Good Evening.
As we ponder the historic vote to create a new Governing body to oversee Scottish League football, I cannot help but wonder what brilliant minds will be employed in the drawing up of its constitution, rules, memorandum and articles of association?
Clearly, Messrs Doncaster, Longmuir and even Mr Regan as the CEO of the SFA will be spending many hours with those dreaded folk known simply as “ The Lawyers” in an attempt to get the whole thing up and running and written down in the course of a few short weeks.
In truth, that scares me.
It scares me because legal documentation written up in a hurry or in a rush is seldom perfect and often needs amendment—especially when the errors start to show! The old adage of beware of the busy fool sadly applies.
It also scares me because the existing rules under which the game is governed are not, in my humble opinion, particularly well written and seem to differ in certain material respects from those of UEFA. Even then, adopting the wording and the approach of other bodies is not necessarily the way to go.
I am all in favour of some original thought– and that most precious and unusual of commodities known as common sense and plain English.
Further, the various licensing and compliance rules are clearly in need of an overhaul as they have of late produced what can only be best described as a lack of clarity when studied for the purposes of interpretation. Either that or those doing the studying and interpreting are afflicted with what might be described as tortuous or even tortured legal and administrative minds.
If it is not by now clear that the notion of self-certification on financial and other essential disclosure criteria necessary to obtain a footballing licence (whether European or domestic) is a total non-starter — then those in charge of the game are truly bonkers.
Whilst no governing body can wholly control the actions of a member club, or those who run a club, surely provisions can be inserted into any constitution or set of rules that allows and brings about greater vigilance and scrutiny than we have at present—all of course designed to do nothing other than alert the authorities as early as possible if matters are not being conducted properly or fairly.
However, the main change that would make a difference to most of the folk involved in the Scottish game – namely the fans— would be to have the new rules incorporate a measure which allowed football fans themselves to be represented on any executive or committee.
Clearly, this would be a somewhat revolutionary step and would be fought against tooth and nail by some for no reason other than that it has simply not been done before—especially as the league body is there to regulate the affairs of a number of limited companies all of whom have shareholders to account to and the clubs themselves would presumably be the shareholders in the new SPFL Ltd.
Then again to my knowledge Neil Doncaster is not a shareholder in The SPL ltd– is he?
I can hear the argument that a fan representative on a league body might not be impartial, might be unprofessional, might be biased, might lack knowledge or experience, and have their own agenda and so on—just like many chairmen and chief executive officers who already sit on the committees of the existing league bodies.
Remember too that the SFA until relatively recently had disciplinary committees made up almost exclusively of referees. I don’t think anyone would argue that the widening of the make up of that committee has been a backward step.
However, we already have fan representation at clubs like St Mirren and Motherwell, and of course there has been an established Tartan Army body for some time now. Clubs other than the two mentioned above have mechanisms whereby they communicate and consult with fans, although they stop short of full fan participation– very often for supposedly insurmountable legal reasons.
As often as not, the fans want a say in the running of their club, but also want to be able to make representations to the governing bodies via their club.
So why not include the fans directly in the new set up for governing the league?
Any fan representative could be someone proposed by a properly registered fan body such as through official supporters clubs, or could be seconded by the clubs acting in concert with their supporters clubs.
Perhaps a committee of fan representatives could be created, with such a committee having a representative on the various committees of the new league body.
In this way, there would be a fan who could report back to the fan committee and who could represent the interests of the ordinary fan in the street in any of the committees. Equally such a committee of fans could ensure that any behind the scenes discussions on any issue were properly reported, openly discussed, and made public with no fear of hidden agendas, secret meetings, and secret collusive agreements and so forth.
Is any of that unreasonable? Surely many companies consider the views of their biggest customer? This idea is no different.
Surely such a situation would go some way towards establishing some badly needed trust between the governing bodies and the fans themselves?
If necessary, I would not even object to the fan representatives being excluded from having a right to vote on certain matters—as long as they had a full right of audience and a full right of access to all discussions and relative papers which affect the running of the game.
In this way at least there would be openness and transparency.
In short, it would be a move towards what is quaintly referred to as Democracy.
Perhaps, those who run the game at present should consider the life and times of the late great Alexander Hamilton- one of the founding fathers of the United States of America and who played a significant role in helping write the constitution of that country.
Hamilton was a decent and brilliant man in many ways—but he was dead set against Democracy and the liberation of rights for the masses. In fact, he stated that the best that can be hoped for the mass populace is that they be properly armed with a gun and so able to protect themselves against injustice!
Sadly, Hamilton became embroiled in a bitter dispute with the then Vice President of the nation Aaron Burr in July 1804. Hamilton had used his influence and ensured that Burr lost the election to become Governor of New York and had made some withering attacks on the Vice President’s character.
When he refused to apologise, the Vice President took a whacky notion and challenged him to a duel! Even more whacky is the fact that Hamilton accepted the challenge and so the contest took place at Weehawken New Jersey on the morning of 11th July 1804.
The night before, Hamilton wrote a letter which heavily suggested that he would contrive to miss Burr with his shot, and indeed when the pistols fired Hamilton’s bullet struck a branch immediately above Burr’s head.
However, he did not follow the proper procedure for duelling which required a warning from the duellist that they are going to throw their shot away. Hamilton gave no such indication despite the terms of his letter and despite his shot clearly missing his opponent.
Burr however fired and hit Hamilton in the lower abdomen with the result that the former secretary to the treasury and founding father of the constitution died at 2pm on the twelfth of July.
The incident ruined Burr’s career (whilst duelling was still technically legal in New jersey, it had already been outlawed in various other states).
In any event, in Hamilton’s time full and open democracy in the United States of America would have met with many cries of outrage and bitter opposition. Yet, today, the descendants of slaves and everyone from all social standings, all ethnic minorities and every social background has the constitutional right to vote and seek entry to corridors of power.
In that light, is it really asking too much to allow football fans to have a say and a presence in the running of a game they pay so much to support?
ecobhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:38 am
0 0 Rate This
…
I’ve spelt out why I feel that legal advice wasn’t taken and so far I haven’t noticed anyone actually disagreeing with my specific reasoning. It’s really funny the way the paragraph I have been highlighting sits like a tramp surrounded by a host of well-groomed and polished companions.There must be a reason but so far it eludes me.
=====================================================
Is this the paragraph you refer to?
Some points I made earlier.
The LNS commission gave the SPL’s unique definition of a “Club” – that being the undertaking of an association football club in membership of the SPL.
This is not the same as the generic definition of a club as understood by the SFA.
In any case, the SPL definition should include an appropriate reference to the meaning of “undertaking” as contained in the Companies Act. The fact that the LNS Commission did not, gives truth to BBC Scotland’s assertion that “his reasonings do not represent the view of company law.”
It is normal in a board of enquiry for a judgement to be given principally as the opinion of the chair (assuming it concurs with the majority). You are not wrong to say that the opinion was shared by all three panel members; but, as LNS was the chair, I think it is perfectly reasonable to characterise it’s determinations as primarily representing his opinions.
Personally, I can’t see any error in what BBC Scotland has said.
ecobhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:38 am
…………………………………
On the contrary…a few SEVCO fans are claiming on various forums that the BBC trusts decision is in fact a BBC apology….I kid you not…
Twitters going out from Charlotte last night summarized
1. Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 4h
@Hunted_byafreak Russell bluffed and was called. Basic wages of 8k. New info added re player tapping 2012. http://www.scribd.com/doc/148630721/Goodwillie-Bluff … #Sandaza
2. Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 5h
Darrell King, Jim Traynor and Keith Jackson demonstrating the submissiveness of Scottish Sports Journalists. (cont) http://tl.gd/n_1rkt7h2
3. Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 10h
Key players knew the financial troubles in July 2011. #RFFF #Priorities 1. http://i.imgur.com/x75ovOO.jpg 2. http://i.imgur.com/A7aT2h6.jpg
4. Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 11h
@rangersfctrust Independent Supporters Groups controlled by Media House, just like the scottish msm. http://www.scribd.com/doc/148567205/Independent-Supporters-c-o-Media-House … #SandieShawRSC
5. Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 11h
@rangersfctrust You’re responding at breakneck speed and before reading/digesting. You shouldn’t be representing anyone. #Squirrels.
6. Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 11h
@rangersfctrust Then it moves into much more sinister areas with the RSA passing on personal info to Media House. #SandieShawRSC
7. Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 11h
@rangersfctrust Those are facts. Look at the email chain and the RSA response. Others with Media House drafting statements. #SandieShawRSC
8. Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 11h
@rangersfctrust Wrong – Puppets controlled by Media House. All must share the blame for the demise #GetsMoreSinister http://www.scribd.com/doc/148560424/Independent-Supporters-Clubs …
9. Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 14h
@rangersfctrust Huh, ask them directly. If the denial still stands, I’ll publish the facts. Extend that to other groups. Independent my arse
10. Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 15h
@RFCSwitcheroo The Rangers Supporters Assembly are puppets for Media House yet they claim to be Independent. BBC attacks typical example.
Some fine Bampot radio for anyone interested….
Tommy In Glasgow talks to Gordon Smith….
Link to edit of telephone call only:
https://soundcloud.com/peterjung1/tommy-talks-to-gordon
Link to original full show:
http://www.spreaker.com/page#!/user/glasgow-radio-online/tuesday_mid_afternoon_live_show
jonnyod says:
June 18, 2013 at 10:23 pm
re the BBC statement
My take on is that
We the BBC know and always did know that it was a new club ,but it’s the gers were talking about here not Airdrie or Gretna so give us a break .How could we possibly have said they were a new club .
Maybe a tad short but I think the gist is correct
——————————–
Yes, I can understand it when you put it like that!
paulmac2 says:
June 19, 2013 at 2:12 am
9 0 Rate This
On the contrary…a few SEVCO fans are claiming on various forums that the BBC trusts decision is in fact a BBC apology….I kid you not…
=====================================
If we all just apologise for not accepting they are the grandest, most dignified, most noble of the noblest, most honest institution then maybe we can put this sorry mess behind us and let these great leaders of the game sort it out and take us forward.
1. Firstly they must be put in the SPL right away.
2. A bank must then be found that will allow them an ovedraft facility of £80-100M
3. HMRC must be ordered not to pursue them for unpaid tax or challenge their tax avoidance schemes
4. Legislation must be introduced to ensure the reporting of any matter relating to football will be under the sole control of the mainstream media.
Then the world will be at one again. Why can’t we just apologise!
http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=12282907&t=8817196
New selling book form Sevco by Jack Irvine…….available via Spindle……….
peterjung says:
June 19, 2013 at 6:03 am
1 0 Rate This
Some fine Bampot radio for anyone interested….
Tommy In Glasgow talks to Gordon Smith….
Link to edit of telephone call only:
https://soundcloud.com/peterjung1/tommy-talks-to-gordon
Link to original full show:
http://www.spreaker.com/page#!/user/glasgow-radio-online/tuesday_mid_afternoon_live_show
———-
And I thought it was a slow Tuesday evening, lots of fine debate now caught up on.
Cheers for the heads up on Bampot Radio, Peter. Haven’t heard Tommy for a while. I lost a bit of interest after his Sandaza interview, which I felt was out of bounds, certainly in how it worked out for the player.
Smith was mostly courteous and straight, but I’m sure Tommy could have got further by referencing Hearts & Dunfermline a bit more. Smith caught on when Tommy lapsed into semi-lecturing mode. Big admission at the end though: that the Celtic v Rangers fixture, “It’s the only thing that makes Scottish football recognized”. That was very Radio Clyde. Implies 40 other clubs are only there as background canvas.
I used to enjoy Smith and Traynor going head-to-head when the former was at the SFA. And on the C v R fixture GS is correct, to a certain extent. When people abroad find out you’re from Glasgow, they tend to ask you if you’re for Rangers or Celtic. It’s the image the country has projected for a very long time. Too long. How much better if we became known for something else – decent fans who won’t live with corruption in sport, or strict adherence to financial fair play? A fans’ revolution to take the game back from discredited suits & blazers could also make Scottish football recognized (finally, back on the blog topic!). One day, maybe.
The lesson of Spain is worth taking on board – you can have the most successful sportsmen and women in the world but at the same time be viewed with almost universal cynicism because of trying to sweep some stuff under the carpet. Wasn’t there something about gaining the world but losing your soul? Guess that applies in sport too.
This concludes the voting of the Scandinavian jury.
DP – there are also 10 tweets from CF that I listed above and are in moderation – some of them eye opening – mostly about Jack feeding the RST with “news revisions” and Ally/Naismith’s agent being the same and being owed money in July 2011 – so Ally could not know – and then a bid for Goodwillie being shown up as them saying one thing in papers and another in reality – then leaving Kenny Millar out to dry!
Check out his tweets – unless the mods unleash my post first!
3 mins to give me a thumbs down Jack – you must be sleepy this morning!
Missed a bit – sorry
“Ally/Naismith’s agent being the same and being owed money in July 2011 – so Ally could not know” – should be
Ally/Naismith’s agent being the same and being owed money in July 2011 – so Ally could not know defence goes out of the window
TW says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Thanks CoT…but that means the BBC say the club and company are effectively the same thing, although one has an old/new dimension and the other doesn’t?
====================================================================================
It is because the club and company are the same thing that the old/new references are necessary.
If the club and company are the same thing, and they are, it means the old club are dead, and what we have now is a Tribute Act playing at Ibrox, hence the need to distinguish between the old and new club.
When is the SPL’s response to the outcome of the LNS report?
Morning Exiled. Thanks for that mate, ah cannae keep up 🙂
I actually had a quick run through those tweets earlier but am still digesting them. Although at first glance they might show one reason why nobody is commenting on CF in the West Coast media – they don’t dare. No self-respecting journalist wants to be outed as a willing stooge in the propaganda campaign. #keepinthurheidsdoon
Btw, I think your problem is that you’ve typed your login wrong, and nothing with your post. It’s some extra security I reckon. I never got that email either when it happened to me.
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=254170
The post above confirms their ignorance and avoidance of the facts or, alternatively, their devious selective use of LNS findings which I understand have relevance only to the SPL and not the SFA. I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve got this wrong.
I think we may be losing sight of an important issue here, and that is the slow motion train crash otherwise known as RIFC’s cash position.
The following is an extract from the rules for AIM listed companies:
Half-yearly reports
18. An AIM company must prepare a half-yearly report in respect of the six month period from
the end of the financial period for which finanancial information has been disclosed in its
admission document and at least every subsequent six months thereafter (apart from the
final period of six months preceding its accounting reference date for its annual audited
accounts). All such reports must be notified without delay and in any event not later than
three months after the end of the relevant period.
The information contained in a half-yearly report must include at least a balance sheet, an
income statement, a cash flow statement and must contain comparative figures for the
corresponding period in the preceding financial year. Additionally the half-yearly report
must be presented and prepared in a form consistent with that which will be adopted in the
AIM company’s annual accounts having regard to the accounting standards applicable to
such annual accounts.
RIFC’s admission document contained financial information for the period to 31 August 2012. Under AIM rules, the first 6 month report is for the period to 28 February, and must be notified not later than 31 May. I have seen nothing about this overdue report, on AIM or anywhere else. I know that in January RIFC published interim accounts to 31 December 2012, but those don’t seem to meet the very clear AIM requirements. So why no report yet? Too embarrassing?
On the cash position generally, the back of my envelope indicates a worrying position- if TRFC going bust worries you, that is. By the end of July, on my figures there will be around £10m in the bank, assuming season ticket sales of £8m. Cash burn will remain at around £2.4m per month, or maybe more with all these new players on fancy wages. That makes them bust by Christmas, without a further injection of cash, massive cost-cutting, or both.
There must surely be a plan, but if it involves cost cutting, the axe would be falling right now- and it isn’t. So is Dave King already armed and mounted on his snow white charger, ready to ride to the rescue with a big bag of cash? Maybe the Easdales have packed a double-decker with spare readies, and are ready to drive along the M8? Or maybe someone that the rest of the world might actually recognise as “fit and proper” is ready to throw their money away?
The next 6 months are critical for the future of TRFC. Plenty of entertainment in store, that’s for sure.
Charlotte Fakeovers says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:50 am
Castofthousands said moments ago on June 19, 2013 at 12:35 am
It then begs the question, why would Charlotte assert that (S)DM did not know about Ticketus involvement with CW. At least that is how I read her last post on here.
Charlotte, we find it difficult to accept that (S)DM did not know about Ticketus involvement in CW’s takeover of Rangers. Can you please clarify this.
——————————————————————————————-
All I meant to convey was that if SDM/MIH became aware that Ticketus was the primary funding source and that others knew about this, then the Wavetower/Octopus deal was in danger.
Murray would not have been able to claim he had been duped had the source of funding been common knowledge amongst the city folks.
___________________________________________________________________________
So SDM needed plausible deniabilty?
john clarke says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:07 am
12 1 Rate This
slimshady61 says:
June 18, 2013 at 11:43 pm
‘..What needs to be answered is one simple question “Mr Murray, when did you first meet Craig Whyte?” or, alternatively, “Mr Whyte, when did you first meet David Murray?”’
%%%%%
I cleay remember that someone from the old board said that they had commissioned a Private Investigator to provide a report on CW, this report was presented to SDM by board members who thought that it would scuper the deal. Apparently SDM totally disregarded it’s findings. One of two meanings:
SDM already knew CW’s provenance and the report contained – to him no new information
Or
SDM did not believe the report and instead relied on his legendary ‘people skills’
Is the dam slowly bursting?.
Spiers on Sport: Rangers, new club or old, and the BBC
Spiers on Sport
Graham Spiers
Wednesday 19 June 2013
The acrimonious debate continues about whether Rangers FC is a new club or not.
BBC Scotland is just the latest to feel the hot wrath of some angry Rangers fans railing at its editorial stance.
In fact, those Rangers fans have scored a notable victory in having a complaint to the Editorial Standards Committee about BBC Scotland upheld.
At least two supporters objected to the BBC in Glasgow occasionally referring to Rangers in terms of “old club” and “new club”, and their complaint was upheld.
What was thrown out was the daft accusation, frequently cited among some Rangers cyber zealots, that the BBC was biased against the club.
My point here is not to defend BBC Scotland. In this complex Rangers saga, it has become obvious to me, speaking to various insolvency practitioners, that “new club” or “same club” Rangers is a highly subjective issue. I’ve heard the entire gamut of interpretations on it.
Where Rangers struggle to be angry or insulted by the suggestion that their organisation is a “new club” is in this context: at least four Rangers principals, men who have been lauded by supporters, have expressed just such a view of Rangers as a new club.
First, Charles Green. Prior to Rangers’ descent into liquidation last year, Green was aghast at the attitude of Dave King, a long-standing Rangers director, who had urged that a CVA be voted down by the club’s 276 creditors.
Incredulous at this, Green went on television and said: “What he [King] is suggesting is that, rather than get a CVA through that retains all the history and tradition, that instead we should vote against it and go down the newco route. I mean…why would a true Rangers fan suggest that?”
In this, the view of Green, the man to whom many Rangers fans swooned, appears none too different to that of BBC Scotland and others.
Arguably, no Rangers figure in this debate finds himself in a more excruciating position than James Traynor, the club’s Director of Communication.
Time and space here doesn’t allow for the sheer number of times that Traynor, in his previous role as a journalist, emphatically pronounced Rangers to be a new club once liquidation became a reality. Yet he has the temerity now to argue the complete opposite.
Of the numerous times Traynor weighed in on this subject, just two quotes here will have to suffice.
With liquidation looming, Traynor wrote in the Daily Record: “Some Rangers fans believe the club’s history, which would end with liquidation, must be protected. But any newco should make it clear that a new beginning means exactly that: a new club open to all from the very beginning.”
Later on, with the Rangers CVA being rejected, Traynor wrote: “Rangers FC as we know them are dead.” Caustically, he added: “No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club. When the CVA was thrown out, Rangers as we know them died.”
Reading this type of stuff, I would urge Rangers to exercise supreme caution in railing against anyone who dares to call their club a new club; none other than their own Director of Communication has made his view perfectly clear on the subject.
Many a Rangers fan expressed the view that the club died with the descent into liquidation. Typical of this was Ibrox debenture holder Stewart Boal who, having stumbled out of the CVA meeting of June 2012, was quoted by Richard Wilson in The Herald as saying: “We’re in shock. The club is gone. We’ve got to start again and move on.”
Wilson, a fine reporter, himself wrote of that nine-minute creditors’ meeting where the CVA was rejected: “In those few minutes 140 years of history had been rubbed out.”
I could go on and on here. Richard Gough, one of Rangers’ greatest ever captains, wrote in a newspaper column: “The club I gave blood, sweat and tears for is dead.”
Walter Smith, one of the greatest figures in Rangers’ history, and now the club’s chairman, said of Green’s consortium taking over: “I wish the new Rangers Football Club every good fortune.”
This is a painful subject. Many Rangers fans are agonised at the thought of their club being new – they simply rule it out. “It’s the company, not the club,” became the mantra. Other Rangers observers – like me – find it hard to escape the view that the current club is a new club.
Rangers FC itself should think twice about laying into BBC Scotland or anyone else over this old club/new club debate. The more so when its own oral history on the subject is so weak.
Mr Spiers writes a clear,unambiguous article.Well there youi go.
The Herald’s Martin Williams behaving like a member of RM on Twitter last night.
Martin Williams @Martin1Williams 10h
@6ixty7 @macbloscaidh @pmcn888 @AngelaHaggerty So Lord Nimmo Smith, ECA , ASA & BBC Trust are all wrong. Or are they part of conspiracy too
His colleague at the newspaper appears to have a polar opposite opinion.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/spiers-on-sport-rangers-new-club-or-old-and-the-bbc.1371631860
Bawsman says:
June 19, 2013 at 8:47 am
4 0 Rate This
When is the SPL’s response to the outcome of the LNS report?
=====================================================
Handily the SPL will no longer exist, therefore no need for a response to the report.
Clever Eh.
selfassessor says:
June 19, 2013 at 9:21 am
1 0 Rate This
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=254170
The post above confirms their ignorance and avoidance of the facts or, alternatively, their devious selective use of LNS findings which I understand have relevance only to the SPL and not the SFA. I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve got this wrong.
————-
Not a site I frequent @selfassessor but I imagine it doesn’t take too many strong-mnded propagandists to influence an online debate. And to be fair, to the man in the street the list of same-club affirmations quoted is quite extensive and convincing, at first glance anyway. Anyone who confirms our own bias with a half or non-truth is sometimes too easily embraced, well, by some. Apparently, the US military also has a programme to spread pro-US propaganda via social media. People who spend all day in dark rooms, no doubt in military fatigues, promoting apple pie, the flag and pax americana via various online aliases. Help oor boabs. But Rabbie was right:
“The man o’ independent mind
He looks an’ laughs at a’ that.”
I suppose that’s why listening to Tommy in Glasgow ‘debating’ Gordon Smith on the same-club-no-debt claim was so fascinating. It was the non-spin, common sense version of events up against the former SFA and Rangers man, who to his credit, didn’t dodge the questions, well, not too much 😉
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
June 19, 2013 at 10:12 am
7 0 Rate This
Is the dam slowly bursting?.
Spiers on Sport: Rangers, new club or old, and the BBC
Spiers on Sport
Graham Spiers
Wednesday 19 June 2013
The acrimonious debate continues about whether Rangers FC is a new club or not.
BBC Scotland is just the latest to feel the hot wrath of some angry Rangers fans railing at its editorial stance.
In fact, those Rangers fans have scored a notable victory in having a complaint to the Editorial Standards Committee about BBC Scotland upheld.
At least two supporters objected to the BBC in Glasgow occasionally referring to Rangers in terms of “old club” and “new club”, and their complaint was upheld.
What was thrown out was the daft accusation, frequently cited among some Rangers cyber zealots, that the BBC was biased against the club.
My point here is not to defend BBC Scotland. In this complex Rangers saga, it has become obvious to me, speaking to various insolvency practitioners, that “new club” or “same club” Rangers is a highly subjective issue. I’ve heard the entire gamut of interpretations on it.
Where Rangers struggle to be angry or insulted by the suggestion that their organisation is a “new club” is in this context: at least four Rangers principals, men who have been lauded by supporters, have expressed just such a view of Rangers as a new club.
First, Charles Green. Prior to Rangers’ descent into liquidation last year, Green was aghast at the attitude of Dave King, a long-standing Rangers director, who had urged that a CVA be voted down by the club’s 276 creditors.
Incredulous at this, Green went on television and said: “What he [King] is suggesting is that, rather than get a CVA through that retains all the history and tradition, that instead we should vote against it and go down the newco route. I mean…why would a true Rangers fan suggest that?”
In this, the view of Green, the man to whom many Rangers fans swooned, appears none too different to that of BBC Scotland and others.
Arguably, no Rangers figure in this debate finds himself in a more excruciating position than James Traynor, the club’s Director of Communication.
Time and space here doesn’t allow for the sheer number of times that Traynor, in his previous role as a journalist, emphatically pronounced Rangers to be a new club once liquidation became a reality. Yet he has the temerity now to argue the complete opposite.
Of the numerous times Traynor weighed in on this subject, just two quotes here will have to suffice.
With liquidation looming, Traynor wrote in the Daily Record: “Some Rangers fans believe the club’s history, which would end with liquidation, must be protected. But any newco should make it clear that a new beginning means exactly that: a new club open to all from the very beginning.”
Later on, with the Rangers CVA being rejected, Traynor wrote: “Rangers FC as we know them are dead.” Caustically, he added: “No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club. When the CVA was thrown out, Rangers as we know them died.”
Reading this type of stuff, I would urge Rangers to exercise supreme caution in railing against anyone who dares to call their club a new club; none other than their own Director of Communication has made his view perfectly clear on the subject.
Many a Rangers fan expressed the view that the club died with the descent into liquidation. Typical of this was Ibrox debenture holder Stewart Boal who, having stumbled out of the CVA meeting of June 2012, was quoted by Richard Wilson in The Herald as saying: “We’re in shock. The club is gone. We’ve got to start again and move on.”
Wilson, a fine reporter, himself wrote of that nine-minute creditors’ meeting where the CVA was rejected: “In those few minutes 140 years of history had been rubbed out.”
I could go on and on here. Richard Gough, one of Rangers’ greatest ever captains, wrote in a newspaper column: “The club I gave blood, sweat and tears for is dead.”
Walter Smith, one of the greatest figures in Rangers’ history, and now the club’s chairman, said of Green’s consortium taking over: “I wish the new Rangers Football Club every good fortune.”
This is a painful subject. Many Rangers fans are agonised at the thought of their club being new – they simply rule it out. “It’s the company, not the club,” became the mantra. Other Rangers observers – like me – find it hard to escape the view that the current club is a new club.
Rangers FC itself should think twice about laying into BBC Scotland or anyone else over this old club/new club debate. The more so when its own oral history on the subject is so weak.
————————————————————————————————————————–
I take it members of the SFA read papers. Just practice at home,
They are a new club
They are a new club
They are a new club.
Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice
Build up your confidence gradually and then announce it in public.
Go on Campbell, Stuart and Neil other people have said it do not be scared.
Remember without fear or favour.
Castofthousands says:
June 19, 2013 at 1:09 am
ecobhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:38 am
“I’ve spelt out why I feel that legal advice wasn’t taken and so far I haven’t noticed anyone actually disagreeing with my specific reasoning.”
———————
Your reasoning that the BBC had not taken legal advice was on the basis that they atrtributed the LNS interpretation of the club/company distinction as being his alone whereas (as confirmed by another well read poster) it was in fact the opinion of the tribunal.
I see the logic in this but for me it is not clinching. The BBC may have referred to LNS singular for simplicity. I do not think you can extrapolate that BBC did not seek legal advice solely based on their failure to associate the whole tribunal with the LNS interpretation.
======================================================================
Actually I gave more than the one reason you mention so I have undernoted the various reasons that I have previously posted in support of my belief that BBC Scotland formulated the paragraph concerned without legal advice.
I truly find it hard to accept the interpretation that the paragraph could be taken to read it was a tribunal decision rather than a personal one of LNS. If that actually were the case then it would be another pointer to me that a non-legal mind had created it if such confusion exists as to what it actually means.
UNDERNOTE
However I will again state that I don’t think they took legal advice and my reasoning for that is I doubt if there is a Glasgow lawyer working for the Beeb that is unaware that the LNS judgement wasn’t his alone, as claimed by BBC Scotland, but that of a tribunal.
By the same token I don’t believe any lawyer would be unaware of the footballing rules basis used by the LNS Commission on the club/company issue as opposed to company law.
And another reason that I don’t think a lawyer was involved is the phrase: ‘His reasonings do not represent the view of company law.” As I said earlier he wasn’t there to apply company law but his reasoning actually examined the position under company law and can be checked at page 17 of the September 2012 Commission Reasons which states: ‘This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not’.
It just seems impossible that a lawyer, even a very junior one, could have misunderstood the remit that the LNS Commission was working under which was not to reflect the view of company law but football rule books. And just to make sure he covered all the bases LNS specifically mentioned the position under company law.
For all these reasons I can only say that if a lawyer actually gave advice it’s time BBC Scotland found a new one who isn’t asleep on the job.
PARA IN QUESTION
“Lord Nimmo Smith’s reasonings were included in a report for an independent commission they are entirely his view, albeit one based on extensive legal experience. His reasonings do not represent the view of company law.”
paulmac2 says:
June 19, 2013 at 2:12 am
ecobhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:38 am
…………………………………
On the contrary…a few SEVCO fans are claiming on various forums that the BBC trusts decision is in fact a BBC apology….I kid you not…
======================================================================
I think if you look at the Rangers forums more closely you will see that as well as claiming a ‘victory’ on the mechanics of reporting errors they are actually planning to mount a new assault on the BBC on the much more important – to them – claim of institutional bias against Rangers and favouritism towards Celtic.
It’s quite instructional to read the various thought processes of the two Bears who actually brought the various complaints and persevered through all the Beeb bureaucracy to get it to the Trust level.
In fact I would suggest it forms a blueprint for the procedures that many others who have complaints against the BBC could benefit from following. The Bears have already realised where they got things wrong and the next set of complaints will be better designed to avoid the traps which lost them the bits of their original complaints, which if they had been upheld by the Trust, could have been potentially devastating for BBC Scotland.
So I most certainly am not laughing at the claims made as I think more will follow and at the end of the day, unless countered, it will alter the BBC Scotland reporting because it will become too much hassle to deal with the complaints.
Good afternoon
Good to see that the spin spivs are alive and kicking.
The story has now turned round to be about the BBC.
Well it’s not it is about the rotten corrupt goat worshippers who run our game.
I agree with TSFM that this is no place for personal attacks on the integrity of the justices but all I will say having been involved in Law for many, many years is that they do make mistakes and can only decide on the information laid out before them.
That being said there is no doubt that there are some who attend secret places to do secret things.
As far as CW and Ticketus is concerned he did not use this money to buy “Rangers” remember he paid the princely sum of £1 to buy them and them borrowed to clear the bank. Nothing wrong with that.
Don’t be deflected by the arguments about judges, BBC or MSM keep focused on the real problem -The SFA.
And if anyone really wants to know, Rangers did die in fact and in Law, they just refuse to bury the corpse.
john clarke says:
June 18, 2013 at 11:14 pm
I couldn’t agree more. The likes of the Sky Bridge debacle is a monument to how vested interests and shady deals often trump natural justice. However it must be remembered that these decisions are not solely taken in isolation by one judge, or SFA President – they are the result of all-too cosy relationships between men of power and influence, often at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer or season-ticket holder like you and me. The gravity-defying logic of some of the decisions in favour of the former establishment team over the past few months is just another example of such spheres of malignant influence.
And I still can’t believe that there is still some on here that doubt Whyte was known to (-S)DM before he appeared on the scene to buy Rangers.
ecobhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 10:59 am
0 0 Rate This
================================
You appear somewhat fixated with the LNS decision. I repeat the points I have made several times before.
The LNS commission gave the SPL’s unique definition of a “Club” – that being the undertaking of an association football club in membership of the SPL. It has little (if any) bearing on the status of the current incarnation of Rangers – who have never been members of the SPL.
The SPL fabrication of a non-legal entity thingy – which the commission and its participants did not challenge – is not the same as that defined by the SFA Articles and commonly understood by everyone else prior to the old club’s demise. It is not even the same as is defined by their own Articles & Rules.
Articles of Association are, of course, legal documents subject to company law.
As the LNS Commission did not use the meanings of words & expressions given in the Act (as the SPL Articles say they should), BBC Scotland’s assertion that “his reasonings do not represent the view of company law.” is absolutely correct.
To be in accord with effects of company law, the LNS Commission could/should have included an appropriate reference to the meaning of “undertaking” as contained in the Companies Act. The problem with that, of course, is that if the had used the correct meaning of “undertaking” the assumption that a Club is a non-legal entity thingy is simply impossible to maintain.
It is perfectly normal for the determination of a board of enquiry to be presented principally as the opinion of the chair. It is not unusual for the other panel members to simply concur (or offer a dissenting view if there is one). Whilst you are not wrong to say that his opinion was shared by all three panel members, it is simply common language to characterise the judgement as representing the opinion of the chair.
The BBC’s were not (to my reading) saying he was the only person holding the opinion – one simply assumes that the remaining commission members and many people from outside his panel would also agree. The point being made was that his/their opinion did not take proper account of company law.
BBC Scotland’s language and tone, to my mind, was quite temperate.
neepheid says:
June 19, 2013 at 9:37 am
“Maybe the Easdales have packed a double-decker with spare readies, and are ready to drive along the M8?”
——————-
I couldn’t possibly speculate on what you have said neepheid. If I were to enter into wild speculation, purely for the purposes of entertainment and with absolutely no foundation in reality then the following might be an amusing scenario.
If a football club were in financial difficulty and were struggling to procure legitimate funding, they might consider alternative sources. If for instance, close associates of the club ran a business that accepted cash from the public and whose turnover could not be easily verified then this might present an avenue that could be exploited. It would help if these close associates perhaps had some history in dealing in criminal acts.
I remeber the Bill Forsyth film about the ice cream van wars. The ice cream salesmen were dealing drugs. Since the van took cash over the counter it would have been difficult to verify where the illicit funds had come from. They would just have to get the guy in the cash and carry to issue additional invoices for boxes of smarties that they never actually purchased. This way the drugs money could be masked as legitimate confectionary sales.
If the club had large takings from food outlets, any illicit cash injected into it could be masked as additional food (or programme or merchandise) sales.
I’m sure no-one in Scottish football is so devious to stoopp to such tactics but as the old adage goes, where there is a will there is a way.
Charlotte Fakeovers says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:50 am
Castofthousands said moments ago on June 19, 2013 at 12:35 am
It then begs the question, why would Charlotte assert that (S)DM did not know about Ticketus involvement with CW. At least that is how I read her last post on here.
Charlotte, we find it difficult to accept that (S)DM did not know about Ticketus involvement in CW’s takeover of Rangers. Can you please clarify this.
——————————————————————————————-
All I meant to convey was that if SDM/MIH became aware that Ticketus was the primary funding source and that others knew about this, then the Wavetower/Octopus deal was in danger.
Murray would not have been able to claim he had been duped had the source of funding been common knowledge amongst the city folks.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
I remain unconvinced and your post does not actually clarify anything.
The email presented says the source of funding was an “open secret” – so the city folks did know.
SDM knew and despite that the deal was never in danger of being aborted because SDM was not the person controlling it. Lloyds were.
A development on the Hearts position today.
A potential bidder has drafted a CVA proposal which has already been presented to and deemed acceptable by the Ukio Bankas administrator.
The bid is fronted by two partners in an Edinburgh firm of accountants, both of whom are Hearts supporters, one of which I know personally through his involvement as a member of the Hearts Youth Development Committee.. They have also intimated that they would also work with the fans group Foundation of Hearts, which would probably be welcomed by most Hearts fans.
We don’t know the numbers involved yet, but fingers crossed on this one.
Nothing can happen until Hearts formally go into administration, but it is an encouraging start.
You can’t keep him out of the news
Douglas Fraser @BBCDouglasF 5m
Craig Whyte, ex-#Rangers chairman, and his estranged wife given two weeks by Inverness court to pay mortgage arrears on his Speyside castle.
Hoopy 7 says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:19 pm
“Don’t be deflected by the arguments about judges, BBC or MSM keep focused on the real problem -The SFA.”
—————————————————————————————-
Bang on the money there my friend.
Campbell Ogilvie should be reminded at every available opportunity that he is on the payroll of a member club to the tune of £95,000
He openly admits this, he openly admits he is unably to do his job properly because he is compromised. He should go, and so should Regan.
Bawsman says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:59 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Any information about a situation with another Scottish club in financial difficulty where he screwed up there too?
Graham Speir’s what a brave article, and so unexpected. Telling the truth when he himself is fond of a little lamb and mint sauce. Maybe the roast chicken on offer down Govan way now is not for him, and he has bowed to his moral conscience by printing non-edited truth. Stranger things have happened and me Sir I tip my hat to you, better late than never.
bogsdollox says:
June 19, 2013 at 1:06 pm
2 2 i
Rate This
Bawsman says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:59 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Any information about a situation with another Scottish club in financial difficulty where he screwed up there too?
—————————————————————————
To lose one club could be termed an accident, to lose two could be deemed incompetent…….or worse.
oldcobrokemyheartbycheating says:
June 19, 2013 at 1:23 pm
Graham Speir’s what a brave article, and so unexpected. Telling the truth when he himself is fond of a little lamb and mint sauce. Maybe the roast chicken on offer down Govan way now is not for him, and he has bowed to his moral conscience by printing non-edited truth. Stranger things have happened and me Sir I tip my hat to you, better late than never.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m not so sure it was unexpected – to be fair to Speirs’yyyy he has always taken that line on the utterly fruitless debate about oldco v newco.
oldcobrokemyheartbycheating says:
June 19, 2013 at 1:23 pm
10 0 Rate This
Graham Speir’s what a brave article, and so unexpected. Telling the truth when he himself is fond of a little lamb and mint sauce. Maybe the roast chicken on offer down Govan way now is not for him, and he has bowed to his moral conscience by printing non-edited truth. Stranger things have happened and me Sir I tip my hat to you, better late than never.
———————————————————————————————————————————————
Brave? Sadly had the Scottish media confronted RFC many moons ago about the more odious aspects of its following,and had the Scottish media acted incisively on the financial business of the club in the last 20 years then,in my view, the unacceptable behaviour of all those involved would have been challenged and to some extent ( I say some) nullified.
But ,yes, I agree better late than never.
Hearts administration confirmed with BDO appointed (as requested by both UBIG and Ukio)
GS of Herald/BBC whoever is paymaster. One article worth a bronze star. On a subject that we know already. Graham if your looking in, that’s a starter for 10, how about putting those quotes back at say, Sir Walter, next time you have a chance. He said it, let the great man deal with it.
What ma like? As if.
easyJambo says:
June 19, 2013 at 1:48 pm
1 0 Rate This
Hearts administration confirmed with BDO appointed (as requested by both UBIG and Ukio)
———
@easyJambo
Wish you all well climbing out of this mess and hopefully not leaving too many people severely out of pocket. The offer you mentioned previously sounds very positive. I heard a lot of common sense spoken on Sportsound yesterday, so hopefully the famous old club can begin a new era
HirsutePursuit says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:35 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 10:59 am
0 0 Rate This
================================
You appear somewhat fixated with the LNS decision. I repeat the points I have made several times before.
——————————————————————————————-
I actually find that statement unworthy in terms of your normal standards to which I usually pay a lot of attention as being worth consideration.
I always try to reply to any post addressed to me and that’s what I did this morning and if that makes me ‘fixated’ so be it. I actually see my replies as more being polite by demonstrating that I’m not ignoring often opposing points of view and often I will modify my own position dependant on the views of others because I try to retain an open mind – although sometimes I fail in that.
I personally believe that the whole LNS affair is one of the key ways in which football administrators have betrayed Scottish Football and I do put a lot of time into examining it and listening to what other people say about it. However, I post on a wide variety of issues but I may well be fixated on them as well – who knows 🙂
I was intending to reply to your post last night but have been a bit busy this morning but I will now make up for my tardiness 🙂
HirsutePursuit says:
June 19, 2013 at 1:19 am
ecobhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:38 am
======================================================================
I will reply to your later post separately if there are any further points I feel are worth making.
(HP) The LNS commission gave the SPL’s unique definition of a “Club” – that being the undertaking of an association football club in membership of the SPL. This is not the same as the generic definition of a club as understood by the SFA.
(A) The use of SPL definitions is hardly surprising given that the LNS Commission remit and powers were given under the SPL Rules to investigate whether there had been breaches of those rules.
However I don’t know whether you realise that the SPL has two separate definitions of a ‘club’ as you only mention one of them.
The SPL definition of ‘club’ under Rule I1 is: ‘Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club’.
It should be noted that the definition under SPL Rule I1 is wider than under SPL Article 2 which doesn’t include ‘owner and operator of the club’. This is more in line with the SFA Articles of Association which defines a ‘club’ as: ‘Shall mean a football club playing Association Football in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 6.
However, I don’t see any significance in the difference between the SPL and SFA definitions as the difference hasn’t prevented any SPL club from being accepted as a member of the SFA. It should also be borne in mind that any breach of SFA Rules is also regarded as a breach of SPL Rules under SPL Rules.
——————————————————————————————————————
(HP) In any case, the SPL definition should include an appropriate reference to the meaning of “undertaking” as contained in the Companies Act. The fact that the LNS Commission did not, gives truth to BBC Scotland’s assertion that “his reasonings do not represent the view of company law.”
(A) You appear to have become confused on the differing responsibilities of the LNS Commission and the SPL. It is up to the SPL to formulate its Rules and not up to LNS to do so. The Commission’s role is to operate within the SPL Rules which determine its remit and also to interpret those rules in terms of the evidence put before it.
Many people may think changes should be made to numerous SPL Rules but the simple fact remains that the LNS Commission had to proceed on the basis of the SPL Rules in force at the time and not the ones that other people believe should have applied.
Tbh I do not follow your logic which seems to be that because the LNS Commission didn’t rewrite the SPL Rule Book that it provides some comfort to BBC Scotland for their rather dubious paragraph.
I have no intention of trying the patience of fellow posters by cutting & pasting wodges of material from the LNS Commission Hearing but Company Law was taken into account at Section [32] page 13 of the Reasons and pops-up in various other places although sometimes it is implied.
You must bear in mind that because something isn’t noted in the Reasons given doesn’t mean it wasn’t considered and decisions made – we don’t have a full transcript nor the evidence productions and there is always that old chestnut the 5-Way Agreement lurking in the background.
I note your comment: ‘ meaning of “undertaking” as contained in the Companies Act’ and wonder if you could supply which sections of the Act you refer to so that I can consider your precise point and not be going off at a tangent.
Can I just say, Spiers(y)’s article quotes a couple of old statements by, admittedly, key players – one discredited and one who never had any credit to start with – he could have used any number of industry bodies (starting with why the SPL refused to “transfer” their membership) to make his point, but he chose to embarrass Jabba instead. Fair enough, easy target..
“A lie repeated often enough becomes truth” Lenin. I think we are seeing that in action – bodies like the ECA, ASA and the BBC Trustees, bodies who quite frankly don’t know or care about the minutiae of Scottish football, have taken the path of least resistance and are being used to make a lie a truth. It behooves us to put them straight….
was Spiers’ piece today more about having a dig at JT than it was about having addressing the BBC issue? haha
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/hearts/229984-bdo-appointed-as-administrators-at-heart-of-midlothian-football-club/
typical msm.
report that BDO are dealing with hearts administration and also dunfermline’s administration – full stop.
nothing in the report about BDO PRESENTLY, LIQUIDATING RANGERS ????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jockybhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 2:49 pm
2 0 Rate This
Can I just say, Spiers(y)’s article quotes a couple of old statements by, admittedly, key players – one discredited and one who never had any credit to start with – he could have used any number of industry bodies (starting with why the SPL refused to “transfer” their membership) to make his point, but he chose to embarrass Jabba instead. Fair enough, easy target..
“A lie repeated often enough becomes truth” Lenin. I think we are seeing that in action – bodies like the ECA, ASA and the BBC Trustees, bodies who quite frankly don’t know or care about the minutiae of Scottish football, have taken the path of least resistance and are being used to make a lie a truth. It behooves us to put them straight….
———————————————————-
Wouldn’t things be nice and clear and settled completely if the SFA and then UEFA & FIFA simply made a statement on how they view Sevco
Charlotte’s latest offering appears to suggest Walter Smith was being ‘paid’ (using the loose Ibrox term) while he had no official connection to exRangers. Or any club in fact.
In 2002-3 he got just under £70,000 for some reason. Maybe Chic could ask him why?
ecobhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 2:42 pm
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/38/crossheading/meaning-of-undertaking-and-related-expressions
That might be what you are looking for.
jimlarkin says: June 19, 2013 at 3:04 pm
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/hearts/229984-bdo-appointed-as-administrators-at-heart-of-midlothian-football-club/
typical msm.
report that BDO are dealing with hearts administration and also dunfermline’s administration – full stop.
nothing in the report about BDO PRESENTLY, LIQUIDATING RANGERS ????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
===============================
Good! They are history. Leave them there.
Their liquidation is of no consequence compared to today’s stories of bids for Dunfermline having closed yesterday and Hearts officially going into administration and a potential bidder having come forward.
From Chalmers on KdS:
Saddo that I am, I had forgotten that some time ago I had downloaded deid Rangers Memo and Arts of 1899, when they were first incorporated. I believe that the same memo and arts were applicable until liquidation?
In its Articles, number 6 reads:
“The words “Club” and “Company” and also the words “Member” and “Shareholder” throughout the said Memorandum and Articles of Association shall, where the context admits of it, be of synonymous meaning.”
From the horse’s mouth…
ecobhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 2:42 pm
0 0 Rate This
========================================================================
Firstly, let me apologise if my tone was previously off. The point I was trying to make was that I don’t think the LNS determination of what constitutes a “Club” should be confused with the SFA’s “official” version.
In relation to why I think the SPL got it wrong, you asked for references.
From the current SPL Articles of Association:
http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/ARTICLES%20OF%20ASSOCIATION%20AS%20AT%2022%20OCTOBER%202012.pdf
…and from the Companies Act 2006:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/pdfs/ukpga_20060046_en.pdf
The SPL’s use of “undertaking” for the LNS Commission simply does not correspond with its meaning in the Companies Act. Nor does it correspond with any meaning given to it previously.
HirsutePursuit says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:35 pm
——————————————————————————
I happily accept that the SPL Articles of Association are documents which have legal powers but I am wary about accepting your blanket assertion that they are subject to Company Law.
To explain, you state: ‘The LNS Commission did not use the meanings of words & expressions given in the Act (as the SPL Articles say they should)’ and ‘To be in accord with effects of company law, the LNS Commission could/should have included an appropriate reference to the meaning of “undertaking” as contained in the Companies Act’.
I think you have become confused over the issue of the SPL Articles of Association and would refer to
:
ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION of THE SCOTTISH PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED
INTERPRETATION
1. The regulations contained in Table A (as prescribed pursuant to Section 8 of the Companies Act 1985) in force at the date of adoption of these Articles shall not apply to the Company but the regulations contained in the following clauses (as originally adopted or as from time to time altered by Qualified Resolution) shall be the Articles of Association of the Company.
In simple terms this replaces the Model Articles under the Companies Act with a bespoke set of Articles designed for the SPL. Put simply this means IMO that it is incorrect to say that the LNS Commission should have used definitions from the Companies Act. The correct definitions to be applied are those from the SPL Articles of Association.
If I am correct this has serious implications for your debating position as it removes the justification you have advanced to defend the BBC Scotland paragraph. More seriously I would say it demolishes your contention that it ‘is simply impossible to maintain’ a ‘Club is a non-legal entity thingy’.
(HP) The LNS commission gave the SPL’s unique definition of a “Club” – that being the undertaking of an association football club in membership of the SPL. It has little (if any) bearing on the status of the current incarnation of Rangers – who have never been members of the SPL.
(A) As pointed out in my previous post the SPL has two definitions of a ‘club’ one of which includes the owner and operator of a club which plays association football.
I an unclear what point you are making by stating that: ‘It has little (if any) bearing on the status of’ newco Rangers. According to your position the same argument must also apply to every other club in the SPL so I’m not sure where that takes us in terms of anything.
You say newco ‘have never been members of the SPL’ which is correct and indeed the LNS Commission confirmed the same in its Reasons which meant the SPL had no direct jurisdiction over Newco.
However the LNS Commission in terms of the Articles & Rules of the SPL determined that Rangers FC remained liable for sanctions in respect of any rule breaches incurred while oldco was the owner/operator.
Using a combination of the Companies Act and the SPL Articles & Rules the LNS Commission ruled that despite termination of a contract that obligations might remain under the contract for breaches occurring before the termination date. Rule A7.2 is of particular significance in this respect.
The bottom line is that the Commission held that newco could be held liable as owner/operator for penalties imposed for rule breaches while Rangers FC was owned/operated by oldco. That ruling had potentially serious consequences for newco even though it had never been a member of the SPL.
ecobhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 4:03 pm
0 0 Rate This
======================
We have crossed posts I think. You missed (as did LNS) the most important Article:
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
June 19, 2013 at 3:43 pm
From Chalmers on KdS:
Saddo that I am, I had forgotten that some time ago I had downloaded deid Rangers Memo and Arts of 1899, when they were first incorporated. I believe that the same memo and arts were applicable until liquidation?
In its Articles, number 6 reads:
“The words “Club” and “Company” and also the words “Member” and “Shareholder” throughout the said Memorandum and Articles of Association shall, where the context admits of it, be of synonymous meaning.”
From the horse’s mouth…
—————————————————————————————————————
Now that’s an interesting spot – to be sure your history will find you out 🙂
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
June 19, 2013 at 3:43 pm
From Chalmers on KdS:
Saddo that I am, I had forgotten that some time ago I had downloaded deid Rangers Memo and Arts of 1899, when they were first incorporated. I believe that the same memo and arts were applicable until liquidation?
In its Articles, number 6 reads:
“The words “Club” and “Company” and also the words “Member” and “Shareholder” throughout the said Memorandum and Articles of Association shall, where the context admits of it, be of synonymous meaning.”
From the horse’s mouth…
__________________________________________________
good find……of course….not that it will make any difference to the believers….
MSM coverage on Ogilvie’s unopposed re-election.
========================================
I did look extensively, but in the MSM I could not find any query / negative reference about Ogilvie’s re-election, [unless someone can provide a link ?]
I could not find any reference along the lines of “…some fans queried his reappointment…”
The coverage I did read was generally sympathetic towards Ogilvie for his ‘difficult’ first 2 years as SFA President. It was also generally positive about his next 2 years – and there was an indication that Ogilvie had decided – himself – that he intends to step down in 2015.
The MSM simply ignored the fans’ complaints about the ‘heavily conflicted’ and ‘unable to do his job’ SFA President. And despite this, no other candidate was put forward – and yet the MSM did not think this was worthy of comment either.
Is there anything from the fallout of the Hearts administration that could further compromise, heavily conflict, and render the SFA President unable to do his job ‘even more’ ? Fingers crossed… 🙂
http://youtu.be/FeRx-1VV6QA
hirsutepursuit says:
June 19, 2013 at 4:12 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 4:03 pm
0 0 Rate This
======================
We have crossed posts I think. You missed (as did LNS) the most important Article:
4. Unless the context otherwise requires, words or expressions contained in
these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act but excluding any
statutory modification thereof not in force when these Articles or the relevant
parts thereof are adopted.
————————————————————————————————————–
I very much doubt that LNS missed it.
However the problem you have with Article 4 is that the Companies Act does not define ‘club’ and therefore the context requires IMO that the SPL Articles and Rules are what will apply simply because the Companies Act Model Rules remain silent on the issue.
However looking further at your reasoning:
1161 Meaning of “undertaking” and related expressions
(1) In the Companies Acts “undertaking” means—
(a) a body corporate or partnership, or
(b) an unincorporated association carrying on a trade or business, with or
without a view to profit.
I can only see a ‘body corporate’ as being remotely applicable to your position but that totally misses any connection with association football and once again the SPL Articles would take preference.
1161 (3) has some interest as it states:
‘Other expressions appropriate to companies shall be construed, in relation to an undertaking which is not a company, as references to the corresponding persons, officers, documents or organs, as the case may be, appropriate to undertakings of that description’.
However that leads us into trying to determine whether an association club could be construed as an ‘organ’ which is somewhere I don’t want to go. And it again makes it clear we are talking about an undertaking which is not a company so I think that leads nowhere.
neepheid says:
June 19, 2013 at 3:25 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 2:42 pm
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/38/crossheading/meaning-of-undertaking-and-related-expressions
That might be what you are looking for.
========================================================
Thanks neepheid – I had half-assumed that’s what HP had been referring to but I couldn’t actually see the relevance.
So not only do all of these prominent “Rangers Men” think that club and company are the same thing. It’s actually in their own articles.
That seems to put an end to that nonsense.
ecobhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 4:37 pm
0 0 Rate This
….
I can only see a ‘body corporate’ as being remotely applicable to your position but that totally misses any connection with association football and once again the SPL Articles would take preference.
======================================================================
Article 4 says that if a word or expression has been given a specific meaning in the Companies Act, the meaning assigned to it in the Act must be considered to be the same when that word or expression is read in the Articles. In this case the SPL have missed or ignored the specific meaning of “undertaking”.
We agree, I think, that the only possible applicable meaning of undertaking (in the context of the SPLs Articles) is “body corporate”.
Therefore, when the SPL Articles were written…
we are entitled to read it as…
But, of course, describing a Club as the “body corporate of an association football club” would be at complete odds with the commissions assertion:
Using the word “undertaking” to describe a Club is what specifically ties membership of the SPL with the corporate entity that is an incorporated association football club.
Misusing (or perhaps we should say abusing) the word “undertaking” is what allows the SPL to fabricate this non-legal entity thingy.
Evening everybody,
RE- Charlotte’s latest posts- I thought the heavy OTT newspaper pieces urging Goodwillie to go to Rangers was unsettling to the club,they didnt have the money for Goodwillie ffs .
When Mafia House/msm are not stirring and instigating public opinion they are act as talent scouts for The Rangers?? Shamefull stuff!
StevieBC says:
June 19, 2013 at 4:25 pm
Is there anything from the fallout of the Hearts administration that could further compromise, heavily conflict, and render the SFA President unable to do his job ‘even more’ ? Fingers crossed…
++++++++++++++
We are talking here about someone who had an outstanding loan of £90,000 due to a trust set up by another club throughout his period at Hearts. This loan has remained outstanding throughout his period at the SFA. Only in Scotland would this state of affairs be even remotely acceptable, and it attracts no interest or comment from the media when this “conflicted” personality is returned unopposed as president of the game’s ruling body.
Ogilvie is just another Tony Blair on a small scale. He could emerge from a sealed room containing a corpse with 100 stab wounds, soaked in the victims blood and carrying a big knife, and just smile nicely and walk away without a stain on his character. We are talking of a brass neck of truly superior hardness. It doesn’t matter what emerges from Hearts administration regarding Ogilvie. All interested parties, all 42 clubs included, are fully committed to his preservation in office at any price. That’s Scottish football.
Has the investigation into the Rangers Fans behaviour at Berwick been concluded yet? I think I must have missed the findings.
Also, the new Lowland league – where does this leave my team (or rather, soon to be erstwhile team)? If East Kilbride are joining this league, and have a direct path to the senior leagues, are Clyde still going to be welcomed with open arms?
The whole reason for Clyde going was because EK required a senior football team. It sort of suggests that this whole league ‘pyramid’ was thrown together in the last few weeks.
easyJambo says:
June 19, 2013 at 1:48 pm
10 2 Rate This
Hearts administration confirmed with BDO appointed (as requested by both UBIG and Ukio)
=====
I suspect that isn’t good news
has the newco door been slammed shut by the new SPFL constitution?
What will happen if CVA rejected as I have been told is very likely?
neepheid says:
June 19, 2013 at 5:42 pm
StevieBC says:
June 19, 2013 at 4:25 pm
…
Is there anything from the fallout of the Hearts administration that could further compromise, heavily conflict, and render the SFA President unable to do his job ‘even more’ ? Fingers crossed…
++++++++++++++
…
It doesn’t matter what emerges from Hearts administration regarding Ogilvie. All interested parties, all 42 clubs included, are fully committed to his preservation in office at any price..
============
True – I was just doing a bit of straw clutching whilst waiting for the latest revelation.
I like the allegory, and have applied artistic licence to plagiarise as follows ;
“….Ogilvie could emerge from a sealed room containing the corpse of Scottish football with 100 stab wounds, soaked in the victim’s blood and carrying a big knife, and just smile nicely and retire without a stain on his character…”
And he’ll probably get a Knighthood too for ‘services to Scottish football’. 🙄
That this argument will run and run is certain. What is also certain is that regardless of whatever proof is set before them, the people who think they are will remain unconvinced and for that matter unchanged. Small minded and bigoted to the core, they cling to the past, afraid to enter the modern world. If only they could grasp the opportunity that they have and help establish their new club in a way that would allow others to forget their predecessors faults. It is shameful that the people who think they are, refuse to abandon the smug belief that they are entitled to act as they please, unfortunately at great cost to others. Maybe the last chapters of this saga are still to come and the ending will see justice done, we can only hope.
Ogilvie stepping down in 2015 ?? got another job lined up has he ??
nuff sed eh !!
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
June 19, 2013 at 3:20 pm
Wouldn’t things be nice and clear and settled completely if the SFA and then UEFA & FIFA simply made a statement on how they view Sevco
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An attempt to solicit an answer from UEFA was made last month but it was rebuffed on the grounds of being about a specific club. They did however provide a copy of UEFA FFP which allowed a supllementary request to go in but to date no answer, enlighening or otherwise.
However I think we can discern UEFA’s position from the rules and how they were applied in March/April 2012 and the after June 2012.
Rangers, whilst in administration and before liquidation asked the SFA if they could be granted a UEFA licence.(see
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-bid-for-euro-action-a-non-starter-1118439 )
The SFA knocked Rangers back for not fulfilling Articles 47 and 50, ie no audited accounts and unpaid tax and did not make an application to UEFA.
So old Rangers were stopped from competing last season but for 2012/13 only.
However we all know that a club based at Ibrox is ineligible to play in Europe for three years but the club that is ineligible to play is -yup- Newco not oldco.
Newco are ineligible to play not only because they have not obtained the right on sporting merit grounds but because they fail the criteria under UEFA FFP Article 12 by not having three years MEMBERSHIP of the SFA. ( Not because they do not have 3 years accounts as is often but but wrongly stated.)
After 3 years membership they might have three years audited accounts but that is not the reason for the 3 year exile.
Insufficient time as a member of the national association (SFA) is how UEFA (not the SFA) see national association membership, UEFA taking into account changes in company structure (in Rangers case liquidation).
This is the reason UEFA will not touch them for 3 years and that means starting again and building up a new history of which accounts are only a part.
Article 12 of UEFA FFP is why UEFA treat them as a new club and if I were UEFA I’d tell the SFA to spell the rules out for the Scottish football supporting public and put the issue to bed as well as asking the SFA do they really want to step out of the UEFA rules sphere and go it alone and write FFP rules according to Ogilvie, Bryson and LNS?
the taxman cometh says: June 19, 2013 at 5:56 pm
easyJambo says:
June 19, 2013 at 1:48 pm
10 2 Rate This
Hearts administration confirmed with BDO appointed (as requested by both UBIG and Ukio)
=====
I suspect that isn’t good news
has the newco door been slammed shut by the new SPFL constitution?
What will happen if CVA rejected as I have been told is very likely?
============================
Quite the contrary, I think it is good news that both UBIG and the Ukio administrator agreed on the same administrator for Hearts looking for someone who had wide experience of football administrations.
The boss of the Lithuanian administrators said ““We still believe that we should stay with our ultimate goal to defend the interest of the creditors of Ukio Bankas and sell the club to the appropriate investor as soon as possible. Thus, we want the administrator to be not only experienced but dedicated to football as well.”
The bid that became public today suggests that progress towards a CVA is actually quite advanced, maybe even to the extent of a “pre-pack CVA” not that such a term exists to my knowledge.
One of the guys fronting the bid was quoted today as saying “The Lithuanian administrator has indicated he will vote for our CVA, albeit with a 15-point penalty for Hearts for entering administration. It is up to the administrator at Hearts to go through that process. Our bid is predicated on a CVA”
Now I don’t see that as indicating that a CVA will be rejected, particularly when it comes from Hearts largest creditor and holder of the security over Tynecastle.
I do hope that the process can proceed as quickly as possible. In that way it may serve to save more jobs than might otherwise be the case
roubledfan says:
June 19, 2013 at 6:51 pm
0 0 Rate This
Ogilvie stepping down in 2015 ?? got another job lined up has he ??
nuff sed eh !!
…………………………………………………………………………
They’ve had their 90k worth of help…no further use for him…
StevieBC says:
June 19, 2013 at 5:58 pm
Here is an angle that occured to me reading an article where Jackie MacNamara was saying the SFA had to take some responsibility for what is happening to Scottish football because of their failure to apply club licensing properly.
This is a view that I think will take on a momentum from new kids on the block like Jackie.
But here is the angle: what if none or very few clubs would have been granted a club licence had the SFA been as strict as required? What if CO had been doing lots of clubs favours by not shutting them down or at least making licences conditional on a series of agreed steps to make them sustainable?
What if lots of clubs are indebted to CO and he has their names?
I think we are going to have to start thinking amnesty if we are ever going to get at the truth and create the conditions for meaningful change.
EJ
I think there is indeed a glimmer (or more) of hope. I heard on the Radio that Brian Jackson (I think) will act as the administrator. He is speaking to the fans groups tonight and thinks that there is a reasonable chance of saving the club.
Jackson is a good honest professional as far as I know and if the club can be saved he will do it. It might not be easy going for the fans, and he may cut things very dramatically, but he will do his best to honestly save your club. With his experience of Scottish administrations he may just be the man to do it.
There may be light at the end of the tunnel.
http://www.bdo.uk.com/find-a-partner/bryan-jackson
Bryan specialises in:
Business restructuring