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/
Succinctly put Barca, such simple, unarguable logic.
And meanwhile, of course, the lying propaganda continues on the Big Lie front.
The “Scotland on Sunday” (may it soon die as ignoble an economic death as the old RFC(IL)) has this little gem, in reference to Edinburgh City’s great achievement:
“The last time Scottish Football had a new club enter the fray was in 2008 when Annan Athletic were accepted into the Scottish Professional Football league..”
And my heartiest congratulations to Edinburgh City, while, like other old men on this blog, I have a sympathetic and nostalgic tear in my eye for times gone by.
Lawman,
You seem to be swearing on the bible that you believe is Companies’ House records, and mocking those who wish to add a timeline and further context.
Leaving aside our belief that the records only tell a part of any story, is this the same Companies’ House that quite clearly differentiates between RFC and the Charles Green created entity – or should we look at further context in that case?
Finloch,
I agree that the departure of East Stirlingshire (who I believe survived an attempt to extinguish their timeline in 1964) is sad.
One of the magical names on old footballer chewing gum cards from my primary school days is John Arrol, the East Stirling goalkeeper.
I also think I was in my twenties before realising they played in Falkirk!
I hope we see them back soon.
I think the Lawman has provided himself with an unenviable task if trying to, as he sees it, reform the outlook of SFM. I like a bit of ambition but if I might be rather dismissive, his capabilities are unable to match this lofty ambition.
Not that he has not displayed substantial capabilities; his input has been engaging, provided food for thought and brought about lively debate.
I can only assume that in his own long posting history elsewhere he has not acquainted himself with the modus operandi of this particular portal. If he had done he would have known that we have engaged in vigorous and detailed debate and conjecture for many years. We are not novices in this respect. What perhaps he perceives as ingrained prejudices might quite fairly be viewed as an inertia that has gained its gravitas from a weighty accrued knowledge. Many of us will have forgotten more than we can remember concerning this saga but the detail will have left a deep impression that cannot be simply erased by presentation of a few well structured cogent arguments.
I personally would commend him for fighting his corner so well. I think he will have placed grains of doubt in minds but for those grains to take root and flourish they will have to overcome the sterilising effect of that whole mass of argument that has already been gone through over a prolonged period.
It is admirable that he sustains his argument so well but perhaps he inadvertantly attempts to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders. Though we have and have had contributors of a Blue persuasion offer their views (I think JJ’s pseudonym of ‘sitonfence’ posted on RTC) it is not often we are appraised of such detailed and well rehearsed arguments. We have latched onto his contributions hungrily but he is not the whole world. He is just one man (we presume) making his point of view known. He should not be expected to have all the answers. None of us do.
NAWLITE, my post at 12:20 was simply to point out that a document i posted was factual. I wasnt comparing or furthering the NC/OC debate. It is impossible to further that. Nobody will change their mind on the issue so i feel we will just continue to go round and round on it with 1 person stating 1 thing and everybody else on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. As i said earlier, i get it.
AuldheidMay 15, 2016 at 12:10
“I’ve just had opportunity to listen to yesterday’s Off The Ball podcast”
——————————
Thanks for the link.
So it appears that if a topic is too complicated then it by definition cannot be reported. There is no capability within our print and broadcast media to distill this information down into bite sized pieces. That’s a damning indictment of suicide note proportions.
The corollary must be that if a conspiracy, if indeed there has been a conspiracy in this case (perhaps it was just a cock up) can be made sufficiently complex then it can reliably not reported. In this Universe.
Good effort ‘Off the ball’. Keep up the good work.
TRISIDIUM – Thats the same Companies House. There is only 1 Companies House.
CASTOFTHOUSANDS – Thanks for the words. I do have a question for you and all other posters though and i BEG, yes BEG,
you to all take a step bag and try to be impartial on this silly question.
Imagine the scenario, JJ was being sued for libel and his identity was about to break tomorrow and you were absolutely forced to stick your every asset and last penny on an even money silly bet, would you seriously bet your last dime on JJ being a Rangers fan or a Non Rangers fan.
There has been lots of deletions of information and telling words/language that would make my mind up. Never mind Even money, i would take 1/50 on him being NOT rather than 5000/1 on him supporting Rangers.
NAWLITE – In fairness to you, im going to break my curfew as i feel i also need to add to TRIS question, though i fear i may regret getting bogged back down. The CVA was aborted. The vote did not matter. Once HMRC challenged the CVA agreement in court, the Joint Administrators “concluded 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.”
This is conclusive, matter of recorded fact and unquestionable. The CVA was aborted and the oldco were consigned to the EXACT same path as Rangers oldco in relation to selling the assets leading to oldco being placed into liquidation.
TRISIDIAN – In reference to the above and me breaking my word, im not sure your point on the Companies House thing. There is an oldco and newco for Leeds United and an oldco and newco for Rangers.
The person who posts as John James gets some things right and some thing wrong, sometimes his style is dismissive, sometimes condescending. He overuses the word posit to the point of it becoming annoying, and makes claims of an exotic very well connected history.
None of that makes a blind bit of difference, neither does whether he is a Rangers supporter or not. He is just another source of information and opinion to add to the other material available.
He is just a guy on the internet.
Lawman, it was you who introduced the argument that because the Leeds situation was the same as Rangers situation, this was proof that Rangers – like Leeds – should be treated as the same club. When I point out a significant difference in the manner and timings of how each club moved from administration to liquidation, you say you don’t want to discuss it. That belittles you and your argument in my opinion.
NAWLITE – I responded 7 minutes prior to your post.
HOMONCULOUS – I actually agree with your assertion however in my view, he does himself a huge disservice by claiming he is a Rangers fan who formerly had a Season book in the “Club Stand”.
thelawman – you say you would take bet that jj was not rangers fan…
But how would you prove he is not, he only needs to attend one rangers game in Europe – support rangers and he is by definition a rangers fan.
Your argument fails as you cant prove one person is or is not a ranger fan, simply because you think they support another team… clearly your definition of support is limited – you support rangers and that’s it. But rest of the world, and any jury would think otherwise.
Your logic is wrong , also you keep quoting company house links with beta in the url – DO YOU KNOW WHAT BETA means in the context of a url…. ?
If you did you would never rely on it for any information.
sitonfence posted over 1000 messages on rangers lse forum – thelawman will be reporting that jj/sitonfence was not a rangers shareholder next, but he clearly held shares and therefore qualifies as a rangers fan as he has shares and goes to rangers matches.
DJ7 – im not tying to “prove he is a Rangers fan”
Im merely giving my opinion on it and i doubt there are many on here that would honestly risk all their worldly possessions on it.
Lawman, the point is that the CVA was not rejected so Leeds were left in administration and the club could be sold as a going concern before the new owners liquidated the old club when it was no longer required. Relying on the fact that Companies House has a correctly recorded Liquidated old club and a current new club for Leeds is irrelevant.
thelawman – how do you know jj did not have season ticket in “Club Stand” ???
you claim you would bet he wasn’t rangers fan, not that he was.
two anonymous bloggers claiming they not what they seems is ridiculus.
NAWLITE
Leeds United oldco were NOT sold as a going concern. Im really not sure where you got that idea from.
Here is what the JA said: “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 oldco could not meet its liabilities and was insolvent.
DJ7
Because we dont have a “Club Stand.” It would be like me claiming to be a Celtic fan who used to have a Season Ticket in the Jock Stein Deck.
Lawman – “The oldco could not meet its liabilities and was insolvent.” That’s precisely why it was in Administration! It doesn’t mean it was to be liquidated. A club is only consigned to liquidation once a CVA is rejected which didn’t happen in the Leeds case.
NAWLITE
The CVA was aborted. Im not sure why you are refusing to read the extracts im providing you. How can a company who cannot pay its debts and could not generate enough cash to trade for 3 months be sold as a Going Concern ? Are you aware what “going concern” means NAWLITE ?
Is there any other poster out there brave enough to stick their hands up and confirm what im saying ?
THELAWMAN
MAY 15, 2016 at 15:13
🙂
TLM
Please explain what a club is?
Who owns RFC
How can they prove ownership?
Please supply a link to the RFC’s constitution and list of members
While I thought the whole Leeds debate was finished with & largely irrelevant, I’d like to ask.
Were Leeds United in Liquidation when Ken Bates bought the Club’s assets & liabilites out of Administration?
I am sure Lawman will have the answer to this?
Lawman
“Here is what the JA said: “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”
—————————————————————————————————————
I don’t read that as the club being insolvent. I read that as the joint administrators were not confident it could remain trading long enough, to conclude the court process.
HAPPY CHAPPY
No. Why ?
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
You dont believe that a Company who cannot pay their debts and trade for 3 months is insolvent ?
Thanks to those of you have subscribed or resubscribed over the last few days.
We have recovered a good deal of what we have lost recently on the subs front and things are looking better.
Thanks also to those who made very generous single donations. Although we were not soliciting those until late summer, we thank you for your support.
http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/1785903/leeds-united-cva-approval-squeezes
Leeds United Football Club creditors have signed-off a Company Voluntary Arrangement that will allow the club to live on.
The move needed the approval of 75% of voters, but could not be endorsed onFriday after a marathon six hours of talks. Eventually, the ballot was ruled tooclose to call after a vote of 75.02%.
KPMG announced this morning that the move, which will lead to the club being sold to a consortiumheaded by Ken Bates, could now go-ahead after the recount had shown that 75.2%of creditors had backed the plan.
The Big Four Firm said: ‘Following the Leeds United creditors’ meetings thathave taken place on Friday 1 June and Monday 4 June, the administrators of LeedsUnited Association Football Club Limited can confirm the result of the vote onthe CVA proposal to sell the Club to a newly formed company, Leeds UnitedFootball Club Ltd.’
KPMG partner Richard Fleming, appointed as joint administrator, said: ‘I amsatisfied that in voting to accept this CVA proposal the creditors have approveda solution that allows the club to plan ahead for next season; reducesuncertainty for all those with an interest in Leeds United; provides some returnfor creditors; and avoids liquidation.’
The creditors will receive an initial dividend of a penny in the pound with a ‘substantial additional dividend’ to follow if the Club regains Premiership status within five seasons.
===================================
As stated earlier HMRC subsequently questioned the administration process in Court, however they abandoned that action the following month. The club was sold to Ken Bates’ consortium as planned.
You can argue what you want about that part, what is clear though is that the situation is not analogous with what happened to Rangers, who simply failed to get a CVA.
Lawman
“You dont believe that a Company who cannot pay their debts and trade for 3 months is insolvent ?”
—————————————————————————————————————
No. It is not !. But it may well be insolvent in 3 months (or the expected conclusion date of the court process). That is what the quote you put up from the JA says.
It merely states they doubted it could survive that long.
Rangers(I.L.) were in a similar predicament, but the players agreed to substantial 75% paycuts to allow them to continue to trade. However, in their case, it was in vain as the CVA was rejected and the club passed into liquidation anyway.
Two reasons
1) From my understanding there was a timing issue for Leeds to be allowed to participate in the League. This is why there was a need for a Newco to be formed.
2) Buying the assets and all important liabilities complied with FA rules to allow a continuation.
This standard was not met in Rangers case.
So yes while you appear to be correct in your Newco/Oldco comparisons there are important differences.
Namely an acceptance of liabilities and the fact Leeds were afforded the opportunity to Liquidate volutarily (when it suited both Leeds & the league). While Rangers were forced, having not reached a CVA agreement or acceptence of liabilities (Which neither suited Rangers nor the league).
THELAWMAN
Not sure if you missed my earlier post but here is my questions in a nutshell.
Given you appear to believe that Rangers situation has similarities to that of Leeds and taking into account the rules of the SFA, SPL and SFL at the time, do you believe the Scottish footballing authorities treated Rangers in the correct manner?
If not, what did they do wrong, what should have happened and how would that have been justified by the rules at that time?
Given we all tend to have the same position on here, I am genuinely interested to hear the view from the other side.
HOMONCULOUS
And so it continues. By failing to read the Joint Administrators statement and failing to read the legal documents on Companies House, you are actually doing your cause more damage than you can ever imagine. Its getting to the ridiculous stage now that you continue to post, and i apologise for this, “utter nonsense and tripe” that I have shown beyond ALL doubt to be 100% wrong.
I fear that for some on here, there is no hope EVER.
All of below is 100% irrefutable, non challenge-able and substantiated as fact in court and on Companies House in accordance with the Companies Act 2006 and Insolvency Act 1996.
Leeds United creditors voted for a CVA.
HMRC challenged the CVA in court.
The court confirmed the challenge was appropriate and set a date in September to hear it fully.
The Joint administrators aborted the CVA.
The CVA was dead in the water. It could not be concluded.
Leeds had no funds to last to September.
The Joint Administrators sold the insolvent company as it was NOT a Going concern.
The Newco came in and the administration process was continued.
The Oldco ended the administration process some months later.
The Oldco was handed to Joint Liquidators and placed in Liquidation
There never was a CVA. Anyone saying so is talking complete nonsense.
THELAWMANMAY 15, 2016 at 16:40
I think you misunderstand me, I have not one bit of interest in whether Leeds is an old or new club, I really could not care less. I never cared for them anyway.
It is you who tries to compare the situation with what happened to Rangers. I am simply saying you are incorrect.
THELAWMANMAY 15, 2016 at 16:46 Im really sorry but again, this is nonsense. The test for insolvency is determined by asking if the company currently, or in the future, be unable to pay its debts as and when they fall due for payment?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/34719401
Rangers need £2.5m of external funding before the end of the season and have announced a loss of £7.5m for the year ending 30 June.
WOTTPI
Apologies but i did miss this. I am probably in the minority of Rangers fans in that i believe the authorities in this matter did treat us “fairly” or in the “correct manner” even if i do agree it was different from the way Leeds United were treated.
In my opinion, I think the Chairmen bit their noses off to spite their faces but i actually dont have any complaints about going into Division 3 if im being really honest about it.
Lawman
“The Joint Administrators sold the insolvent company as it was NOT a Going concern.”
—————————————————————————————————–
Of course it was still a going concern. It had substantial realisations in player assets. However, they would have been free to walk away before the conclusion of court proceedings, as they were close to going bust, thus rendering their value to zero.
That is why the club was then sold……As a going concern.
Rangers (I.L.) although there were a few offers on the table to buy the club, none of them carried the substantial weight to avoid the CVA being rejected.
HOMONCULUS
Agreed. Do you think we will get that funding ?
THELAWMANMAY 15, 2016 at 16:57
Sorry, I have no idea. I suspect if you do then the money will have to come from existing shareholders providing more loans.
As I understand it there is not going to be a rights or share issue in the near future and I seriously doubt anyone else will provide loans, particularly as the ownership of major assets is the subject of ongoing actions.
The other option of course would be to sell assets (not the subject of any legal claim) but I doubt the support would be keen on the more valuable players’ registrations being sold.
To try to be clear & as I understand it…
It’s not if liquidation happened it’s when & what happened that is different to the situation with Rangers.
Leeds had no need to liquidate other than to make the deadline to participate in the league.
Ken Bates bought Club assets & more importantly its liabilities. In short he bought everything, A CLUB.
Green was not afforded this luxury as with no CVA or agreement or ability to cover liabilities then compulsory liquidation immediately fell upon Rangers 1872.
Subsequently only some assets were moved to a Newco. In short Green wasn’t allowed or able to buy everything and a New Club was born.
The End! 😉
THELAWMANMAY 15, 2016 at 16:54
Thanks for the straight forward response.
So the follow up is, if the authorities did no wrong by Rangers and were also competent with regard to the issuing of the Euro licence, what is it that has you believing, like many on here, that the footballing authorities are not fit for purpose?
Is it non Rangers issues?
HAPPY CHAPPY
No. The Joint Administrators were clear and unequivocal. The company would not get a CVA in the future. Liquidation was the only option.
Lawman
”
I really dont know what to say about this. A company placed in administration and unable to trade for a period of 3 months was still a going concern. To be frank, some of this is quite embarrassing.
http://www.accountingtools.com/going-concern-principle
—————————————————————————————————————————-
“If the accountant believes that an entity may no longer be a going concern, then this brings up the issue of whether its assets are impaired, which may call for the write-down of their carrying amount to their liquidation value. Thus, the value of an entity that is assumed to be a going concern is higher than its breakup value, since a going concern can potentially continue to earn profits. ”
  Loosely translated, it was worth more to the liquidators when sold as a club, than they would ever recover from an asset sale, further down the line after the club was liquidated, and the players walked away for free.
But thanks for the link. It was an enjoyable read.
“No. The Joint Administrators were clear and unequivocal. The company would not get a CVA in the future. Liquidation was the only option.”
This is indeed accurate but ultimately Ken Bates bought both the assets & liabilities out of administration thus complying with FA rules.
I am sure you can agree that this never happened with Rangers?
WOTTPI.
Its just a long history of being antiquated, getting things constantly wrong, not being able to work out fixtures, arranging international friendlies at important stages in League campaigns, Regan(Jeez), Doncaster(Jeez), Petrie(Double Jeez).
I wouldnt point to any 1 instance, its a culmination over the years of ineptness in my opinion.
Lawman,
You really have brought great interest and stimulation to the blog, and you started off very well. After well over a hundred posts though, you are losing it a little. Mocking, insulting and sarcastic posts have today become your norm.
Today in fact, the tone of much of what you have contributed is almost identical to one of our former posters, who also started off promisingly.
Many of us are frustrated when others do not agree with our points of view. If your only answer to that is an “I’m smarter than you” point scoring exercise bathed in mockery, arrogance and derision, then SFM is the wrong place for you. Something is not true just because you say it is. Really, it’s not.
An assertion from you that you have “proved” something is just not enough. Actual proof is normally required. Yes there are a lot of entrenched views on SFM – much of it arrived at after much discussion – but no closed minds. You appear to be unable to accept and respect that.
I hope you will continue to post, but nobody on SFM should be wary of posting for fear of being ridiculed or insulted. Please make your points and avoid the ad hominem stuff.
Perhaps you are not ready to join our community, but I hope I am wrong.
All the tortured semantics, the convoluted & endlessly repetitive point scoring, to prove some completely unimportant subjective opinion. I couldn’t give a monkey’s tosspot about Leeds Utd, anymore than I give a second monkey’s tosspot about RFC (IL). They employed two tax evasion schemes with the sole reason of giving themselves a competitive advantage. This competitive advantage was known by the SFA, who chose to collude in this malpractice, by turning a blind eye to over 3000 games with “imperfectly registered” players.
Every other fan of every other club is supposed to put up with this. We’re supposed to now, turn another blind eye, purchase season books & kid ourselves on, that everything in the Scottish game, is all above board. Sorry, but I’m afraid I won’t be doing that.
This thread started, because of a thoroughly impartial & well researched blog, put together, by a highly reputable organisation. No amount of distraction, nor squirrels, are going to change the salient facts, contained within the said blog, that Scottish Football was sold down the river, by a bunch of conmen, who colluded in cheating for years…..neither will it change the salient fact, that the team currently playing in blue at Ibrox, is representing a new club, for the old club, is in the process of being completely liquidated. That’s the facts…..
HAPPY CHAPPY
I can agree it never happened with Rangers but it also never happened with Leeds either. Again you are completely misinformed.
Leeds had circa £38m of unsecured creditors. The terms of the sale were £1.8m to purchase the assets up front and £5m if Leeds got back to the Premiership prior to season 2017/18.
£36.2m of liabilities were not paid.
TRISIDIUM – Noted and will respect that. It just has been extremely frustrating when evidence is presented and clearly not read. Its also frustrating that there will be posters who actually get it and understand it but stay silent in my opinion.
For me, thats the most disappointing aspect for me.
And so the carousel continues to turn.
I would like to see that people on both sides recognise that it does not reach any destination.
Leeds/Rangers are they the same. Who cares, it doesn’t matter.
Rangers didn’t need to have no outstanding taxes they only needed to admit to them. What is the point of agreeing that if we cannot prove that the overdue payables were declared.
Point scoring only clogs up the site it does nothing to get as closer to our target.
TLM, is that your aim? To wear us down into submission? You have two points that you have repeated constantly and, having been confronted by counter arguments, still believe in your position. Neither have you convinced anyone to change theirs as far as I can see. After three days do we not see that we are going nowhere.
One of the points, the Leeds comparison, has no place in our argument that something is wrong at the heart of Scottish football administration. The other point has, but no matter which side is correct there is still the requirement for proof.
So, we have one vaild point that does not move us forward and five or six others that there would appear to be a reluctance on TLM’s side that are no go areas. That disappoints me. Also, despite being asked on two occasions to joins us and attempt to get your fellow Rangers supporters to act with us in trying to confront the SFA and SPFL to achieve a better set up for our game your response it is to ignore the point.
Which returns me to my position of suspicion. Are you just a troll or do you genuinely wish to engage? The impression forming through your posts is more and more leaning towards the former. Please prove me wrong.
Lawman
The ins & outs of when & what liabilities were & are to be paid is not the point.
The fact is Ken Bates bought both the assets & liabilities. This satisfied FA rules & Leeds continued.
Green neither agreed to cover any liabilities or satisfied league rules & Rangers ceased to exist.
As CYGNUS X-1 suggestes that engaging in semantics is pointless. I agree, so this will be my last post on this as there are more relevant issues than the ins & outs of Leeds United.
Peace & sincerely all the very best to you & New Rangers (as long as you don’t win anything) for the coming seasons. 🙂
Would the answer be to open up a new thread and let those who want to engage in this topic continue ? I’m all for engaging with new posters and new topics but this is all getting a bit tedious.
THELAWMAN
MAY 15, 2016 at 17:58
That is exactly my point. That there is arrogance in that assumption, and in the condescending attitude implicit in asserting that “there will be posters who actually get it and understand it(your argument)“.
It may be that I suspect you don’t believe a word of what you are saying, but do so to support a position that papers over a regrettable episode in your club’s history.
However it would be disrespectful for me not to take you at face value for the purpose of our discussion – and would be attacking your character whilst avoiding the issues.
You need to be aware that everyone who disagrees with you does so in good faith.
Otherwise, there is no point in participating in a discussion.
RIEVER
You are entitled to your opinion, however if people want to debate the New Club/Old Club scenario, as is their want, then rather than comparing to Gretna, Airdrie or Third Lanark, then it remains my stance that Leeds is the best example and in fact is an exact replica, in law, of what happened with Rangers. I was then advised all the reasons i was wrong about that mainly due to a CVA, which didnt happen and consequently i have provided a link to an irrefutable document which clearly proves no CVA was achieved. If this then shifts the position from “You’re wrong about Leeds” to “Who cares about Leeds” then thats fair enough.
Well if nothing else, this shift in standpoint proves that coming on here has had an impact. Throughout my earlier posts, it was thought and pointed out to me that you were not allowed to have outstanding taxes and having them meant no licence. I hope this shift in thinking is part/fully down to my posting of the relevant articles, annexes and rules.
Agreed but really not sure where i can be accused of this.
I respectively disagree. I think that from my first post on the licencing issue to where we are now, there are a number of posters who have shifted their stance given the factual evidence and links to the relevant articles and annexes. It is not my aim to wear you down at all. I like to think i have taken the time to respond to almost every question in relation to the Licencing issue and the Leeds comparison. There will be of course a few slip through the net but I have done my best. If that comes across to you as trolling then i apologise for making you feel that way.
As much as i would love for the proof to be made available to put it to bed, i cant agree that there is a requirement for it. UEFA audited the SFA in 2011 and found nothing untoward. Im more than sure that since then and in response to the many written letters and emails that UEFA will have dusted down the submissions and their audit reports and checked it out, but have not taken any further action. The SFA only have a “requirement for proof” to UEFA when it comes down to it.
As previously stated, people rightly or wrongly will probably consider me as a “controversial poster” because i simply dont accept the norm and challenge any thinking based on my on business and life experience. More often than not, my views on things would not be considered to be aligned to the majority of Rangers fans. I dont attempt to tell anyone how to engage with anything else as i dont like being told that myself. They can read what goes on in here, including this post from you and the unsubstantiated suspicions/allegations made by you then make up their own minds if this is the type of thing they would be willing to engage with. From the various messages i have received in the last 4/5 days, i doubt you will get your wish if im being honest. I can understand why to be fair.
In the spirit of sticking to guidelines and honoring admins request, i will leave this unanswered.
HAPPY CHAPPY
To be a FACT, it has to be true and in this instance its not. It was an unconditional sale for £1.8m with a potential further £5m. Bates had nothing to do with the liabilites due to the creditors, much like Charles Green had nothing to with the liabilities due to the creditors, though he did end up paying the football creditors.
TRISIDIUM
To be fair, i have already confirmed im embarrassed with what went on in 11/12 and also confirmed it still haunts me whilst stating today that i felt there was justification in being put into the 3rd division. I dont think that in anyway supports a theory that im trying to paper over a regrettable episode in my clubs history.
From Christyboy.
“Would the answer be to open up a new thread and let those who want to engage in this topic continue ? I’m all for engaging with new posters and new topics but this is all getting a bit tedious.”
I for one totally agree. While I read this site every day, more than once I might add, as I enjoy the discussions I have absolutely no interest in what happened to Leeds United.
In fact I’m quite tired of the repetitive nature of the Lawman’s postings and others replies. No-one’s opinion is being changed and the discussions/arguments are now pointless. Let’s move on.
TLM
Please explain what a club is?
Who owns RFC
How can they prove ownership?
Please supply a link to the RFC’s constitution and list of members
Lawman, from your post at 16.40. We agree on so many aspects and you simply prove my point that Leeds were still in administration when the club was sold. When Rangers assets were sold, their CVA had been rejected so they were consigned to liquidation and only a basket of liquidated assets was able to be sold.
Leeds United creditors voted for a CVA. Agreed.
HMRC challenged the CVA in court. Agreed.
The court confirmed the challenge was appropriate and set a date in September to hear it fully. Agreed.
The Joint administrators aborted the CVA. Agreed.
The CVA was dead in the water. It could not be concluded. Agreed.
Leeds had no funds to last to September. Agreed.
The Joint Administrators sold the insolvent company as it was NOT a Going concern. Oh, we were doing so well together too! An insolvent club remains in administration until a CVA is rejected. Aborting a proposed CVA is NOT the same as a CVA being rejected.
The Newco came in and the administration process was continued. Agreed. Thank you for admitting that the administration process continued.
The Oldco ended the administration process some months later. Agreed.
The Oldco was handed to Joint Liquidators and placed in Liquidation Agreed.
There never was a CVA. Anyone saying so is talking complete nonsense. Agreed.
THE TAXMAN COMETH
In my considered opinion, a club is made up of many parts but in the main, it is a football team who hold a membership of their FA, playing in what is normally a historical home ground and the major part, for me, is the fans and supporters whom without, there would be “no club”
Rangers International Football Club and its shareholders own RFC
Im not sure if thats a trick question or how to answer it. The accounts show it. Documents on Companies House also. The Articles of Association can also be found on there.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history?page=3
NAWLITE, Rangers were still in administration when the sale was made so not sure of your point. When Leeds CVA was aborted, it was dead and non existent. The only option left for both administrators was to sell as part of the administration process then hand the process over to Liquidators.
Since we’re still comparing apples and pears, does the Parma situation compare with either Leeds or TRFC and RFC(IL) ?
TLM
lol
So rfc isn’t the club?
please explain how rifc own rfc
please explain how a team can be a member of the sfa
the taxman cometh May 15, 2016 at 18:53
Please explain what a club is?
==========================
Today’s posts clearly demonstrate why the OC/NC argument is pointless and why I tend to shy away from debating it. The main reason being that people on either side of the debate are so entrenched in their positions, no-one is likely to give or move an inch.
The question you ask is the fundamental one, but doesn’t have a definitive answer. We have seen various definitions or descriptions given by UEFA, SFA, SPL, LNS, Lord Brodie and others.
UEFA thinks it is a legal entity, the SFA and SPL(SPFL) thinks it varies depending on the context (they don’t say what contexts are associated with what definition), LNS thought that it is not a legal entity but does include staff, the ground and players’ contracts (fully disclosed I hope), while Lord Brodie thought the concept took us into metaphysics.
To that extent I think that Stewart Regan was right with his oft criticised statement that it was up to the fans to decide in their own mind whether on not they believed Rangers to be same club or a new club. That position was somewhat supported by TOG in their follow up article, where they stated “The history and the spirit of the club remain with the fans, not with any company.”.
Going forward, we will be left with one group continuing to claim the history and continuity, another group denying the same, and a third group who couldn’t give a toss one way or another because it doesn’t concern their own “club” (whatever that “club” means to them). We are almost four years down the road, and following a volte face by almost the whole of the SMSM after the first month, no-one has changed their position since.
Give it up ….. please.
The Licence Issue on the other hand is a different “kettle of worms”
Ballyargus
I understand the frustration of those who see the last few days as having bogged us down somewhat.
I think we need to understand that Rangers fans are reluctant to concede the licence issue. I believe the main reason for that is that the consequences of doing so could be devastating to their ability to perpetuate the “same club” narrative.
I even sympathise with their attitude towards that OCNC debate.
All of us who aren’t Rangers fans are on solid ground with our own clubs. We have no virtual asterisk against our roll of honours; none of our clubs have a provenance that is not accepted universally; none of them have to have the prefix ‘company that owns and operates’ attached to their name.
It is more important for Rangers fans to convince us that they are the same club than it is for the rest of us to convince them of the opposite (in fact there is no need at all) – because the history and timeline of the rest of the clubs in the game are not constantly being argued over.
Consequently, I am inclined to allow Lawman a little more latitude, despite my increasing belief that he is being disruptive for the sake of it, in the hope that he may at last address some of the issues he has been asked about.
Whether I am wrong or right, the main thing is that we keep an open mind, and listen respectfully to counter arguments – something I think we do very well.
Pointless, circular discussions are two-way streets too. If you feel someone is trolling, bear in mind of course that you won’t change his position – even if you succeed in changing his mind.
I’m still wiling to give him the benefit of the doubt, but if you aren’t, don’t engage.
I do think we are getting to another point in SFM history where it may be better for us shelve these arguments in the knowledge that nobody is convincing anyone else.
But bear with us for a wee while longer.
THE TAXMAN COMETH – Your questions are confusing. I was assuming that you were using RFC as meaning the club and this, RIFC own the club. As to the complexities around the legal construct/argument and transfer of membership etc then better legal minds than I have declared the relevant position on the matter. I would defer to their views on the matter. The findings declared in court and on the legal documents submitted by the Joint Administrators in addition to the views of HMRC and ECA on the matter, make it clear in my mind.
I dont expect you to agree of course and that is fine.
ah
so rfc IS the club
how does rifc own it?
how does it prove ownership?
how can a team hold membership of the sfa?
Completely agree EASYJAMBO hence why i tried, and ultimately failed, to stop posting on it.
For me, your post wins and ends the debate and therefore, from me, absolutely no more on the OC/NC/LEEDS issue and thats a promise this time.
for a moment i thought i stumbled on a Leeds fan site, but there you go.
Anyway i was at the game today and heard a couple of guys talking about Resolution 12. That being a first i have heard someone in the flesh outwith my own group of friends actually Discussing it.
Put REIVER’s handouts in some bookmakers, Well after all they do sponsor the league. they are now helping that league in a way in which they don’t know
Had a tear in my eye for Emilio Izaguirre
Oh! and may i Congratulate celtic on winning the league
Lawman, you say “Rangers were still in administration when the sale was made”. That is simply not true – Charles Green had an agreement with the administrators that if his CVA at one price was rejected, he would purchase the liquidated assets at a lower price. I’m pretty sure you know that.
Does anyone remember Adam from RTC, Scots Law Thoughts and here?
He usually started off with a couple of questions then came:-
Adam December 16, 2012 at 9:16 pm Reply
Another one i would like to ask. Why is Leeds still the same club when they went through the exact same as Rangers ?
Adam December 18, 2012 at 9:52 am Reply
And finally left after a fair number of posts eg:- as above , about a day and a half.
Then on to the next blog.
TheLawMan
May 11, 2016 at 19:54
TheLawMan
May 15, 2016 at 19:59
Hat off to TheLawMan, 4 days and nights so far, impressive!
Wonder what happened to Adam?