmed the obvious.
I will have a look at your link but my general point stands,there are genuine differing opinions on these matters from those outwith the SFA and Scottish football bubble,anyone who suggests this is a cut and dried falsehood is merely expressing their opinion,one i disagree with.
“Facts need to be incontrovertible”, says the man who proceeds to post mere ‘submissions’ as incontrovertible facts.
The existence of the submissions themselves is an obvious incontrovertible fact,never said the submissions content was an incontrovertible fact,easy mistake to make i suppose.
It is an urban myth that no tax was paid during Whyte’s tenure, or that HMRC sat idly by on the sidelines throughout.
Glad to hear it,although enabling non payment of September through to February( 6 months) hardly addresses my complaint.
Ernest Becker November 24, 2017 at 18:23 It is an urban myth that no tax was paid during Whyte’s tenure, or that HMRC sat idly by on the sidelines throughout.
Glad to hear it,although enabling non payment of September through to February( 6 months) hardly addresses my complaint.
========================
There you go again
19th September 2011 to 14th February 2012 is less than five months.
19th September 2011 to 14th February 2012 is less than five months.
PAYE is due on the 19th of every month for the preceding month, CW did not pay PAYE owed for August,September,October,November,January and half of February if you really want an anorak for Christmas.
HMRC are normally on your case if you miss one payment, maybe two if you are lucky,missing 4 payments with another days away is negligence to the tune of extra millions.
AULDHEID,
Given that the deal for the SPL fell through and SFL 3 was the last port in the storm you can see why that commercial reasons Green insisted on a transfer of SFA Membership as opposed to following the normal Registered/Associate/ Full Membership route applicable to all new clubs under the rules.
I was under the impression the SPL and SFL votes were taken after SFA membership transfer was agreed, and it was on this premise votes were cast.
Membership transfer was being discussed as early as February so CG wouldn’t have to push too hard.
Discretion to transfer membership with conditions could be called a conditional membership,lawyers would have a field day on that one.
Ernest Becker
Oh HMRC did not sit back. They pursued payment of wee tax bill from CW’S Takeover from 6th May but lost patience when Lee Wallace was signed at end of July 2011 and sent in the Sherriff Officer within a fortnight.
On the supposed appeal of the wee tax case after SOs called and HMRC patience ending in Dec 2011 they started administration proceedings 6 weeks later.
If anything they were too lax in 2011, so much so one would think there was political interference and it took non payment of PAYE/VAT along with their patience re RFC delaying paying the wee tax case in December 2011 to say enough is enough.
I see Oscar Pistorious had his sentence increased for lack of remorse,maybe if SDM had shown some remorse Scottish football would have accepted the sentence imposed by the governing body of Scottish football in the best interests of Scottish football.
However tax avoidance became cheating just as manslaughter became murder,juries are just as fickle as fans.
Very coincidental the number of SPL clubs who voted NO to RFC have suffered either insolvency or relegation,or had to rely on debt write offs or fan bail outs. Celtic of course got what they wanted, a Golden Era.
On the other hand the lower divisions have blossomed and there is little difference now between Championship clubs and most of the Premier clubs.
At least some good came out of an obvious injustice,maybe i will write a sequel to ” To Kill a Mocking Bird “.
I must thank all the Rangers haters for their bitterness, what do you think has kept the Rangers fans from drifting away during the last 5 shambolic years,certainly hasn’t been hubris or heaven forbid good football.
Three cheers for the Rangers fans is the order of the day, and i am thoroughly enjoying my night off.
AULDHEID,
That is precisely my point, how could HMRC allow RFC to miss more than one payment of PAYE or VAT given their brief but atrocious compliance record under CW.
If CW missed the 19th of September and October the Sheriff Officers should have been sent in the very next day saving millions of taxpayers money, unbelievable lenience given the circumstances.
No, no such membership category existed, exists or will ever exist.
Discretion is a wonderful thing.
Ernie B really is helping bring this stuff back up again. Sometimes one falls victim to the propaganda and forgets the basics.
My pleasure but please don’t forget, i am the propaganda.
ERNEST BECKER
NOVEMBER 24, 2017 at 20:59 My pleasure but please don’t forget, i am the propaganda.
=====================================
Forgive me, but if you are you really aren’t very good at it.
Auldheid November 24, 2017 at 20:00
Ernest Becker
Oh HMRC did not sit back. They pursued payment of wee tax bill from CW’S Takeover from 6th May but lost patience when Lee Wallace was signed at end of July 2011 and sent in the Sherriff Officer within a fortnight.
On the supposed appeal of the wee tax case after SOs called and HMRC patience ending in Dec 2011 they started administration proceedings 6 weeks later.
If anything they were too lax in 2011, so much so one would think there was political interference and it took non payment of PAYE/VAT along with their patience re RFC delaying paying the wee tax case in December 2011 to say enough is enough.
===========================
From the first D&P Creditors Report.
9.26 In September 2011 HMRC arrested approximately £2.9m held in the Company‟s accounts with BOS in respect of tax arrears. On 24 November 2011, the Company agreed to release the arrested funds to HMRC, which were used to settle certain outstanding VAT arrears on instruction of the Company.
ERNEST BECKERNOVEMBER 24, 2017 at 10:27
Interesting season ticket pitch being proposed,please read this with a Yorkshire accent.Roll up roll up, Rangers is dead,Ally,the first team and Murray Park are all gone not to mention all your history and titles but don’t worry you can pretend it is your old club because….
———–
The truth being
Roll up roll up, Rangers is dead,Oop’s sorry, i bought the history and it’s not dead now.Ally,the first team and Murray Park are all gone. But hold on a minute if i can get Ally to TUPE over and some players also keep Murray park going even though we really can’ afford it and Ally say’s it’s still the same club with all your history and titles will you buy a season ticket? Yes you will! smashing.
Charles Green thinks to himself….
ok i need to get a share issue going here as i need money fast to keep this show on the road.Who cares what happens when the money runs out i will be long gone, when the fans and the media’s expectations don’t materialise
what did they really expect after Liquidation. Greatness? europe? the good auld day’s?
9.26 In September 2011 HMRC arrested approximately £2.9m held in the Company‟s accounts with BOS in respect of tax arrears. On 24 November 2011, the Company agreed to release the arrested funds to HMRC, which were used to settle certain outstanding VAT arrears on instruction of the Company.
I hate being right all of the time, and yet they allowed CW to trade until Mid February with no further compliance…shocking.
Well that’s fortuitous.
Remind me again just why a packed Ibrox crowd held aloft red cards and banners declaring ‘NO TO LIQUIDATION’ back in 2012, if liquidation only meant the death of a meaningless company rather than a football club?
You seem extremely reluctant to answer this seemingly simple question – this is my 3rd attempt to elicit a response.
Easy Jambo
Ernest Becker 21.08.
The money in question was that seized as result of non payment of wee tax liability.
It was a matter of chagrin to CW and Olverman that HMRC allocated it against the unpaid PAYE and VAT.
It should be a matter of interest to the SFA Compliance Officer that CW claimed at end of September that £500k of it was paid to HMRC towards the wtc liability.
There was a supposed appeal on the wtc liability ( I say supposed because it was only the interest that was being appealed ) so whilst that appeal charade was going on HMRC did RFC a favour using it to offset the PAYE.
Taxpayers have some reason to be annoyed at HMRC’ s strategy for collecting but certainly not supporters of Rangers at the time.
Ernest Becker November 24, 2017 at 21:29
I hate being right all of the time,
================================
“CW managed to get away with not paying anything toward VAT and PAYE for 9 months”
Would you like to point out exactly what bit of the above statement is “right”
On second thoughts, just don’t bother, just don’t.
You seem extremely reluctant to answer this seemingly simple question – this is my 3rd attempt to elicit a response.
Apologies, it is not evasion or reluctance but if i answered every single question on every post i would be living on beans and toast.
I assume because membership transfer hadn’t been done before and in the past liquidation meant a new club with a new history,understandable fear.
Anyway after tonight’s omnishambles i am attending the AGM as a guest of Imran Ahmad’s mum,i do not forget how instrumental she was in saving my club.
Would you like to point out exactly what bit of the above statement is “right”
If you wish to continue with pedantics i will be your huckleberry.
CW never paid anything,the company paid therefore my statement is empirically factual and your anorak is in the post.
The company had over 2 million HRMC arrears by September forcing HMRC to seize a bank account but then allowed RFC months and months of further non compliance.
Disgusting leniency.
I often wondered why CG that BIG handed Yorkshire man was willing to pay £8.5m to get a CVA when it would only cost him £5.5m after liquidation
Simple business decision,it guaranteed RFC a place in the SPL,liquidation put him at the mercy of Rangers haters with vested interests.
FINLOCH
Please ignore and the lack of oxygen will make his paymasters question the efficacy of their strategy.
I have matured and mellowed somewhat over the years, carry on.
Ernest Becker
I’ve explained what HMRC did.
The money seized was iro the wtc liability.
That was August.
CW stopped paying PAYE/Vat in Sept.
The wtc money was assigned to the PAYE arguably covering Sept maybe Oct.
It was December when HMRC got fed up with obvious delaying tactics and non PAYE/VAT payment and began administration proceedings.
It’s all on Celtic Underground blog. The Wee Tax Case Appeal.
One question you did not answer was:
If for reasons argued and to comply with UEFA regulations it was recognised that under football rules TRFC’s SFA Membership began in 2012 and with it any trophy count, but under same reasoning no sanctions including removal of titles could be applied to RFC, which is what Traverso said in effect , would you accept that as a reasonable price to pay to restore lost integrity?
(Or are bragging rights paramount?)
If for reasons argued and to comply with UEFA regulations it was recognised that under football rules TRFC’s SFA Membership began in 2012 and with it any trophy count, but under same reasoning no sanctions including removal of titles could be applied to RFC, which is what Traverso said in effect , would you accept that as a reasonable price to pay to restore lost integrity?
AULDHEID,
We will have to disagree about any loss to sporting integrity.
Purely from a sporting integrity point of view there is no difference between a club shedding debt via a CVA and a liquidated club shedding debt,how a creditor loses money has nothing to do with sporting integrity and the unfair sporting advantage does not vanish just because creditors agree to losing money,it is called a non sequitur.
Another non sequitur in terms of sporting integrity is where in the accounts ledger overspending took place s long as no criminal fraud took place.
It matters not a jot if the overspending debt was directly on players because all overspending debt indirectly enables un-affordable players. So the make up of the creditor has nothing to do with sporting integrity.
What is important to sporting integrity is INSOLVENCY and the act of spending beyond ones means and in doing so gaining a sporting advantage,it is actually CHEATING.
The rules should punish all cheats equally to protect sporting integrity, so my position is simple, from a sporting integrity point of view RFC should have been punished no different to Hearts or Dunfermline because they all overspent.
It is illogical to suggest the 20 million or so owed to a bank by Hearts was not spent on un-affordable players going back years,and yet because it was written off Hearts suddenly could afford the players and are applauded for their sporting integrity lol !!
As they the old saying goes,you couldn’t make this shit up.
So to answer your question,UEFA’s interrupted membership obviously allows the new club/company to inherit the history of the old club/company and that is good enough fudge for me,nothing to with sporting integrity tbh.
This from a bloke who has spent nearly a fortnight on here telling us that the appliance of discretion was the determining factor in Rangers* continuity.
Nope,please revisit my first post and you will see the determining factor was Article 14 enabling membership and within this rule lies the discretion.
Basically once they agreed to the transfer the job was done as far as RFC was concerned,RFC is not dead because the SFA screwed up the process.
HIRSUTEPURSUITNOVEMBER 24, 2017 at 23:07 2 0 Rate This
This was the nub of the ‘conditional membership’
10.7 Each club in full membership or associate membership shall in its Official Return register its ground and playing field dimensions and no such club shall remove to another ground without first obtaining the consent of the Board. Any club in full membership or associate membership wishing to make any alteration to its name, its registered ground or its playing field dimensions must first obtain the prior written consent of the Board. No club in registered membership shall adopt in whole or in part the name of a club in full membership or associate membership without the prior written consent of the Board.
—————
AULDHEIDNOVEMBER 25, 2017 at 01:02
The SFA might have argued that a Registered Membership of the SFA was sufficient to allow the Brechin game to go ahead on 29th July, but that would have clearly made Sevco a team/club holding an SFA Membership at the same time as Rangers and using Rangers name or one damn like it.
———–
Tuesday 31 July 2012
Rangers shareholders will change name of newco from Sevco Scotland Limited to The Rangers Football Club Limited.
• Rangers chief executive Charles Green says name change is “penultimate piece of the jigsaw”
An extraordinary general meeting of ‘oldco’ shareholders took place at Ibrox today, where procedures were approved to enable the name change.
Charles Green’s Sevco consortium completed the purchase of the business and assets of Rangers in June after the club was consigned to liquidation following failure to secure a Company Voluntary Arrangement in order to exit administration.
Roll up Roll up.
They were granted conditional Scottish Football Association membership on Friday night, which will be completed when the formal transfer of ‘oldco’ Rangers’ Scottish Premier League share to Dundee takes place later this week.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-newco-rangers-shareholders-vote-to-change-sevco-name-1-2441980
—————
This bit i love
Green told http://www.rangers.co.uk: “The process that took place today is the penultimate piece of the jigsaw that will see The Rangers Football Club move forward, with the transfer of SFA membership being the final piece.
“As every fan knows, Rangers is Rangers – it always has been and it always will be.
“The club still has its 140 years of history and we are now embarking on the next 140 years.
“We are back playing football and the board is focused on rebuilding this great club over the next few years.
“Our fans were fantastic on Sunday at Brechin and their support at Ibrox and away from home this season will be instrumental in helping the team achieve the success we all desire.”
————-
And if ERNEST BECKER was at this extraordinary general meeting of ‘oldco’ shareholders where procedures were approved to enable the name change. he win’s the internet for today
ERNEST BECKERNOVEMBER 25, 2017,
“RFC is not dead because the SFA screwed up the process”
Mr Steerp… ehhh ah mean Walke….jeezo ma memory’s away, .. ah mean Mr Becker,
The rfc 1872, (inc.1899) to whom you refer are extremely dead, they lie in a filing cabinet, somewhere in the BDO offices awaiting final disposal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20141946
AULDHEID,
I am quite content to agree to disagree on the issue of sporting integrity,by your moral compass Hearts could afford their players and despite ordinary creditors getting nothing they did not shed debt and gain a long term unfair sporting advantage. All good stuff.
My problem with Andrea(funny name for a guy) is he has never repeated the term ” new club/company ” as a public statement of UEFA’s position and this i find odd given UEFA’s public position is one of same club continuous history(confirmed by FIFA)
I have always felt ” interruption of membership ” to be a strange term to describe ” termination of club”, the only thing that explains the above is the membership is suspended rather than cancelled.
In effect it was a 3 year ban.
yesterday SFA were following process and using their discretion. Today they screwed up the process. I’d say he’s doing a splendid job. Just splendid.
Yesterday SFA were applying Article 14,using their discretion and screwing up the process.
Inventing my position and attacking it is called a straw man argument.
So are we now to assume “the process” is what we mere mortals call “the rules” and you are actually arguing that they used their discretion to circumvent the rules?
My position has always been clear.
Once the SFA agreed to the transfer at their discretion and RFC agreed to the conditions it was up to the SFA to make sure the process did not circumvent any rules.Therefore procedural errors are not evidence against the legitimacy of the transfer agreement in of itself,they are evidence the SFA screwed up the process.
If you want to make a case the rule based transfer was impossible without circumventing other rules then again this is a SFA problem for having a rule that was impossible to implement without discretion.
Can you imagine the justified outcry if the SFA announced the agreement was null and void not because RFC failed to meet conditions or Article 14 but because the SFA failed to do their job right or had conflicting rules??
Ernest BeckerNovember 25, 2017 at 13:01 (Edit) Rate This
AULDHEID,
I am quite content to agree to disagree on the issue of sporting integrity,by your moral compass Hearts could afford their players and despite ordinary creditors getting nothing they did not shed debt and gain a long term unfair sporting advantage. All good stuff.
Now now Ernest in explaining the difference with Hearts I’m not saying I agree with how they kept going, so don’t confuse my moral compass with that of the world. My moral compass on debt has kept me well clear of any that I have not been able to honour in full.
In UEFA terms if an agreement is reached by all parties to settle a debt which leaves the club involved intact, UEFA are not going to become moral judges.
They need rules that can apply across the European football spectrum with CAS as court of appeal if a club feels hard done by and UEFA rules state that for a club to be eligible to apply for a UEFA licence they must have three consecutive years as a member of their national association and TRFC did not fulfil that requirement until 2015
The SFA recognised that rules as did Sevco when applying for the Transfer of SFA Membership and Sevco never appealed the ruling to CAS, possibly because if successful they would have had a mountain of debt to repay or that CAS would simply confirm the UEFA position in terms of protecting the integrity of their competition was correct. From the 5 Way;
” Sevco irrevocably undertakes to and agrees with the SFA that on (in respect of all monetary obligations) and from (in respect of all other obligations) Completion it shall:
acknowledge that under UEFA Regulations, Sevco/Rangers FC is currently ineligible to participate in UEFA Competitions”
======
It did not articulate why.
My problem with Andrea(funny name for a guy) is he has never repeated the term ” new club/company ” as a public statement of UEFA’s position and this i find odd given UEFA’s public position is one of same club continuous history(confirmed by FIFA)
Apart from it never being confirmed by FIFA I find it even funnier that the SFA, having received a copy of the Traverso letter, never queried his interpretation publicly nor corrected the STV Article that published contents of it but omitting the new club/company reference in SFA’s copy (see main blog).
The STV story is that independently with no knowledge of what Traverso had written and no urging, approached the UEFA Media Department who provided them with a different statement. Now why would STV go to UEFA if the SFA had a copy and why having received a reply from UEFA was it’s contents not confirmed with SFA by STV before publishing or corrected by the SFA after STV published it?
If we are into funny stuff the questions should begin at home not UEFA. What Traverso was saying in his letter was that UEFA were not willing to investigate further because they could not sanction Rangers FC because Rangers FC were no longer the same club as the current or future applicant for a UEFA license. If Traverso is wrong then his new club/company reason for not sanctioning Rangers does not stand and if breaches of the licensing rules by RFC did occur in 2011 then TRFC can face sanctions.
I have always felt ” interruption of membership ” to be a strange term to describe ” termination of club”, the only thing that explains the above is the membership is suspended rather than cancelled. In effect it was a 3 year ban.
Not if the interruption of membership was caused by the termination of the club that had applied for and been granted a UEFA Licence in all the years prior to 2012 or was that MIH or some other “holding company” and not Rangers FC who had applied pre 2012?
It is simple to UEFA:
Is the club from Ibrox now applying for a UEFA Licence the same club that applied and was granted a licence in years previous to 2012?
Do their accounts in support of a current licence application continue from 2011 or begin afresh from 2012?
If continuous what happened to the tax due?
If not then who is the applicant providing those accounts?
Is the company number of the club applying the same or different from that pre 2012?
Which company do those pre 2012 accounts and post 2012 relate to? etc etc
That is why to UEFA the applicant for a UEFA Licence from Ibrox who can only be a club/company post 2012 as defined in Art 12 a) and b) is a new club/company and not the same, which is just as well as the application would be rejected for unpaid tax and continue to be until it was paid in full.
The STV story is that independently with no knowledge of what Traverso had written and no urging, approached the UEFA Media Department who provided them with a different statement.
AULDHEID
The statement read: “As a consequence of decisions taken against Rangers FC in 2012 as well as the administration of the club and the events and measures that followed (including the club being ineligible to apply for a licence to participate in UEFA competitions for three seasons), there is no need for UEFA to investigate this matter any further since the club was not granted a licence to participate in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions, the club entered the fourth tier of Scottish football and it was not able to play in UEFA competitions for the next three years in any event.”
The only difference seems to be new club/company becomes ” club”.
I’ve been involved with SFM since it’s inception and cannot remember much, if anything, being made of the legitimacy of the transfer,
Then i do not understand why so many posters objected to my very first statement quoting numerous procedural reasons.
Ernest BeckerNovember 25, 2017 at 16:36
I’ve been involved with SFM since it’s inception and cannot remember much, if anything, being made of the legitimacy of the transfer,
Then i do not understand why so many posters objected to my very first statement quoting numerous procedural reasons.
_______________
I think the objections were mostly regarding the lack of any point to the post, and, basically, total confusion over what it was you were trying to say.
For me, and I think most others, the legitimacy of the transfer is no big deal, and the only point worth making in the transfer of the membership, regardless of it’s legitimacy, is that nothing is ever transferred from one entity to that same entity.
So, if I, personally, say that I accept the legitimacy of that transfer of membership, can you tell me what it is you think you are claiming it proves? Or are you just here to say that as there was one thing in the whole saga that the SFA got right, we should all accept that everything they did and said was legitimate and honest?
but would they be willing to throw tens of millions into a black hole in order to get Rangers into a position where they can win the league and get a crack at the Champions League?
The simple answer is no,at the moment the commercial gulf between CFC and RFC is probably bigger than the commercial gulf between RFC and Aberdeen.
RFC has only one hope, CFC fail to qualify for both CL and Europa over the next 5 years and have to rely purely on a domestic turnover,this is an unrealistic hope given where CFC is.
Ernest BeckerNovember 25, 2017 at 16:25 (Edit)
The STV story is that independently with no knowledge of what Traverso had written and no urging, approached the UEFA Media Department who provided them with a different statement. AULDHEID
The statement read: “As a consequence of decisions taken against Rangers FC in 2012 as well as the administration of the club and the events and measures that followed (including the club being ineligible to apply for a licence to participate in UEFA competitions for three seasons), there is no need for UEFA to investigate this matter any further since the club was not granted a licence to participate in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions, the club entered the fourth tier of Scottish football and it was not able to play in UEFA competitions for the next three years in any event.”
The only difference seems to be new club/company becomes ” club”.
========================
This is what Traverso said in the para above his name, role and signature which gives it top authority in licensing regulation terms.
“To sum up, as a consequence of decisions taken in 2012 as well as the administration of the club and the events/measures that followed (including the new club/company being ineligible to apply for a licence to participate in UEFA competitions for three seasons), there is clearly no need for UEFA to investigate this matter any further since the club was not granted a licence to participate in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions, the new club/company entered the fourth tier of Scottish football and it was not able to play in UEFA competitions for the next three years in any event”
The reason that the club was ” ineligible to apply for a licence to participate in UEFA competitions for three seasons” was that “the club” in question was in fact TRFC/TRIFC (the new club/company) and did not have three years consecutive membership of the SFA as stipulated by Article 12 of UEFA FFP.
That three year membership of the SFA requirement is the ONLY reason that a club cannot get a licence for three years. What it is saying is do not try to use insolvency trickery as a way of circumventing UEFA rules to obtain a UEFA licence.
The “events/measures that followed the administration of the club” (RFC – my insert) – in 2012″ were that RFC was liquidated as a footballing business.
No way were UEFA going to allow a liquidated footballing business to resurrect and recapitalise itself using UEFA money, the pursuit of which largely contributed to their liquidation, and the debt of which deprived other clubs, acting financially prudently, of the money that their prudence deserved, because unpaid debt fuelled the players that won the titles that gave debt dodging rival clubs access to UEFA competition at prudent clubs’ expense.
When Traverso said
“there is clearly no need for UEFA to investigate this matter any further since the club (RFC – my insert) was not granted a licence to participate in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions”
he was referring to the UEFA Licence application of 2012 from RFC that was rejected because of the inability of the club (RFC) to produce audited and ratified accounts for 2011/12 under Article 47 of UEFA FFP.
When Traverso said
“the new club/company (TRFC/TRIFC my insert) entered the fourth tier of Scottish football and it was not able to play in UEFA competitions for the next three years in any event”
He meant that apart from being ineligible to apply for a UEFA licence for 3 years under Art 12, TRFC/TRIFC (NOT RFC) were not in a position to obtain a place that would qualify them to apply for a licence since that opportunity was only open to clubs in the SPL by reason of their league position.
Thus if you omit “new” and just say club it fudges what sanctions applied to whom and for what reason. Thus folk thought 3 years accounts were a requirement for example or thought that the Transfer of SFA Membership conveyed a continuity that UEFA FFP challenges.
That is the difference.
Traverso used the term “club/company” after “new” because, being Head of Club Licensing he knew the Club Licensing Articles and how Art 12 1(a) and (b) defined the different constructs an applicant club could take.
Traverso’s letter was dated 8th June 2016 and was copied to the SFA who do not appear to have queried its meaning with UEFA, nor correct what STV published a week later in the interests of the clarity of understanding that honest reporting to the public of what Traverso had written would have provided.
Celtic also were sent a copy and it raised a few eyebrows at the detail UEFA had provided. but at that point the further questions the reply raised in relation to the processing of the UEFA licence in 2011(nothing to do with the issue under discussion here, which was not part of any enquiry to UEFA) were pursued by the shareholders representatives until UEFA refused to answer those questions in October 2016
At that point following the Nov 2016 AGM the matter was handed back to Celtic, who are following the consequent SFA Compliance Officer investigation into the processing of the UEFA licence application made by RFC in 2011 with keen interest.
I know we tend to discount TU/TDs,
Speak for yourself, i keep a spreadsheet
but it is an unusual pattern, and may indicate a concerted visit.
I have a big family.
DarkbeforedawnNovember 25, 2017 at 23:49
I agree totally except for the weird bit where you blamed me??
(and for Ernest’s sake I’ll tell him that, in Italy, what we might think of as a feminine sounding name is the norm for a number of guys’ names –
We may have stumbled across the origins of transgender fluidity !!!
In the beginning was the word.
DBD,
Nothing has changed!
I think Bomber is off the gin tbf.
Ernest BeckerNovember 26, 2017 at 03:31
(and for Ernest’s sake I’ll tell him that, in Italy, what we might think of as a feminine sounding name is the norm for a number of guys’ names –
We may have stumbled across the origins of transgender fluidity !!!In the beginning was the word.
______________________
The tradition of bigotry and homophobia is strong in you, I see. Like so many at Ibrox, you just can’t help yourself.
Is it members of the transgendered community or Italians you feel the need to disrespect, or was it just the mindless need to take a pop at someone (by taking the mickey out of his name), of ultimate authority on the matter in hand, who has pointed out, unequivocally, that your football club died, and that the one you support now is, indeed, a new club?
I had been away & missed the emergence of EB.
I note that his nom de plume references German philosopher Ernest Becker, whose best-known work is the 1974 Pulitzer Prize-winning ‘The Denial Of Death’. Very apt, EB!
::
::
As an aside, I have been told that a certain manager-less SPFL club may attempt to continue to the end of the season with a player-coach (and existing DoF/coaching staff), rather than appoint externally.
This is (of course!) to be spun as ‘continuity/steadying the ship’, rather than an admission of lack of funds & that the league has all-but passed for said club.
SMUGAS
still no mention of creditors then? Or debt? Or facilities paid for by said debt?
====================================
In order to protect sporting integrity i am sure all the shafted creditors of Hearts FC were invited to attend the opening of the new stand.
ERNEST BECKER
NOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 13:25
==========================
Ah the classic tu quoque response.
ALLYJAMBO
I wonder if EB
=========
No,i am not a Mason despite influence from Regan and Doncaster.
As an all inclusive kind of guy(much like this site),i accept harmless difference( much like this site) and treat cultural quirks no different to my own culture’s quirks( much like this site).
Therefore my sense of humour finds lots of different things funny regardless of their origins,it is as egalitarian as this site and it was in a spirit of harmless levity my observation was made.
Now my second response was a clever parody aimed at you because i found your over reaction and attempt to portray me as a homophobic xenophobe absolutely hilarious,it had me grinning like a Cheshire cat to be honest.
Your particular quirk of seeking offence and extrapolating to ludicrous extremes must desist forthwith before i have a heart attack from laughing,you have gone from homophobic xenophobe to a SFA inspired racist bigot lol. This is off the charts funny.
Finally there is a famous quote from James Joyce “Ulysses ” which encapsulates Becker’s terror management theory on difference, “History is a nightmare from which i am trying to awake “, i suggest you apply this to our past history and wake up to the fact i love you as my neighbour,despite our past and presentdifferences.
Peace xx
DBD
Plenty of people have disagreed with my posts above without really answering the main points I raised. The biggest thing was I have not noticed a difference and nor have any Rangers fans I know.
I think you are missing the point, the main objection is RFC was afforded what some believe to be preferential treatment given to no other liquidated club.
It is impossible to deny this,the question is was it fair.
I believe it was justified.
ERNEST BECKER
NOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 15:07
===============================
What preferential treatment do you believe Rangers received.
They applied to join the SPL and that was denied, an overwhelming no from the member clubs.
They applied to join the SFL and were admitted to it’s lowest division.
You could argue that someone else could have gotten the place in the SFL, but the members democratically voted the new club in.
The new club also didn’t get seeded in the cup and had to start along with the other lower division clubs.
That all seems fair enough to me.
Ernest BeckerNovember 26, 2017 at 14:49
ALLYJAMBOI wonder if EB=========
No,i am not a Mason despite influence from Regan and Doncaster.As an all inclusive kind of guy(much like this site),i accept harmless difference( much like this site) and treat cultural quirks no different to my own culture’s quirks( much like this site).Therefore my sense of humour finds lots of different things funny regardless of their origins,it is as egalitarian as this site and it was in a spirit of harmless levity my observation was made.Now my second response was a clever parody aimed at you because i found your over reaction and attempt to portray me as a homophobic xenophobe absolutely hilarious,it had me grinning like a Cheshire cat to be honest.Your particular quirk of seeking offence and extrapolating to ludicrous extremes must desist forthwith before i have a heart attack from laughing,you have gone from homophobic xenophobe to a SFA inspired racist bigot lol. This is off the charts funny.Finally there is a famous quote from James Joyce “Ulysses ” which encapsulates Becker’s terror management theory on difference, “History is a nightmare from which i am trying to awake “, i suggest you apply this to our past history and wake up to the fact i love you as my neighbour,despite our past and presentdifferences.Peace xx
_________________
As I suspected, no answer to any question asked, and a load of wordy drivel instead. Note the amount of words used to defend himself on a matter totally unrelated to the topic at hand, having lost the opportunity to defend himself in a believable way when he failed to withdraw his smirking attitude towards Andrea Traverso’s name, and instead introduced a level of homophobia. I, personally, was not offended by his remark but took it as evidence of his lack of respect for those of a different culture or leanings to himself, the obvious mark of a bigot.
Oh, and why the Mason denial? I am fully aware that it’s not only Masons who display these traits, and made no reference to them in my previous posts!
Finally, the bit in bold above, can anybody translate it for me?
there was no remorse at they way their club had died, no denial. Better to get rid than face the shame of what their club did,it happend and let’s see what happens next.
I wish the fans who pressurised their clubs to deny RFC entry into the SPL had waited to see what happened next on the issue of EBTs,but no, they presumed guilt instead of innocence and called it sporting integrity. They should all be ashamed of themselves.
I weep for their souls.
ERNEST BECKER
NOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 00:03
==================================
The Rangers tax case has given HMRC an astonishing win at the Supreme Court.
It has basically rendered all disguised remuneration tax avoidance schemes unlawful and will save the country an enormous amount of money. Certainly hundreds of millions of pounds.
It’s almost as if it was a policy all along, and that they wanted to go all the way to the highest Court in the UK.
You don’t feck with the wongs.
Ernest BeckerNovember 27, 2017 at 00:03
‘… who pressurised their clubs to deny RFC entry into the SPL ‘
___________
No, wrong again.
It was Charles Green’s new creation that was denied entry into the SPL.
RFC was gone- into liquidation, membership of the SFA and ‘share’ in the SPL both lost,in consequence of ‘insolvency’ writ large.
It was a brand new club that was denied entry into the SPL.
It would be useful if your observations had any basis in fact.
But you are, I’m afraid, just making a bloody nuisance of yourself.
And I,long-suffering and patient as I am, now call upon the moderators of this blog to declare you to be a troll , with nothing in the way of truth to add to the blog.
And I personally consign you to the appropriate circle in Dante’s ‘Inferno’.
A football club is its fans end of story,it lives or dies in the hearts of its fans.
I don’t watch CFC playing even OF games, they are dead in spirit as far as i am concerned and their fans killed it,real football fans would have done their very best to save their greatest rival and preserve the history of a 134 year old football world renowned rivalry.
I bet Real Madrid and Barcelona fans wouldn’t want El Cllassico consigned to the archives by the Insolvency Act and i bet neither would want the other extinct,they are real football fans who would prefer to win on the field of football, where it matters.
I dislike the use of analogies because analogies don’t win arguments and most of them are fallacious but i will make an exception for the fans who killed CFC.
In the midst of unspeakable slaughter two bitter opponents took a time out to play a game of football,when the Huns were winning the other team checked the legality of this unofficial amnesty and shot them rather than lose.
Horror…..the horror.
Ernest BeckerNovember 27, 2017 at 00:39
‘..real football fans would have done their very best to save their greatest rival and preserve the history of a 134 year old football world renowned rivalry.’
_____________
No, real football fans recognise real truth, and could not stomach the absolutely evil cheating of ‘a greatest rival’.
God Almighty, man, are you so far gone as to think that any honest football club would be at all interested in pretending that a five year old club had any history worth preserving?
Real football fans honour the spirit of sporting integrity.
And I acknowledge your frank admission that Scottish Football clubs and fans did not save the history of a 134 year old football club.
And I,long-suffering and patient as I am, now call upon the moderators of this blog to declare you to be a troll , with nothing in the way of truth to add to the blog.
If you mean i support the opinions of the governing bodies of football then that is the truth,the truth is you have an opinion and i have an opinion and neither are even close to the actual definition of truth.
Rangers are dead is not a self evident axiom nor is it a logical absolute.
A fan who would rather see his opponent removed from the scene rather than compete,i sense a pattern here.
And I acknowledge your frank admission that Scottish Football clubs and fans fans did not save the history of a 134 year old football club.
Calm down before you injure yourself, the OF rivalry began in 1888, in 2012 CFC did not fight to save a 134 year old rivalry.
CFC fans should have supported entry into SPL and waited for the EBT case be resolved, if guilty then title stripping for bringing the game into dispute would have been understandable.
But they just couldn’t wait, they wanted their opponents dead, out of the way so they had a one horse race…..sporting integrity pfft.
Make that 124 years.
Have you thought of writing a book, EB? I only ask because you’re trying to rewrite history. Your book would of course be stocked in the fiction section of Waterstones etc.
Rangers Football Club weren’t denied entry to the SPL. It was already deceased by the time Charles Green’s new club had to apply to join the league structure, firstly applying to join the SPL, then the SFL.
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, there would have been no need for RFC to apply for a position in a league it already inhabited, had it been the same club as the one which succumbed to administration and liquidation.
But then you already know all this, because you’ve been told it umpteen times, both on here and in the voices in your head which torture you incessantly with the truth of the demise of your old club, hence your futile mission to convert the unbelievers .
But because it doesn’t suit your pre-programmed agenda, you ignore the truth and waffle on incessantly in a childish and ultimately futile endeavour to convince the rest of us that the world is flat.
It’s not going to happen. Do yourself a favour and write that book! You could do worse than start the first chapter with a hundred lines of ‘OK, I ADMIT IT, RANGERS ARE DEAD’.
ERNEST BECKERNOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 01:05
waited for the EBT case be resolved, if guilty then title stripping for bringing the game into dispute would have been understandable.
————–
The EBT case has been resolved now and the old rangers have been found guilty, do you agree now then that there should be title stripping?
A pattern Neil Doncaster is determined we will all eventually, meekly accept as a surreal reality. Thankfully debaters like you make sure that won’t be the case.
Em no. The procedures re an indebted and ultimately insolvent club entering and then exiting administration are long established with regards to protecting sporting integrity, from Scotland right up to Uefa. The clue (in Scotland) with specific regards to the creditors is in the SFA’s use of the helpful words ‘Voluntary’ and ‘Agreement.’
The EBT case has been resolved now and the old rangers have been found guilty, do you agree now then that there should be title stripping?
Nope,from MY sporting integrity point of view it was either starting from the bottom or title stripping,not both,I argued for the latter as i knew the financial implications of starting from the bottom would be catastrophic and long lasting.
I do find it a little peculiar those who want titles stripped from a club they consider to be extinct?
Bit like hanging a dead man to be honest,anyway each to their own.
ERNEST BECKERNOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 14:20 1 12 Rate This
The EBT case has been resolved now and the old rangers have been found guilty, do you agree now then that there should be title stripping?
Nope,from MY sporting integrity point of view it was either starting from the bottom or title stripping,not both,I argued for the latter as i knew the financial implications of starting from the bottom would be catastrophic and long lasting.I do find it a little peculiar those who want titles stripped from a club they consider to be extinct?
————–
Why not both?
Starting at the bottom (and charles Green and Ally McCoist both thanked the clubs for letting them join) was the only place for a new club to start. would your sporting integrity have them leap frog higher up the divisions in front of other clubs who have played there football to try and reach higher divisions.Anyway who was going to drop out a higher division to let them in?
Title stripping would have nothing to do with the new club as i believe TRFC never used EBT’s.
———–
as i knew the financial implications of starting from the bottom would be catastrophic and long lasting.
—————–
So did charles Green. But what did he expect after buying a basket of assets…Champions league.
———–
I do find it a little peculiar those who want titles stripped from a club they consider to be extinct?
——–
ERNEST BECKERNOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 01:05
waited for the EBT case be resolved, if guilty then title stripping for bringing the game into dispute would have been understandable.
————-
Is it not understandable. that some of the titles won by the old club Even though it is extinct the record books should show the club was found guilty.
So if an athlete dies but it is discovered he/she had won medals through doping and cheating they should be allowed to keep them because they are extinct.
Fallacious analogy warning !!
I accept RFC brought the game into dispute, nothing else,nothing to do with being dead or cheats.
Stripping medals from a dead sportsmen for bringing the game into disrepute seems a tad heartless.
Why not both?
Same answer as above, i accept one of the punishments is appropriate on the grounds of sporting integrity and bringing the game into disrepute,i don’t accept they cheated nor are deceased.
This is my opinion, it is not a fact, the truth or evil.
when they might personally be facing a huge liability
Oh dear,why do you think the liability may be huge?
Ernest BeckerNovember 28, 2017 at 00:21
‘…This is my opinion, it is not a fact, the truth or evil.’
____________
IT is a fact that even the compromised LNS inquiry had to conclude that there was cheating,and on a scale just short of match-fixing!
It is a fact that Liquidation means what it says: the entity dies in the market place,attempts to save it have failed, and when the Liquidators have finished , the entity is dissolved. The entity, the only entity, that was Rangers Football Club , which, on incorporation in 1899,was given the number SC004276 is the entity, the very same identical entity,bearing the same number SC004276, that was liquidated.There was nothing else there, no holding company, no other company,just the football club, to be liquidated.
And lying is, in fact,regarded worldwide and in every human society, as evil enough as to make being accused of being a liar just about the biggest offence to be accused of.
In uttering your ‘opinion’, EB, you are in fact, (and I can accept that you might not be able to realise the fact) uttering and repeating untruths.
Have a serious think to yourself.
Not for my sake, but for your own.
Realise that what you say makes you either a blithering idiot or fork-tongued.
It is a fact that Liquidation means what it says: the entity dies in the market place,attempts to save it have failed, and when the Liquidators have finished , the entity is dissolved. The entity, the only entity, that was Rangers Football Club , which, on incorporation in 1899,was given the number SC004276 is the entity, the very same identical entity,bearing the same number SC004276, that was liquidated.There was nothing else there, no holding company, no other company,just the football club, to be liquidated.
Facts need to be incontrovertible my friend.
This leaves no doubt as to the fact that a Club is a recognisable entity that can be owned and also be operated by a company. We do not, of course, suggest that a club has a separate legal personality. It is clear that it does not. It is the company who enters into contractual transactions, but, we submit, the company’s actions may affect the club itself.It is also submitted that a club could be purchased and sold as a continuous entity.
Dr Ioannidis promises that his report will be co-written by Tracy Campbell-Hynd. She is a highly experienced solicitor in business, insolvency and contract matters, who appeared on TV on a number of occasions providing expert legal analysis of the issues surrounding the Rangers debacle.
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/as-we-await-the-nimmo-smith-decision-my-reasons-for-saying-rangers-fc-is-not-a-new-club/
I was tired of telling all of you all,nothing to do with Insolvency Laws and everything to do with SFA Articles.
Rangers is the same club in the opinion of many legal experts,that is a FACT.
So, as far as I am concerned, Rangers Football Club is the same Football Club today as it was one year ago, two years ago etc.
I concur.
UEFA’s public position on RFC club status.
“Whatever sanctions are taken in the case of Rangers FC are up the the SFA and SPL as they run their domestic game according to the regulations they have passed.
“UEFA rules and regulations apply only to European competitions.”
And lying is, in fact,regarded worldwide and in every human society, as evil enough as to make being accused of being a liar just about the biggest offence to be accused of.
Are your pants on fire?
Let me repeat, i have never claimed i know anything for a fact and my opinion is not a lie just because your opinion differs from mine.
So to summarise for those struggling to come to terms with opposing opinions,here is my flip chart.
1. RFC according to SFA articles was a separate entity from its owner/operator RFC PLC.
2. RFC according to SFA articles could be sold by RFC PLC and bought by Sevco (Scotland) Ltd.
3. SFA Article 14 enables a membership transfer with discretion,and it was transferred from RFC PLC to Sevco(Scotland) Ltd.
4. SFA declare RFC owned and operated by Sevco(Scotland) Ltd as same club with continuous history in accordance with Articles.
5. UEFA accepts the legitimacy of SFA Articles.
6. Scottish football is governed in accordance with its Articles not Insolvency or Company laws.
Now i am not claiming anything above is a fact but let us be clear,anyone who claims Rangers is dead is not stating a fact, it is their opinion,one i happen to disagree with based on the evidence available.
Ernest Becker
Had you been a longer term reader you would know that all of your points have been discussed in some detail before and fortunately, to save the blog being tied up with explaining it all again the myths created in 2012 and how are set out at
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/neil-doncaster-and-the-birth-of-monster-myths/
I will cover only one which is near the end of the article and that is prior to 2005 there was nothing in SFA Articles that separated a club from anything . A club was a club.
So if somehow in 2005 Rangers split into two entities and that is accepted ( even though they didn’t) then the SFA membership of that split entity began in 2005 because SFA Articles, being your bible on the matter say so.
Now can we all agree you have done this to death. Have raised nothing new that stands scrutiny and you believe what you want but stop treating everyone else like idiots.
Your village is wondering where you are.
ERNEST BECKERNOVEMBER 28, 2017 at 00:21 1 13 Rate This
Why not both?
Same answer as above, i accept one of the punishments
—————
But ONE was not a punishment one was the consequence of bad management and liquidation.
the other (title stripping could be seen as a punishment,but what do you expect NO punishment after being found guilty?
“Facts need to be incontrovertible”, says the man who proceeds to post mere ‘submissions’ as incontrovertible facts.
Your double-standards border on rank hypocrisy.
The information you quote is fact-free. It is full of opinion – opinion which formed part of the totally discredited LNS inquiry, which we now know was a predetermined whitewash – a sham.
Ernest Baker, it is way too late for you to leave here with your reputation intact, but please, please, quit while you’re behind! You are beyond embarrassing now and well into cringeworthy territory.
AULDHEID,
So if somehow in 2005 Rangers split into two entities and that is accepted ( even though they didn’t) then the SFA membership of that split entity began in 2005 because SFA Articles, being your bible on the matter say so.
This non sequitur actually disappoints me,amended Articles of Association REPLACE their predecessors,obsolete Articles are DEAD and not my bible, and cannot be used to determine anything.What is patently true is RFC existed before any Articles were written so the change merely confirmed the obvious.
I will have a look at your link but my general point stands,there are genuine differing opinions on these matters from those outwith the SFA and Scottish football bubble,anyone who suggests this is a cut and dried falsehood is merely expressing their opinion,one i disagree with.
“Facts need to be incontrovertible”, says the man who proceeds to post mere ‘submissions’ as incontrovertible facts.
The existence of the submissions themselves is an obvious incontrovertible fact,never said the submissions content was an incontrovertible fact,easy mistake to make i suppose.