The Offline Game

The scandal in which Scottish football has become embroiled is neither equivocal nor complicated. It happened. It is easily seen to have happened. It is certainly not a degree course in nuclear physics. Why then, are simple facts ignored day after day, week after week, by not just the so called purveyors of truth in the media, but the body of the SFA itself, the clubs?

Five years or so ago, systematic cheating by a club involved in Scottish football was uncovered as a consequence of the club slipping into liquidation. This is easily established as fact.

It soon became clear that the authorities had been aware of the situation for as long as it had been going on, but instead of applying their own rules, which would have saved that club from it’s ultimate demise, they chose to enable it and cover it up. Also, backed up by documentary evidence.

As a consequence of the slide towards liquidation, the authorities went into cover-up overdrive to protect their own position. Inquiries based on rhetorical “you’ll have had your tea!” questions were set up to arrive at predetermined conclusions. The post-truth era in Scottish football had begun in earnest.

The claims of corruption which subsequently emerged were dismissed out of hand by the authorities and the press; first by accusations that it was only Paranoid Celtic fans looking to put the boot into Rangers who were behind the claims, then, when it became clear that it was not only Celtic fans who were angered by the way the integrity of the sport had been shattered, the “mad Celtic fans” epithet was amended to “mad online conspiracy theorists”.

The tactic was clear. NEVER address the issue. Attack the messengers. Ridicule them, mock them, demonise them. Despite that, the message of SFM and others was gaining traction and dangerously for the authorities, becoming difficult to ignore.

Last Autumn SFM was approached in confidence by senior figures in two print media outlets. The request was for us to provide them with the facts we had in bullet points – to make it easier for them to reach their audience, an audience they claimed was not sophisticated enough to absorb the detail and minutiae of the story.

The role of journalists is to do exactly that of course. They had access to the same documentary evidence we had (we know this because we gave it to them), but they wanted us to do their job for them? Leaving aside the scant regard I have for football journalists in this country, I don’t believe they are incapable of carrying out that simple task – but we humoured them anyway and provided them with the “SFA Corruption for Dummies” guide that they asked for.

But what were they really up to?

Remembering the RTC thread where he pointed out that genuine whistle-blowers in this saga were reluctant to come forward because of trust issues – they feared any contact with the MSM would result in their details being provided to those they were exposing – we proceeded with some caution. Amusingly, the same three questions was asked at each meeting; “You must know who Rangers Tax Case is?”, “any idea who John James is?” and, “what team do you support?”. (FYI, my answers were, “No”, “No”, and “Celtic” respectively).

Interestingly, for people who needed clarification by bullet-point, they were well enough versed in the minutiae to attempt to argue the flat-earth case and try to sell us the “it has been established legally that <insert something that hasn’t been established legally here>”

Our only conjecture was that they were trying to convince us we were wrong,  or ascertain how firm a grasp we actually had on the facts to better see who and what they were dealing with, or (most probably) they were reacting aimlessly to online pressure and not really following any plan at all. Perhaps they were seeking to reassure themselves that it was just Celtic fans who were angry – although I fail to see how Celtic or their fans have less credibility when asking legitimate questions about the running of the game just because Rangers were involved.

Subsequently, despite the platitudes of “print and social media should work together” and the like, and despite being furnished with the aforementioned bullet points, no further contact was made with SFM other than a couple of childish comments about SFM on Twitter.

Facts might be facts to us all, but in the case of the print media, they can be ignored on the basis that mad internet bampots are not a credible source, although metaphysical hypotheses are clearly thought to be a far more sensible line of inquiry!

However, facts ARE indeed facts, and in the hands of real journalists like Alec Thomson and those in The Offshore Game (TOG), they are given the credence they merit. Since TOG published the report on the SFA (see below), the facts have emerged from not just the so-called internet bampots. Those facts have survived the scrutiny of several reputable journalists involved in TOG – and their legal advisers.

Accusations more blunt and unequivocal than we have ever made have been published. The genie is most definitely out of the bottle, but the prodigious MSM Twitterati, so meticulous in their investigations into the occupation of Craig Whyte’s female companions, appear to have run out of batteries on their keyboards. “No answer” is the loud reply, since TOG cannot be ridiculed quite so easily without exposing themselves to the same scrutiny they have failed to apply to the SFA.

If I can be as unequivocal about this as possible. Senior journalists in at least two MSM print outlets KNOW there has been a cover up, and that systematic cheating took place. They knew that before the TOG report, long before it, but still they did nothing. Even now they do nothing. They are now playing a reactionary role – as counterpoint to the accessible online truth –  involved in actively concealing that truth from the offline public. An Offline Game if you like.

Of course we are not surprised by that, and as the falling-off-a-cliff circulation figures show, fewer and fewer people are playing their game. Even those who still purchase newspapers believe little of what they read.

The clubs are a different matter. Fans of every single club in this country – and that includes TRFC – will benefit from an inquiry into the handling of this matter. In the light of the TOG report, there is no excuse for the clubs to ignore calls for an inquiry to be set up. In fact by doing so, they are actively embracing corruption.

As we have said time and time again, this is no longer about Rangers. It is about institutionalised mal-governance at Hampden. By assisting the cover-up, the clubs are ensuring that the same corrupt practices are in place, ready to go again when necessary. Those practices which saw journalists and SFA officials cede editorial control (both statements backed up by documentary evidence) of their output to one club, and allow damaging conflicts of interest to circumvent rules.

The Offshore Game has thrown a media spotlight onto a cover-up. The MSM have attempted to bury it in the offline domain, but corruption, however well established,is not unbeatable. We can beat it if we work together – and here is how.

Season ticket renewals are dropping through letterboxes as I write this. If we do nothing other than protest, the clubs will do – just like Stewart Regan says he will – NOTHING!

There is only one way to establish the Independent Inquiry that is demanded in the wake of TOG report. Ask your club if they will vote for an Independent Inquiry to be set up.

If they agree, there is no problem. They are doing the right thing and will be deserving of our support.

Otherwise, send their renewal forms back to them unsigned.

It really is that simple.

 

 

http://www.theoffshoregame.net/475-2/

 

 

This entry was posted in General by Big Pink. Bookmark the permalink.
John Cole

About Big Pink

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

1,833 thoughts on “The Offline Game


  1. TONY

     THELAWMANWithin six days, the club slipped into administration and relegation was confirmed by the mandatory 10-point deduction imposed on clubs who enter administration.Dennis Wise A summer of torment began at Elland Road. After gaining creditor approval to bring the club out of administration the new owners (Leeds United 2007 Ltd) – led by chairman Ken Bates – were almost thwarted when the Inland Revenue objected to the CVA. The club’s administrators KMPG put the club for sale for a second time, and once again, Leeds United 2007 were successful in buying the club.However, without an approved CVA – the Inland Revnue’s objection nullified the CVA – the Football League insisted upon on 15-point sanction before returning the “Golden Share” (Membership of the League). That proposal was supported by the majority of Football League chairmen, who voted in favour of a points sanction on the  basis that the club emerged from administration without a valid CVA, despite the fact a valid CVA was unachieveable.And so it was that the club began the 2007/08 season 15 points adrift at the foot of League One. In a remarkable campaign, Dennis Wise’s men won their opening seven games and went on to hit top spot

    TONY, i admire your persistence on this however by not clicking the link to Companies House and continuing to post wrong information from the web, you are restricting yourself from the one and only evidence pot that cannot be challenged.  

    Companies House is the only place where you can guarantee the record is 100% accurate.

    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00170600/insolvency

    Again i provide you the link to Company 00170600, THE LEEDS UNITED ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL CLUB LTD incorporated 2 October 1920, entered into administration 4 May 2007 and entered in liquidation 15 February 2008.

    If you click on filing history then on the 27 page document dated 15 Feb 2008 then you will get the whole truth laid out in front of you.

    Here is a link to download it though you can do it on the Companies House page:

     http://speedy.sh/g9m2V/untitled.pdf

    You will find the correct information, as i posted it, at Point 3.1I trust that upon reading this, that yourself, HIGHLANDER, WOODSTEIN and HAPPY CHAPPY will be satisfied that the CVA was challenged and in the end did not proceed.

     It appears in the “enlightening blog” from the Scots Law page that the writer is happy to concede that Leeds are in fact the same team as are all the commentators, as well as all the FA Chairman and footballing authorities.  I wold hope and trust that there is similar acceptance now that the author has been proven beyond all doubt to be misinformed in relation to the CVA being accepted and that Leeds United administration process is an almost exact mirror of Rangers, save that initial CVA agreement which was later terminated due to HMRC’s legal challenge on 3 July 2007.


  2. Lies semantics smoke and mirrors all designed to confuse and confound. Oldco rangers cheated and lied for more than a decade then they died newco The rangers are doing much the same and may possibly go the same way if it was my club I would hang my head in shame not strut about claiming to be the same club.Thankfully I have these special glasses that allow me to see through the lies the semantics and the smoke and mirrors and all I see is a shambling wreck of a club that could have been on a sound footing if they had accepted the truth and got on with the job of building something worthwhile but the arrogance and sense of entitlement couldn’t or wouldn’t allow that anyway roll on tonight so I can howl at the moon some more lol.


  3. Thats fair enough Shug and you are entitled to your opinion.  The reason for posting this is not to continue that argument but to defend myself against the claims that i didnt know what I was talking about, calling my other views on licencing into question.

    Anyway, just for the record here is the true comparison of Leeds and Rangers situation as official Companies House records confirm:

    4th May 2007 – Leeds United oldco are placed into administration
    14th Feb 2014 – Rangers FC oldco are placed into administration
     
    6th July 2007 – Leeds potential CVA is aborted due to HMRC rejection 14th June 2012 – Rangers potential CVA is aborted due to HMRC rejection
     
    10th July 2007 – Ken Bates consortium purchases Leeds in administration
    14th June 2012 – Charles Green consortium purchases Rangers in administration
     
    2nd August 2007 – The English FA confirm the membership has transferred to Newco
    3rd August 2012 – The Scottish FA confirm the membership has transferred to Newco
     
    9th August 2007 – Chairmen of England vote to keep Leeds as they were with a 15 pt deduction
    13th July 2012 – Chairmen of Scottish clubs vote to put Rangers in the 3rd Division
     
    11th August 2007 – Leeds start new season in same league on minus 15 points
    11th August 2012 – Rangers start new season 3 leagues down
     
    15th February 2008 – Leeds oldco are placed in liquidation
    31st October 2012 – Rangers oldco are placed in liquidation


  4. Some intense legal debate on here. I’m no lawyer, but I’ll tell you how I see it. If Rangers were not liquidated and a new club formed in 2012 then why did the new club have to apply to join the league? It really is that simple a question to answer. In addition, the then SFL clubs could have said no to the newco entering the league and that would have been that. ‘Rangers’ no more. 

    We may not all be lawyers, but our heads don’t button up the back either. 


  5. Hi guys
    I’ve followed this blog since RTC days but I have never posted before as I felt I did not have anything worthwhile to say. Some of the stuff I have learned from you guys has blown me away.
    Anyway I’ve been dreading this day as it confirms my fears as to how Celtic are treating the conclusion of “the journey”
    For anyone who is not sure please allow me to show you a copy of a letter I have sent to Celtic re season book renewals.
    Apologies if it seems long winded but it’s from a fan who can’t take any more.
    Keep up the great work guys.

    Dear Sir,
    I am writing to you today to express my utter dismay at the way Celtic F.C are treating their wonderful supporters.
    Like many others I am from generations of Celtic supporters and I’m proud my son has now taken his passion to the stands to follow our team.
    He recently received his season ticket renewal and as a 16 year old he is getting a good deal as he did last year. But I am aghast at the clubs stance that his HOME SEASON TICKET will not be valid against “Rangers FC”.
    Let me firstly point out that my son is a CELTIC supporter REGARDLESS of the opposition we face.
    As such, he along with thousands of others go to Celtic park to watch CELTIC. Again be it East Kilbride or Real Madrid my son would attend the match to see CELTIC. The way Celtic FC are treating their young supporters is disgraceful. My question to you is WHY are Celtic FC differentiating opposition teams?
    Secondly I would like to point out a factual inaccuracy within your renewal letter. You have stated that junior season tickets are not valid against “Rangers FC”. It is a matter of fact that “Rangers FC” are currently going through the process of liquidation and no longer hold an SFA licence, therefore they will be unable to play anyone let alone Celtic.
    As you must be aware “Rangers FC’s” SFA licence was transferred to “Sevco 5088” who in turn changed their name to “The Rangers FC”, under the guise of the Secretive 5 way agreement. The merit of this disgraceful deception of all Scottish football fans is for another time. If this is a typing error on your part then clarification would be appreciated.This would then lead to a follow up question as to why Celtic FC deem fixtures against a club in its first year in Scotland’s top flight to be so special.
    I do not remember “Gretna FC” afforded the same special attention.
    I await your reply to my queries with interest as I need to know the direction my wonderful club is headed.
    As Champions we should be pioneers and set the lead for Scottish football in an honest and sporting manner. Please be aware Celtic were founded on integrity and honesty and this remains close to the heart of our wonderful support.


  6. For he avoidance of doubt, Charles Green bought the business and assets OF the club, not the club itself.

    He had to borrow players from the dead club to play their first ever game – Rangers FC a trading name of sevco scotland – 29th July 2012 using their very own, unique, conditional membership of the SFA


  7. THELAWMAN, unfortunately I don’t have time to fully answer your various recent posts regarding Leeds Utd and other matters, as I’m heading to work shortly, but I most assuredly beg to differ about Leeds Utd going into liquidation.

    http://www.mightyleeds.co.uk/seasons/200708part1.htm

    Incidentally, the Companies House website that you provided a link to doesn’t have an entry for Rangers (1872), only TRFC, incorporated in 2012. Does that confirm the former’s demise?

    I had to laugh when you had the audacity to suggest that we were selective in which of Charles Green’s utterances we believed, yet you and your fellow supporters do precisely that with the football authorities. You rightly castigate them for their ineptitude, yet expect the rest of us to believe in a same club myth that is less plausible than the tooth fairy. It is also important to note that all the organisations you credit as supporting the same club argument (UEFA, ECA, ASA (and no doubt the CIA and YMCA!)) were all advised of your late club’s immortality by the very SFA you purport to despise.  

     


  8. There’s a difference between a Compulsory liquidation & one done so Voluntarily..

    Leeds United’s CVA was challenged by HMRC but ultimately a CVA was agreed with over 75% of creditors accepting it. At this time a new company was created to purchase the club and assets out of ADMINISTRATION. Rangers the club has not come out of administration as no CVA was agreed and is in the the process of being LIQUIDATED. Spot the difference Lawman.

    The following is an explanation of what happened at Leeds & why it’s not comparible to the situation at Rangers…

    “I see Leeds United are being held up as a model for Rangers to liquidate and emerge as a new club. Leeds United’s circumstances are highly unlikely to bear any relationship with those at Rangers unless Duff and Phelps can agree a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement.

    Leeds United AFC Ltd entered administration in the control of KPMG Restructuring on 4 May 2007 and on the same day were sold to a new company Leeds United Football Club Ltd subject to a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) being agreed. Both Leeds United AFC Ltd and Leeds United FC Ltd were controlled by Ken Bates.

    A CVA requires 75% of creditors (by value) to vote to accept a reduced percentage of the money they are owed. The company was forced to act as HMRC, who were owed in excess of £6m, had issued a winding up petition which was due to expire on 25 June 2007.

    Before creditors voted on the CVA several other bidders came forward with offers for the club, however, the vote, on 1 June 2007, returned 75.02% of creditors accepting the CVA offer (75.20% after a recount).

    Creditors can challenge a CVA within 28 days of the vote. On the 28th day, 3 July 2007, HMRC challenged. With the CVA subject to a challenge, KPMG asked for further offers for the company to be submitted by 9 July 2007. Despite the extended offer period, the administrators still accepted the offer from Ken Bates Leeds United FC Ltd.

    With a CVA agreed, subject to challenge, the Football League transferred Leeds United AFC’s league share to Leeds United FC Ltd under its “exceptional circumstances” provision. The League imposed a 15 point penalty on the club for the 2007-08 season for failing to satisfy the outstanding legal challenge in time, necessitating the ‘exceptional circumstances’ rule.

    HMRC withdrew their objection to the CVA the following month. Leeds United subsequently appealed against their 15 point penalty citing a CVA had been agreed and that the league programme does not allow time for spurious challenges to be dealt with. The Football League refused the appeal.

    Believing Football League procedures were at fault, not their own behaviour, Leeds United served the League with a High Court writ to challenge the points deduction, however, both parties agreed to abide by the findings of an arbitration panel hearing.

    The arbitration panel found against Leeds United citing the following two reasons:

    A director of Leeds United FC signed an earlier agreement not to commence any proceedings against the League.

    Leeds United waited 7 months before commencing the action, which brought unnecessary sporting consequences on other promotion chasing clubs, specifically Doncaster Rovers, who would no longer be in an automatic promotion spot if Leeds’ 15 points were restored.

    In summary:

    Leeds United AFC Ltd’s administrators achieved the necessary 75% support for a CVA.

    They withstood the challenge from HMRC, paid creditors and concluded the transfer of assets, including League share, to Leeds United FC Ltd, according to the terms of the CVA before winding up the old company. No loose ends were left.

    This is not a Liquidator’s Charter. Provisions in football only exist to transfer a League share from one company to another if creditors are satisfied, either by being paid in full or, as with Leeds United, with 75% agreeing to accept a diminished amount.”


  9. THELAWMANMAY 13, 2016 at 06:19 10th July 2007 – Ken Bates consortium purchases Leeds in administration14th June 2012 – Charles Green consortium purchases Rangers in administration

    ———————————————————-
    I have had time to follow follow only some of the discussion of late. The debate has been interesting though, but there is a level of pedantry and semantics which has been staggering. Lawman, I’m delighted to see a bear on here and engaging in debate, its a great shame that it has taken you this long to sign in.

    But, Rangers cheated. They cheated the tax man, they cheated the Scottish football community, they cheated Scottish football fans, they cheated the face painters, they newsagents and the most definitely cheated their own fans (some might say robbed in fact). The list goes on. Yet, so many who choose to support the Ibrox clubs prefer to ignore, or deflect this. I understand loyalty to your club I understand the desire to keep on supporting a team in blue playing at that stadium. I don’t understand the blind support of anyone who happens to come along and claim to be the saviour.

    But anyway, your post earlier of the Leeds v Rangers time lines. Its simply wrong. Green did NOT purchase Rangers FC. He purchased the assets. Rangers FC are in liquidation. Any argument, no matter how strong, collapses when people decide to simply ignore truths and push a blatant lie. 


  10. I’m not sure I can convince anyone on this issue. I have provided links to Companies House which has legal documents confirming I am 100% correct yet Highlander continues to pick wrong articles off the internet. 

    Unless perhaps a more qualified and long term poster could do the decent thing and confirm my links and information to be true, I’m afraid I think my debate is done and I will just have to accept that there are people who won’t simply accept legal facts if it doesn’t suit their view or opinion or agenda. 

    For the avoidance of any doubt. Leeds did NOT achieve a CVA. it was subject to a legal challenge and subsequently declared void and rejected. 

    Also to be clear, a Voluntary CREDITORS liquidation and a Compulsory liquidation are the same legal treatment and same outcome. A members Voluntary Liquidation is different. 

    In order to prevent clogging this up, I would urge someone to please read the document and confirm my timeline and facts are 100% irrefutable. 


  11. I have a lawyer neighbour who is a staunch Rangers fan and was always absolutely certain and on many occasions quoted me chapter and verse on why the Rangers playing at Ibrox is exactly the same club as the one that used to play there.
    His justifications were always both general and specific and cleverly crafted to reassure him and Rangers fans like him to keep spending and attending.
    I would laugh but personally thought and told him too he is and always was a victim.
    Last week over a beer he told me had been reading this site as a lurker since I sent him a link when I posted one of the blogs a couple of months back and that he was visiting JJ’s site too which I’d also recommended.
    It in particular was starting to hit home across his circle of blue club fans and people were now talking about stuff that would have been heresy a short time ago.
    Our collective bampot sites are starting to have an impact with the influential end of the fan bases.
    In a situation like that an open site like SFM could expect to be infiltrated by people trying to influence our agenda and points of view.

    Reading over the last few days has set me wondering if our new, particularly intense (24 hour a day) debate is because we, the collective non MSM bampots (and I include the Offshore report last week and other sites like JJ) are close to hitting a few nerves.


  12. THELAWMANMAY 12, 2016 at 20:22 
    ALLYJAMBO
     Whose confidentiality would be broken by the SFA revealing the details, and if this is the reason for their silence on the matter, why don’t they say so?PS I’m ALLYjambo, not EASY, though it is easy to get us mixed up
    _______Sorry for the mix up and apologies in advance to both of you for doing it again in the future which i will do. All those documents between all the clubs and the SFA are commercially sensitive and they have a duty of care to their members.
    ____________

    Hmm, not a very good try, LM. My original question asked, why would the SFA choose not to display the evidence, I wasn’t asking what excuse they might try to get away with for not taking the opportunity to put the issue to bed. I then asked who’s confidentiality would be broken? Again you have not answered the question posed.

    You have also changed your excuse from one of confidentiality to ‘duty of care to their members’, both very different things. There is a problem with your ‘duty of care to their members’ excuse in that the Rangers of June 2011 are no longer members of the SFA, as they are now in the process of being liquidated. So no duty, of any description, from the SFA required there then!

    Commercial confidentiality would only be an issue if they were being asked to reveal something commercially sensitive.What might that be, how might any revelation hurt the commercial prospects of any company currently in liquidation? We know they were granted a license. We know that they were in extreme financial distress. We know what their duty to the SFA and UEFA was. How would displaying that Rangers supplied all the information required to acquire the license break any notion of commercial confidentiality? And, at the same time, by showing that everything was above board, the SFA would be showing us all that they had, in fact, honoured their ‘duty of care’ to all their members. I realise, though, that that is a strange concept to many who embrace the WATP ethos, the idea that the SFA have a duty to all it’s members. 

    In fact, the only way commercial confidentiality, or a duty of care, could be broken, in this case, would be if there was something to be revealed that would damage one or more of the institutions involved in the granting of the club’s license! 

    If the SFA, itself, feels unable to display that all documentation was correct, on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, why don’t they at least say that that is the case? Could it be that they are aware that that excuse would be ripped to shreds because it is a nonsense?

    But if you are still unable to see past the excuses you offer, can you explain why the SFA don’t approach all their member clubs and show them the evidence, then ask them to assure their own supporters that they are completely satisfied that Rangers’ 2011 European License was granted within all the FFP regulations?


  13. THELAWMANMAY 13, 2016 at 06:19
     
    15th February 2008 – Leeds oldco are placed in liquidation
    ————————————————————————————–
     Had a wee read of the file history,

    Yip,after agreeing a Creditors Voluntary Liquidation(the newco took on the the debts of the oldco) and that,s why the transfer of membership was approved.Rangers agreed to nothing with their creditors so no transfer of membership should,ve been allowed if it ever was.
     
    As of 24 of feb 2016,the debt is now down to less than £300.000 with the liquidation expected to run another 2 to 3 years.

    Yes leeds are indeed in liquidation,but only after the creditors agreed to the deal that was put to them,rangers creditors got no such luxury.

    https://www.gov.uk/liquidate-your-company/creditors-voluntary-liquidation


  14. In addition..

    One of the reasons Ken Bates created a new company to buy Leeds from administration was down to timing. Under league rules time was of the essence and a new company was the quickest route to assure Leeds United’s league participation for the season.

    While Rangers fans attempt to use Leeds as a comparison to Rangers they fail to tell the whole story. Yes a CVA was challenged by HMRC but this challenge ultimately failed as 75% of creditors agreed.

    Yes Leeds United are under new company ownership but Rangers are entirely a new entity. It’s a simple but important distinction.


  15. FINLOCHMAY 13, 2016 at 08:47 10 0 Rate This
    ………………….
    Reading over the last few days has set me wondering if our new, particularly intense (24 hour a day) debate is because we, the collective non MSM bampots (and I include the Offshore report last week and other sites like JJ) are close to hitting a few nerves.

    Nail. On. Head.


  16. Further to my post yesterday regarding the sudden appearance ( after a very factual and damning report is published ) of the guru and his prolific posting putting the world to right and us non-believers on what he believes to be the right road?
    I log in to catch up this morning and ‘he’ has taken it to a new LEVEL with an all nighter!!!
    I think time will show this is no one man band – the orchestra has started playing and they want silence from the audience and they better listen?
    ps. Do not expect any newspaper reviews of this performance.


  17. Good to have you on here TLM. I’ve enjoyed reading your posts and the responses, even if I’m struggling to fully understand the complexities of the issue. Your alternative point of view, well researched and made, is most welcome.

    Not everyone will be convinced by your argument, just as you remain unconvinced by other positions on the matter. It seems to me this is about an interpretation of the laws because Rangers failed to pay tax. Pay it and there is no issue. 

    Please stick around on SFM and engage in the debate, whatever that may be in the future. There will never be agreement on everything but that would make pretty boring reading if we did. 


  18. I’m hoping John Clark has been taking notes of the last few days on SFM
    its the only way the hard of thinking like me will understand the longwinded legal debate that’s been going on here


  19. For the avoidance of any doubt. Leeds did NOT achieve a CVA. it was subject to a legal challenge and subsequently declared void and rejected.

    Sorry but this is untrue. HMRC’s challenge failed and creditors were paid. A CVA was indeed achieved.


  20. I’m sorry guys but I’m really struggling to comprehend the shifts in arguments and despite promising myself not to venture into other territory I found myself in the position of having to defend my character against an accusation that I didn’t know what I was talking about and therefore my other posts were questionable. 

    Where im having real difficulty is that 12 hours ago, I was told that Leeds United were the same club because various articles that I was asked to read confirmed they achieved a CVA and were not liquidated which would be the point where they would become a new club. Having proven beyond ALL (not reasonable) doubt that Leeds did NOT achieve a CVA and that they WERE liquidated, I’m now being asked to believe a moving of the goalposts. Apparently it’s because they had a VOLUNTARY liquidation(which none of you were aware of previously) instead of a COMPULSORY liquidation. 

    Let me confirm that in the eyes of company law, the very same 2 things come from both the above statuses. 

    1) The company can no longer pay its debt as it is insolvent. 
    2) the company ceases trading and is wound up. 

    This is what happened with both Leeds oldco and Rangers oldco. 

    In answer to the suggestions that I may be some sort of paid hand or popping up due to some crazy conspiracy idea, my history on RangersMedia is there for people to read should they wish. 

    In contra to the majority of Rangers fans, I was staunchly against the Whyte regime and constantly spoke out against what was going on. I am also one of the most outspoken against both Dave King and in particular Paul Murray both of whom in my opinion shouldn’t be near the club. I am anti RST and I’m against the current 1872 plans. I’m certainly no mouthpiece for anyone. 

    The goings on in 2011-12 haunt me to this day. I absolutely condemn/abhor/detest what happened and how many people have been done out of money. I will never excuse what happened and at the end of the day, alongside all the creditors, I feel I am a victim of it. I sincerely hope that any court case reaches the right decision and conclusion and maybe I can put that part behind me. 

    All i set out to do on here was put to bed many myths that float about the licence issue that people have been misinformed about over the years. The same with the Leeds issue. The new/old club issue will never go away. We will always think it’s the same club. “Some” other fans will think it’s a new club. I don’t have one colleague or acquaintance from many clubs who agree with the new club view at all but that’s just the circle of people I mix with. 

    Anyway off to a 5 hour meeting. 


  21. HAPPYCHAPPY – you are 100% wrong. Sorry. 

    The CVA was agreed then aborted as HMRC launched a legal appeal in July. It’s in the links I provided. Please have a read.


  22. Bit unfair to complain about the number of posts by TLM. Would you rather he didn’t respond to the questions? Pretty sure he’d get criticised for that too. 


  23. This latest episode in the debate started 48 hours ago and was welcomed by all in its reasonable, well constructed form. Now, two days on, it continues unabated and unaltered to such an extent that it would appear to be more of a filibuster than a discussion.
    The rights and the wrongs of the various arguments have been aimed at the requirements of gaining a UEFA license. This is a small,but important, part of our concerns and what we are confronted with are two sides in disagreement. One has documentation in support of its argument, the other verbal assurances that there is documentation. The depth of distrust is such though that, in the absence of written proof, verbal assurances from someone who is attached to the SFA would not be enough to assuage us never mind from someone who would appear to have no access to said documentation.
    My concerns are at a moral level with regard to what appears, in my eyes, to have happened and is still happening. Until such times as ALL issues are answered at a believable and trustworthy level individual arguments based on differences in interpretation can do nothing to assuage me. The debate has been interesting and enjoyable but is now past its sell by date.
    Perhaps Lawman could now expand his arguments to cover ALL our concerns. Many of them do not need any level of expertise to make a judgement on. For example. did the SDM run club’s blatant breach of registration rules and known attempts to avoid social taxes(leave out the BTC and concentrate on the WTC which was admitted to) an attempt to gain unfair advantage? Did the SFA’s handling of the subsequent enquiry count as an independent attempt to get to the truth or an attempt to brush it under the carpet. That is just one small part of it all but it is one that defines our concerns.

    If, though, Lawman your only concern is that the UEFA licensing was above board then, may I suggest, that you have had your say and put it down very clearly. If you were prepared to come up with the proof that your club did in fact properly lay out their tax position to the authorities then that for me would warrant further discussion. Until then I shall butt out of the discussion. There is too much to do to force action on this for me to spend time talking round in circles.


  24. The material below is not my work, it comes from the CQN website. I have no idea how much is true and have not checked it.

    =======================================================

    Leeds United AFC Ltd entered administration in the control of KPMG Restructuring on 4 May 2007 and on the same day were sold to a new company Leeds United Football Club Ltd subject to a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) being agreed.  Both Leeds United AFC Ltd and Leeds United FC Ltd were controlled by Ken Bates.

    A CVA requires 75% of creditors (by value) to vote to accept a reduced percentage of the money they are owed.  The company was forced to act as HMRC, who were owed in excess of £6m, had issued a winding up petition which was due to expire on 25 June 2007.

    Before creditors voted on the CVA several other bidders came forward with offers for the club, however, the vote, on 1 June 2007, returned 75.02% of creditors accepting the CVA offer (75.20% after a recount).

    Creditors can challenge a CVA within 28 days of the vote.  On the 28th day, 3 July 2007, HMRC challenged.  With the CVA subject to a challenge, KPMG asked for further offers for the company to be submitted by 9 July 2007.  Despite the extended offer period, the administrators still accepted the offer from Ken Bates Leeds United FC Ltd.

    With a CVA agreed, subject to challenge, the Football League transferred Leeds United AFC’s league share to Leeds United FC Ltd under its “exceptional circumstances” provision.  The League imposed a 15 point penalty on the club for the 2007-08 season for failing to satisfy the outstanding legal challenge in time, necessitating the ‘exceptional circumstances’ rule.

    HMRC withdrew their objection to the CVA the following month.  Leeds United subsequently appealed against their 15 point penalty citing a CVA had been agreed and that the league programme does not allow time for spurious challenges to be dealt with.  The Football League refused the appeal.

    Believing Football League procedures were at fault, not their own behaviour, Leeds United served the League with a High Court writ to challenge the points deduction, however, both parties agreed to abide by the findings of an arbitration panel hearing.

    The arbitration panel found against Leeds United citing the following two reasons:

    A director of Leeds United FC signed an earlier agreement not to commence any proceedings against the League.

    Leeds United waited 7 months before commencing the action, which brought unnecessary sporting consequences on other promotion chasing clubs, specifically Doncaster Rovers, who would no longer be in an automatic promotion spot if Leeds’ 15 points were restored.

    In summary:

    Leeds United AFC Ltd’s administrators achieved  the necessary 75% support for a CVA.

    They withstood the challenge from HMRC, paid creditors and concluded the transfer of assets, including League share, to Leeds United FC Ltd, according to the terms of the CVA before winding up the old company. No loose ends were left.

    This is not a Liquidator’s Charter.  Provisions in football only exist to transfer a League share from one company to another if creditors are satisfied, either by being paid in full or, as with Leeds United, with 75% agreeing to accept a diminished amount.


  25. The CVA was agreed then aborted as HMRC launched a legal appeal in July. It’s in the links I provided. Please have a read.

    Is “100%” wrong more convincing? 🙂 

    The CVA was delayed due to HMRC’s challenge (which they later abandoned) & subsequently the club was put up for sale again by KPMG & then bought out of administration with an offer being accepted. That offer allowed KPMG to settle the CVA.

    I am not sure what you’re not grasping here but it’s pretty simple.

    Perhaps you can give us that link again to the outcome of HMRC’s “legal appeal”? 


  26. Maybe the definitive answer to the OC/NC debate should come from Rangers themselves.
    The attachment provided comes from one of the old club’s letters regarding the DOS and clearly shows that Rangers FC PLC, according to the club itself, was founded in 1873, despite the fact that RFC didn’t become a PLC until 2000.
    Club and company were the same thing all along and that’s straight from the horse’s mouth.


  27. gerrybhoy67May 13, 2016 at 09:32 
    Further to my post yesterday regarding the sudden appearance ( after a very factual and damning report is published ) of the guru and his prolific posting putting the world to right and us non-believers on what he believes to be the right road? I log in to catch up this morning and ‘he’ has taken it to a new LEVEL with an all nighter!!! I think time will show this is no one man band – the orchestra has started playing and they want silence from the audience and they better listen? ps. Do not expect any newspaper reviews of this performance.
    _________________________

    ‘An all nighter’ on SFM, and now off to a 5 hour meeting! Unless it’s a meeting with his pillow, that’s taking zealousness to a new level! I just wonder what he hopes to achieve that would make that zealousness worthwhile.


  28. Regarding Leeds Utd /Rangers FC similarities, the LAWMAN makes some strong points and lays out what looks like strong evidence of events. I do not know enough about the Leeds case but let’s assume LAWMAN is correct in that what befell Rangers was the same as what befell Leeds.
    If so, then, in essence, he is highlighting the fact that the present day Leeds Utd, like the present day Rangers FC, is technically a new club.
    Commentators and administrators of the game may have allowed both institutions to appear and act as continuations of the previous clubs, but the empirical evidence in the events of 2012 do not alter. A football club ceased to exist in 2012 (take the point that liquidation is still ongoing), and if we believe LAWMAN’s sound analysis, a similar termination took place in Leeds 2007.
    Commentators and administrators of the game have a vested interest in the continuity of Institutions. In spite of their rationalization of the “same club” approach, it is simply not true. I do not believe it.
    ToysRus, visitmacysgrotto.com and the Lapland tourist Board can claim all they wish but I still will not believe in Santa without some real evidence.
    Two Wrongs do not make a Right and two Big Lies do not make a truth.


  29. What do you mean ! He’s away ?  I was wanting to ask his thoughts on Torino in the 60’s. 


  30. If Oldco  and Newco Eangers are one and the same who dis the SFL think were Club12 were when publishing a fixture list a few years ago? Why were thry not continuity Eangers?


  31. I really can’t see much difference between the Leeds and Rangers scenario. It seems Charles Green just copied it and thought the league would just hand over their football share.
    Leeds got their share,
    http://www.mightyleeds.co.uk/seasons/200708part1.htm
    ‘The Football League accepted there were “exceptional circumstances” but decided they could not allow Leeds to operate in contravention of their Insolvency Policy. “The Football League Board agreed that, notwithstanding the manner in which this administration has been conducted, the club should be permitted to continue in the Football League,” said a statement. “Consequently, the board has decided to make use of the ‘exceptional circumstances’ provision within the League’s Insolvency Policy, for the first time, and agreed to transfer the club’s share in the Football League to Leeds United 2007 Ltd. Accordingly, the club’s share has now been transferred’
    Did Rangers get theirs ?


  32. THELAWMAN
    Going round in circles here the link you supplied does indeed say that particular company is liquidated we all know they got wound up when the other company bought the club(not just assets)Leeds were saved rangers weren’t.. 


  33. TheLawman –

    May 11 at 19:54, 20:30, 20:36, 20:49, 21:08, 22:00, 22:43, 23:22, 23:30May 12 at 06:40, 06:48, 06:51, 06:58, 07:25, 09:24, 10:27, 10:46, 11:19, 11:24, 11:27, 11:51, 11:55, 12:00, 12:33, 14:14, 14:22, 14:29, 14:40, 14:41, 15:18, 15:23, 16:12, 16:54, 16:59, 17:02, 17:08, 17:20, 17:59, 18:09, 18:14, 18:43, 19:27, 20:22, 20:59, 21:35, 21:43, 22:16, 22:23, 22:31, 22:35, 23:47, 23:55May 13 at 00:00, 05:42, 06:19, 08:45, 10:07, 10:09

    For someone who was intent on countering the part of theoffshoregame’s position on the 2011 UEFA licensing, and only that, the Lawman seems very driven to convince us here on SFM to accept his proof absent interpretation. Especially as theoffshoregame, an independent, respected organisation, has given the point serious consideration and dismissed it.

    As I said previously TL, the point of this site is to press for answers from our football administrators to what can clearly be seen as suspicious relationships and actions between the SFA, SPFL and previously the SPL and one club.
    If your passion to get your point across is so strong can I suggest that you concentrate that passion towards the SFA and get them to answer the points raised by TOG. That way your single issue and our multiple issues can be dealt with to EVERYONES satisfaction and we move towards fixing this game of ours.


  34. That way your single issue and our multiple issues can be dealt with to EVERYONES satisfaction and we move towards fixing this game of ours.

    Repairing would probably be a better term…


  35. ALLYJAMBOMAY 13, 2016 at 10:55
    ‘An all nighter’ on SFM, and now off to a 5 hour meeting! Unless it’s a meeting with his pillow, that’s taking zealousness to a new level! I just wonder what he hopes to achieve that would make that zealousness worthwhile.
    Allyjambo – I suspect he is away to a meeting – to report back and receive his instructions!
                     He is only repeating the old mantra and it doesn’t wash – facts are indisputable and until he can tell us why they weren’t seeded in their cup competitions or playing in Europe or why they had to receive a last minute licence to play Brechin City,the 1st team squad was decimated as many chose to play with a new club rather than tupe over to Sevco/The Rangers  and they couldn’t even play a friendly after the club was put into liquidation.


  36. This is a link to a good, accurate summary of the Leeds United situation. I was living and working in Leeds at the time, and it certainly corresponds to my recollection of events.
    You can all make your own minds up on whether it supports Lawman’s position, or not. However I would say that Lawman’s approach of posting a link to Companies House and saying- look at this, I’m right, hardly paints a full picture of what went on. It was a lot more complicated than Companies House records alone can reveal.
    Leeds creditors did vote through a CVA, by the way. The whole process was then suspended pending threatened HMRC legal action- which never went ahead, in the end.
    http://www.mightyleeds.co.uk/seasons/200708part1.htm


  37. Reiver

    May 13, 2016 at 12:10
    ….If your passion to get your point across is so strong can I suggest that you concentrate that passion towards the SFA and get them to answer the points raised by TOG. That way your single issue and our multiple issues can be dealt with to EVERYONES satisfaction and we move towards fixing this game of ours.
    ______________________

    That is something that puzzles me, what is it that keeps The Lawman here, for hours on end? What is it he hopes to achieve?

    Even if his assertions are correct, drumming them into our beliefs is not going to achieve anything for his club, and the Resolution 12 guys are not going to give up on their search for truth until they see some definitive evidence. And as I said previously, the only way The Lawman will ever know if he is correct is if the SFA publish that definitive evidence.

    As I’ve said before today, the truth is easy to prove, especially where documentary evidence exists. On the other hand, it is very difficult to make truth seekers believe a lie is the truth, and even more so when documentary evidence, that must/should exist, is not produced – particularly if the refusal to produce said evidence, itself, is not explained!


  38. The difference with Leeds is that the whole club in its entirety exited admin via a cva when hmrc withdrew its objection all charles green bought was the business and assets OF the club to start a new club The Rangers who changed their name on 31/7/12 to the same name as the defunct club that had also played at ipox


  39. I think it’s getting a wee bit personal towards TLM. He has come on here and offered an alternative point of view, debated with posters and done so in the correct manner. 

    Its depressingly predictable that such points of view are met with suspicion by some on here. The frequency of his posts are no reason to question his motives. It seems to me he is fighting his corner and getting his point across. Shouldn’t we welcome that type of debate rather than dismiss it? 


  40. Sorry to have missed all the fun re Leeds.

    For what it’s worth, I agree with Lawman. HMRC did not drop its objection until August, by which time the CVA had long since been abondoned

    But, as always, things just aint that simple. 21

    I don’t have time to give a full post on this right now; but essentially the FA rules that allow the transfer of membership are quite clear. Transfer takes place from an existing member club to a NEW member club.

    (g) Transfer of MembershipThe Council will use the following criteria and any other conditions at The Council’s absolute discretion in deciding whether to approve the transfer of membership by a Full Member Club or Associate Member Club;
    (i) The shareholders or members of the existing Full Member Club or Associate Member Club have voted to agree the transfer of the membership to the proposed future member
    (ii) All ‘Football Creditors’ of the existing Full Member Club or Associate Member Club must be fully satisfied
    (iii) All other creditors of the existing Full Member Club or Associate Member Club must be satisfied and evidenced as such
    (iv) The proposed future Full Member Club or Associate Member Club must provide financial forecasts showing their ability to fund the Full Member Club or Associate Member Club for the next 12 months or to the end of the season following transfer (whichever is the longer)
    (v) Evidence of funding sources will be required.

    Although, the new club gets the benefit of the old club’s league place by dint of the Football League rules, and this section from the FA, the Leeds Utd football club, created in 2007, is not the same football club (under these rules/articles) that had been incorporated in 1919.

    Of course, that is not to say, that Ken Bates did not purchase the Leeds Utd brand: he did. Therefore, if you consider the brand (the intellectual property) to embody the “Club”, you can rest easy that the history is unbroken. If you the the football club is defined by the rules and regulations, then sorry, those are 2 different football clubs.

    Just one last thing.

    The SFA membership associated with the Rangers brand (since that was the comparison that was made) had a slightly different journey to the FA membership of Leeds Utd.

    Sevco Scotland was granted membership of the SFL on (I think) 13th July 2012. Membership of the SFL automatically conferred registered membership status of the SFA.

    Rangers remained a member of the SPL until 3rd August 2012. Rangers therefore remained a registered member of the SFA until that same date –  and thereby holding onto its FULL membership status.

    When the SFA transferred Rangers membership to Sevco Scotland (by that time rename TRFC) it could not transfer the part that was the registered member – since the two clubs belonged to different leagues – the only part that could be transferred was the status of FULL membership.

    With Leeds Utd the league and FA memberships were transferred simultaneously, so it is much easier to be fooled into thinking the change of clubs was simply an administrative process. 

    In the Rangers/Sevco Scotland there was no transfer of league mmebership. Sevco Scotland applied to the SFL as a new club in its own right and co-existed with Rangers as members of the SFA for three weeks.

    Hope this helps to clarify.

    Now off to the pub…(might be more than 5 hours 🙂 )


  41. Lawman, I advocated yesterday that we allow you to focus on the Licensing issue so as not to introduce other issues which would clearly be more divisive and play to intransigence. However you seem happy to debate the ‘same club’ issue, so I’ll join in.
    You are focussing on the Leeds example, stating that they were liquidated yet are still treated by the football authorities as the same club. Your interpretation of that fact is that Rangers, who were likewise liquidated, should also be treated as the same club because Charles Green bought the club before liquidation just like Ken Bates.
    Although roughly similar, the situations are definitely NOT the same, in my opinion.
    I agree that ‘old Leeds’ was liquidated, similar to Rangers FC, which is in course of being liquidated. The key difference is in the REJECTION OF A CVA.
    In Rangers’ case, HMRC held a sufficient proportion of the overall debt to give them the power to reject a CVA without worrying about the views of other creditors. As soon as the CVA was rejected, Rangers were consigned to liquidation and ceased to trade. This happens as soon as a CVA is rejected and as a result, the Club could NOT be sold as a going concern. Effectively, the rejection of a CVA means the Club ceases to exist there and then albeit the time required to ingather funds etc means it has to be maintained meantime. This is why Charles Green could buy only the assets of the club and not the club itself. A club consigned to liquidation cannot be bought as a going concern. 
    In Leeds case, HMRC wanted to refuse the proposed CVA as they felt it did not offer them enough, but as they held less than 25% of the overall debt, they did not have the power to do so on their own. As other creditors were willing to accept the proposed CVA, HMRC’s only option was to challenge the acceptance of the proposed CVA in court. This challenge was allowed by the courts and the appeal was scheduled to be heard some months later. What this means is that ‘old Leeds’ was not consigned to liquidation at that point. That would only happen if/when the proposed CVA was rejected. At that point Leeds remained a going concern albeit still in Administration. Realising the club would not be able to trade until the scheduled appeal, the administrators were able to again offer the club for sale AS A GOING CONCERN. Ken Bates’ group significantly increased their offer, meaning creditors received more than initially offered and bought the club AS A GOING CONCERN – not the assets, the CLUB. Subsequent to that purchase, satisfied with the amount they were to receive, HMRC dropped their (now unnecessary) appeal. Later still, once the purchase was worked through and ‘old Leeds’ was no longer necessary, the new owners liquidated ‘old Leeds’.
    I’m no legal expert and won’t state opinion as fact, but I believe from research that the above is true and the two scenarios are very different. I don’t believe, therefore, that the Leeds United case supports the argument that Rangers is the same club.


  42. HIRSUTEPURSUITMAY 13, 2016 at 12:46

    I’m not sure how TLM’s posts are now connected to OC/NC debate, but in addition to Hirsuite’s comprehensive post, didn’t RFC (IL) take part in the voting on behalf on TRFC? Definitely 2 different entities, of course.


  43. AdamSpark
     
    Trust is earned and more so when there is history of abuse towards posters because of their stance on the subject matter highlighted on this site.
    Auldheid has been pursued and attempts to expose his identity made with a view that he should be “dissuaded” from his actions. John James has recently recounted on attempts against him. And of course we all know of the need for special branch to advise those involved with the aftermath of RFC’s demise. It is the reason that I too use a nom de plume.
    The problem with TLM is that, even before joining us here, he was informing us he was a member of a group of above average intelligence, professionals with experience in the legal sphere. Despite our lowly position he was welcomed here and the discussions were civil but we still carry suspicions in the back of our minds. So when I see the frequency and repetition of his posts I naturally ask”What is he trying to achieve here?” He cannot back up his assertion that the overdue payables were declared in 2011 despite the mainstay of his argument being that the licensing was correct because of their declaration. So, point made and answered, why continue with same argument ad infinitum? He was invited to comment on the many other issues that concern us but responded by picking one from the list, not the first one, and excused himself from commenting because of lack of information. Although he did change tack suddenly and became an expert on Leeds United and had all the information readily to hand. And then we must ask why is a professional person spending hours of the working day posting on here especially when you have a five hour meeting coming up. Less than six hours between last post at night and first the next morning comes across as a little desperate. Of course that could be perfectly normal but with the backdrop of threatened violence that the subject matter comes with I think suspicion is excusable.
    I may be wrong with my distrust and it may be that there is much more that TLM can offer and if that is so I must apologise in advance but to engage on here I would rather that an attempt to gain trust was made. How about an opinion on actions required to right the wrongs, perceived or otherwise, in the running of our game. An explanation of his beliefs on the advantages, or not, of financial doping and the subsequent actions taken by the SF?. It would help.
    The suspicion of how suddenly from nowhere he appeared after the first time an independent report is published that actuallly concludes the we are right to have concerns is there. The Scotsman today seems to be reacting to that report by labelling us “swivel eyed loons” I believe. Is this the start of a counter attack because we are at last making headway? Is the appearance of TLM related to that. Time will tell.


  44. HP, you may be right that by the FA rules Leeds then and now are two distinct clubs. The problem is that the new Leeds is indeed, as Lawman claims, treated as if it were old Leeds by most people (The Press, Wiki etc). I can’t find a list of honours maintained by the FA or EFL, so can’t confirm how they treat them.
    If the authorities treat them as the same then it’s important to prove that the Leeds sale was different to the Rangers sale.


  45. Distracting and entertaining as the debate may be, why should this forum be remotely interested in whether Leeds United is a parallel case? The FA and Football League are hardly model exemplars of football governance. If the debate was about the treatment of Gretna, Airdieonians or Third Lanark it might be of more relevance.
    All the debate does is fester inter-club hostility. I assume and hope this was not TLM’s intention.
    There seems to be broad consensus that the SFA, SPFL (and its predecessors) and many of the member clubs have been incompetent at best, and have colluded to bury sporting integrity for commercial gain at the expense of the fans. All fans, regardless of club. Investors may have also been collateral damage along the way.
    We are where we are. Maybe we need to focus on what can be done to avoid further damage to our game by governance that is not fit for purpose.


  46. Apologies for my own lack of research powers chaps but enjoying the debate from afar.

    Someone mentioned above that Bates’ new Leeds took on the debt of old Leeds (and are reducing it down to, I think, £300,00?).  Does that include the p in the £ settlement that the successful VA implies or was that gross debt being spoken about?  Either way it adds further credence to the importance of achieving the CVA?


  47. Riever, TLM can no doubt defend himself but he has simply tried to respond to questions put to him by other posters. He has not suddenly appeared from nowhere because there are many other places than SFM with different opinions to the ones found on here. 

    His points, whether you agree with them or not, have been put across in the correct manner. There is no ranting, raving or name calling so to mention the worst elements of a section of the Rangers support when discussing TLMs contribution on here is, I think, unfair. Fans of any club are not one large homogeneous group.


  48. And apologies but following kopweb’s post above, I notice there’s a Scotsman article receiving mention elsewhere (Andrew Smith?) where the author mentions that post liquidation Gretna were given the same opportunity to enter league 4 as RFC (old, new, borrowed or blue02) were given.  Is that right?  Did the clubs have a vote or was this bond requested first?  And the obvious question, did RIFC (O,N,B or B) post the same bond?


  49. Smugas,
    I think whoever said that about Leeds must be mis-reading the filing at companies house.
    There is about £300k in the bank – the price paid to the administrators for the club’s assets was about £1.8m, and there have been disbursements of £1.6m, and interest accruing.
    The unsecured creditors in the Leeds case were a bit over £11m, and the purchase price was about £1.8m. There was a further undertaking to pay another £5m if Leeds were promoted to the Premier League within a certain period of time (5 years I think.)
    One would imagine that most of the disbursements were for running the liquidation, so the unsecured creditors will get next to nothing.


  50. nawliteMay 13, 2016 at 13:54 
    HP, you may be right that by the FA rules Leeds then and now are two distinct clubs. The problem is that the new Leeds is indeed, as Lawman claims, treated as if it were old Leeds by most people (The Press, Wiki etc). I can’t find a list of honours maintained by the FA or EFL, so can’t confirm how they treat them. If the authorities treat them as the same then it’s important to prove that the Leeds sale was different to the Rangers sale.
    _________________________________

    I think there is a distinction between a club being ‘the same club’ and one ‘treated as the same club’. I’d suggest that, in view of no one ever finding cause to investigate Leeds United’s same club status (because no one cared enough), and assuming HP is correct (I don’t doubt him), then it could be said that the existing club (Leeds United) is being ‘treated’ as the same club.

    Ignoring all the usual crap surrounding Ibrox, if we compare Rangers insolvency to Leeds United’s, we can see reasons why one, and not the other, was put under a very strong microscope by supporters of all other clubs.

    Leeds United were a badly managed club, who tried to chase the dream by spending money they didn’t have. In other words, they did what most clubs have tried to do with varying levels of success. They didn’t get enough success to provide the returns with which to clear the debt they’d got themselves into. If as The Lawman insists, they went into liquidation, they did so in a manner no one else cared enough about to question their same club status.

    If, on the other hand, Leeds United had, prior to their insolvency, conducted a dodgy tax scheme, whether illegal or not, that had aided them to a number of titles, and cost the other clubs in prize money and European places, then I’m pretty certain they would have faced a much more concerted, with the English MSM joining in, investigation of their same club claims than TRFC ever have!

    Sometimes ‘no one notices us, they don’t care’, has a better outcome than, ‘no one likes us, we don’t care’!


  51. HAPPY CHAPPY 

     
    The CVA was agreed then aborted as HMRC launched a legal appeal in July. It’s in the links I provided. Please have a read.Is “100%” wrong more convincing?  
    The CVA was delayed due to HMRC’s challenge (which they later abandoned) & subsequently the club was put up for sale again by KPMG & then bought out of administration with an offer being accepted. That offer allowed KPMG to settle the CVA.
    I am not sure what you’re not grasping here but it’s pretty simple.
    Perhaps you can give us that link again to the outcome of HMRC’s “legal appeal”? 

    I will go one better than that and give you the extract lifted DIRECTLY from KPMG Final Progress report to Crediotrs pursuant to Rules 2.47 and 2.110 of the Insolvency(Amendment) Rules 2003.

     
    3.1 Sale of the business and assets
    As previously reported, following our appointment on 4 May 2007, the Joint Administrators entered into an agreement to sell the business and assets of the club excluding the players and “playing” staff to a newly formed company, Leeds United Football Club Limited (“Newco” or “LUFCL”) via a hive down vehicle, Leeds United 2007 Limited. The sale agreement was conditional on the future approval of a CVA i.e the sale will effectively be subject to receeiving consent from over 75% of the Club’s creditors in accordance with Rule 1.19 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 and the agreement of the Football League and Football Association to transfer their shares.
    The Joint Administrators proposed a CVA which was approved at a meeting of creditors held on 1 June 2007. However HMRC lodged a challenge to the the CVA in the High Court of Justice, Leeds District Registry on Tuesday 3 July 2007. HMRC had voted against the CVA in accordance with its policy to vote against CVAs that provide for one class of creditors to be treated differently from the general body of unsecured creditors.
    A directions hearing took place in Leeds District Registry on Friday 6 July 2007 to set a date for the full hearing of HMRC’s challenge. The judge set the matter for a five day trial commencing 3 September 2007, being the earliest available date. This was three weeks after the 2007/08 football season was due to commence and our expectation was tat the judgement might not be handed down until late September.October 2007 and could be subject to appeal.
    The challenge by HMRC meant the Club could NOT COMPLETE THE EXISTING CVA given the constraints of time and funding. The Joint Administrators were not confident the sufficient funding could be generated from the sale of players to trade the Club through a conclusion of the Court process and concluded that embarking on such a process, which would put realisations for creditors at risk, was not appropriate.
    The Joint Administrators concluded that for reasons detailed extensively in our previous reports, NO CVA proposal had ANY PROSPECT OF SUCCESS and that this exit route from the administration was NO LONGER VIABLE. On 16 July 2007, the Joint supervisors of the CVA issued an ABORT certificate bringing the CVA TO AN END.
    6. Conclusion of administration
    The Administrators proposals have been completed and consequently the administrators are now in a position to conclude the administration. The Company will be placed into a Creditors Voluntary Liquidation on the filing of this report along with form 2.34B at court and Companies House. At this point, Richard Dixon Fleming, Howard Smith and Mark Granville Firmin will be appointed joint liquidators.
    We will write to you again as Joint Liquidators to confirm the process for formally submitting your unsecured claim against the Company and to advise you on the likely timescales for the receipt of a dividend.

     

    I hope this satisfies the view from random internet resources is incorrect and my version is correct.
     


  52. THELAWMAN
    MAY 13, 2016 at 06:19

     13th July 2012 – Chairmen of Scottish clubs vote to put Rangers in the 3rd Division 

    Most of the legal arguments on here are way over my head, and I am happy to admit it

    However the comment above that Rangers were put in the 3rd Division is incorrect
    If you recall, the actual sequence of events was (sorry no dates):-
    Sevco Scotland purchase assets of RFC(IA)
    Sevco Scotland apply for membership of SPL, which was voted down, with 10 clubs against, 1 abstention, and i in favour
    The only club in favour was RFC(IA)
    Sevco Scotland then applied for membership of SFL, and were admitted at 3rd Division level
    Sevco Scotland after admission subsequently changed its name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd
    At no time were Rangers put in the 3rd Division


  53. AJ, if ‘treated as the same club’ means the authorities allow them to list honours of the old club, then I’m not happy to accept them being ‘treated as the same club’. That applies whether it is Rangers or Leeds.
    I’m approaching both from the position of hating the thought that companies can go through liquidation, shed debt, yet not face ANY consequences. It’s simply not right that they only benefit from liquidation. The main consequence MUST be that they are recognised as a new club and cannot lay claim to the old club’s honours.


  54. I have been following the recent debate with interest but currently lack the knowledge and expertise to make a cogent interjection so have stood back and allowed those that felt competent to exercise the dialectic do so.

    This has been a characteristic of SFM and RTC before it. Contributors are not all expert on the subject matters in hand but in time the level of expertise of even the most poorly informed, gradually increases.

    A couple of long term lurkers have been persuaded to make contributions and I think this illustrates that the zeitgeist of the blog is not determined by transactions of any single discussion but is instead formed over time. The unravelling narrative provides education which in turn breeds confidence in potential posters.

    Where Lawman possibly falls foul of this ethos is that he anticipates instantaneous acceptance of his very well informed opinion. The blog has never really operated in this manner. Often the prevailing truths emerge over time as a result of the distillation of information through the blog filter. To simply collapse a viewpoint in the face of what initially appears a cast iron argument would be naive. What is more likely is that opinions will be swayed over time. I sense Lawman’s frustration that we (sounds a bit confrontational) are unwilling to accept a well constructed argument at face value. Our scepticism has been forged over an extended period. Lawman’s assertions have been challenged by many posters and it is admirable that he has held his own. Such is the adequacy of his responses that it has engendered the suspicion in some posters, including myself, that such prolific output cannot be the work of one man. Like many other elements we encounter, we cannot be sure of this. However our ingrained scepticism has taught us to consider all possible scenarios. If the Lawman is merely exhibiting the passion of his convictions then it is unfortunate that his passion should arouse our suspicions. I personally regret the demise of passion in favour of logical and temperate debate. However raw passion communicates very poorly in the written form.

    In summary, minds will not be instantaneously changed by isolated exchanges. This will only occur over time as the blog filter sifts through the alternating arguments. The more contrary opinions that occur, the more accurate will be the emerging truths that form the blog zeitgeist. If lawman really wants to change minds then he will require to constantly erode what he sees as misconceptions. If he does this he will very likely alter the course of the blog narrative.

    Finally, a lack of expertise in any subject matter ironically may not be such a disadvantage. As readers gain a flavour of the debate they can build up a view point that may lack expertise but which is much easier communicated to their fellow man. It is these impressions gained by visitors to this site that will likely become the prevailing narrative over time. Even in a legal context there is no right or wrong, only current opinion. Where some poster appear to have reacted negatively to Lawman’s interjections, much to his apparent bewilderment, is likely due to this simplistic appreciation of events. As I said in opening this comment, I am far from expert in these matters. However even the most ill-informed of blog readers will likely have gained a level of expertise that would prove useful in communicating the arguments to those that have entirely absented themselves from the debate.


  55. HIGHLANDER

     
    THELAWMAN, unfortunately I don’t have time to fully answer your various recent posts regarding Leeds Utd and other matters, as I’m heading to work shortly, but I most assuredly beg to differ about Leeds Utd going into liquidation.
    http://www.mightyleeds.co.uk/seasons/200708part1.htm
    Incidentally, the Companies House website that you provided a link to doesn’t have an entry for Rangers (1872), only TRFC, incorporated in 2012. Does that confirm the former’s demise?

    The “Companies House website that I provided a link to” is the official government ran Companies House hence the .gov.uk.  This is the place all Companies have reporting responsibilities to and is the ONLY place to be 100% trusted in relation to matters relating to accounts, liquidation, changes of Directors, mortgage charges etc etc.  The link i sent is a Beta link which is new to the government website which allows you to look at a huge percentage of company records free of charge.  In the past you had to pay £1 to see these.  The Beta site has not fully integrated yet so not all information has been transferred across.You can find the oldco here:http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//companysearch?disp=1&frfsh=1463147200&#result&nbsp;


  56. CASTOFTHOUSANDS – Thanks for your post which i take as a huge compliment.  I can offer assurance that every single post on this site has been my own, though i will confess that quite sadly, someone typed out the section on the Leeds administrators for me whilst i was in a meeting.

    I am well known in Rangers Social media as having a very strong view and opinion and not being frightened to voice it.  I was in the 1-2% of fans who challenged everything from May 2011 much to the disagreement and accusations of tomfoolery from fellow fans who didnt believe i was even a Rangers fan.  That has now been put to bed.

    I have a number of business minded acquaintances who have legal, audit, exec director and CEO backgrounds and we do chat a lot at various get togethers as well as by email.  We aint afraid to call things as we see them and although every one thinks they are strong minded, its surprising just how much we agree.

    A few key people checked over my views etc on the licencing and in particular TheOffshoreGame before i made them public and from a legal point of view each of them would have been happy to stand my views up.  I of course accept that doesnt make them right, but it gives me the confidence to believe they are more right than wrong.  To date, I have not seen one solid argument against the main points i made and I have also witnessed a huge softening in some of the opinions of fans who have been at the leading edge of the fight on this topic.

    In summary though, this is all me.


  57. CAMPSIEJOE – I can assure you the Chairman voted to put Rangers into the 3rd Division.


  58. bad capt madmanMay 13, 2016 at 13:26 
    HIRSUTEPURSUITMAY 13, 2016 at 12:46
    I’m not sure how TLM’s posts are now connected to OC/NC debate, but in addition to Hirsuite’s comprehensive post, didn’t RFC (IL) take part in the voting on behalf on TRFC? Definitely 2 different entities, of course.
    …………………………………………………………………………………………..
    Would it be too simplistic to suggest that we would all be up in arms about a ‘Four-way Agreement’ otherwise.


  59. THELAWMANMAY 13, 2016 at 15:03

    They most certainly did not
    This is a distortion of the facts that TRFC supporters cling to

    Sevco Scotland played Brechin in their first game with players ‘borrowed’ from RFC(IA)
    That is an indisputable fact, which you will no doubt deny


  60. nawliteMay 13, 2016 at 14:43 
    AJ, if ‘treated as the same club’ means the authorities allow them to list honours of the old club, then I’m not happy to accept them being ‘treated as the same club’. That applies whether it is Rangers or Leeds. I’m approaching both from the position of hating the thought that companies can go through liquidation, shed debt, yet not face ANY consequences. It’s simply not right that they only benefit from liquidation. The main consequence MUST be that they are recognised as a new club and cannot lay claim to the old club’s honours.
    _________________

    Nawlite, I can assure you I was not suggesting it was right, just pointing out that being treated as the same club is very different from being the same club. Despite living in England, I couldn’t care less about English football, and it’s never made a penny out of me, so I’m not as concerned about the effect of Leeds United’s liquidation than I am about that of Rangers. I also took the opportunity to give my take on one of the reasons they (LU) got away with it, that is, no one was all that bothered and so no one noticed.

    If Leeds United had had 54 league titles to their name (or even just one more than Manchester United), I doubt they’d have been able to slip into ‘same club’ mode quite so easily!


  61. Can I play the “nobody knows” card ? Eveybody’s  perception is as valid as anybody else’s , even if wrong, until it is sorted out in the coorts . There appears to be a lot of comparing apples and pears , which helps no one . My view, for what it matters,  is that the social taxes became payable when the DOS scheme was declared to be invalid ., and the amounts payable were known to RIFC(IL) . However, I don’t see that this is anything to do with the new club, and, as the old club is breathing its last, I don’t see much satisfaction to be gained there .


  62. CAMPSIEJOE – 29/30 voted for the membership.  25/30 voted to put them in the 3rd Division instead of the 1st.


  63. The Lawman,

    Can I just check with you that I’ve got the thrust of your posts re the Resolution 12 issues, as it would make it easier for me, and I think others, to understand where you are coming from on the matter?

    Am I correct in saying, that you are saying, there is no issue with the issue of the license, as Rangers, and subsequently the SFA, declared all overdue payables in the correct and proper manner?

    If that is the case, then I’d be inclined to agree with you.


  64. Following on from my earlier post I’d like to let you all know that Celtic have responded to my queries. Over the course of a few emails between John Paul Taylor of Celtic (who was excellent in his promptness and courtesy) and myself he basically said that Celtic had made a commercial decision re junior season tickets and that it was the same deal junior fans got prior to 2012. He did listen to me and admitted I made some valid points in our exchange. In the end I told him I totally disagreed with the clubs stance regardless of any commercial benefit.
    If I may I’ll leave you with my final paragraph to him.

    My own personal belief , and I do realise I am only one voice in a crowd of thousands, is the club have scored an own goal here. Due to the shenanigans of 2012 and subsequent decisions of the authorities involved, the Celtic support are looking for evidence that we have moved on and we stand alone.As the song says “Glasgow’s Green & White”Whilst I accept that it can be very difficult to say something publicly whilst being diplomatic at the same time small subtle gestures are equally effective.I think the gesture of allowing the kids to see THEIR team next season at all home games as they have for four seasons now would have been a huge step in the right direction.

    Apologies to any non Celtic fan but I just feel this is a very sad day for Scottish football. I fear the dreaded “old firm” will be thrust upon us again. I for one think Scottish football is a far healthier place without it.
    thanks for letting me get that off my chest.


  65. THELAWMAN
    MAY 13, 2016 at 15:39

    That is not disputed, but it was not Rangers(IA) who were admitted to the 3rd Division
    It was Sevco Scotland who were admitted to the 3rd Division, as at that point RFC(IA) was still a member of the SPL and remained a member, until their SPL share was transferred to Dundee on 3rd August
    It was therefore impossible to put RFC(IA) into the 3rd Division

    These are irrefutable facts


  66. To state the bleedin’ obvious…

    The debates over the last couple of days maybe reinforces an expectation that whatever happens in the future, whatever decisions are taken, [if any], wrt TRFC, the SFA, the SPFL – it’s a certainty that not everyone will be happy with the outcome.

    The damage has been done, and with footie fans who typically support their club for a lifetime, [and have very, very long footie-related memories !], this dark period in Scottish football will always be a topic of discussions, arguments and frustrations.  

    Auldheid has referred several times in the past of the need for a “Truth & Reconciliation Commission” to establish a credible, fresh starting position from which all Scottish footie fans – and the 42 senior clubs – can try to “move on” from. Unfortunately, that possibility seems more unlikely as each day passes.

    The fact that one member club of an historic, national sport can inflict so much negativity is a disgrace.

    The fact that the national FA willingly enabled one club to inflict this mess on all Scottish football fans is simply unacceptable, on so many levels.

    Of course, I don’t have a Scooby what the answer is though…  01


  67. THELAWMANMAY 13, 2016 at 15:03
    CAMPSIEJOE – I can assure you the Chairman voted to put Rangers into the 3rd Division.
    ———————————————————-
    More misrepresentation and half truths.

    TRFC were admitted to the 3rd division.

    They were not put, demoted or any other phraseology you want to use. They were a new club that was admitted (to the obvious loss of several financially sound clubs that may have a strong case that they were big losers out of this) to the 3rd division. You need to understand the difference Lawman.


  68. TLM,
    RE Leeds:
    The Football League made an exception and granted the new club/company its “golden share” of membership (which was transferred to the newly formed Leeds United Football Club Ltd, despite the purchase not having been done via a CVA.
    The Football League had a previously held a requirement for a CVA process for all 41 of its other clubs which had fallen into insolvency since 1992, Leeds didn’t.
    So yes, you are correct in that the *Rangers FC newclub situation is entirely akin to *Leeds FC in that they ignored the rulebook to accommodate them.

    PS
    CampsieJoe….
    Hey Joe! You are absolutely correct! The newclub/entity Sevco Scotland (Trading as The Rangers) applied for membership of the then SPL. It was refused, despite *Rangers FC voting for them with the other 11 Premier Clubs refusing entry and despite the threats of armageddon, they listened to their supporters and the influence of the NoToNewco movement.
    A hastily set up meeting of the then ‘Lower league clubs’ in the SFL and it were posited that they should consider the introduction of this new entity to play in their 1st Division. Similarly, they refused.
    Note, thankfully *Rangers FC didn’t get a chance to vote on this one, however the newclub/entity was still refused. A further meeting and further option posited to the SFL members was to allow the unprecedented entry (before all others) of the new club/entity into the lowest tier of the professional leagues. The fourth division.
    Their membership still not approved and transferred this new entity, lets call them The Rangers FC (as they “officially” were know at that time) sought permission from *Rangers FC and the SFA to borrow their players to play the game.
    So, semantics aside, they were not “dropped into” the fourth tier, nor were they “demoted”. The newclub/entity applied for the first time to Join the Scottish Football League and were indeed “put in”, allowed before all others, and outwit any mechanism of rules, to join the 4th tier.

    PPS…… it is worth noted much of the info held by The Resolutioners and TOG is still under wraps. Hence the probing from some circles to establish what is and what isn’t known. The information I have seen is damning. The silence from the SFA is not unexpected given what is known……. 😀


  69. CAMPSIEJOE @ 14.42, all that you posted regarding ‘Rangers’ not being put into the 4th tier is indeed accurate, although as TheLawMan correctly stated, the new club was eventually voted there. You might however have asked one further pertinent question: why was there a vote at all, if liquidation affects only the hapless company, leaving the club apparently unaffected? Both Hearts and Dunfermline had insolvency events resulting in new club ownership, or a change of corporate structure <cough> in Govan parlance, yet there wasn’t a vote to determine which division either of them should inhabit.

    So, precisely what set of extraordinary circumstances gave rise to a vote by all our club chairmen, since we are led to believe that a club which inhabited the top division survived, but merely waved goodbye to its disposable and expendable company? Remind me, what’s that unmentionable word beginning with ‘L’?

Comments are closed.