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?
EJ
Just read your last.
I’m afraid there is good and bad in it if there is a pre-pack.
A Pre-pack does indeed save “the business” and does not require agreement. The bad news is it does not save the Company. Remember we discussed this a day or so ago. The business and it’s assets are moved to an entirely new company. The old one is wound up.
I have no idea how the SPFL would deal with that situation, I am not aware of it having done with a football club before.
@CharlotteFakes @BBCchrismclaug “When the Truth Is Out …Accountability Must Follow” …. Now where did I hear that quote Today
Auldheid says:
June 19, 2013 at 7:03 pm
StevieBC says:
June 19, 2013 at 5:58 pm
…
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 … What if lots of clubs are indebted to CO and he has their names?
================================
Mmm, hadn’t even thought about that possibility.
It could possibly explain why Ogilvie, Regan and the clubs themselves have virtually blanked the fans wrt the SFA Presidency.
It does look like Ogilvie will only leave when he chooses to leave.
From KDS
RFC articles of association
http://www.fileswap.com/dl/dSYFuJBOs/Rangers_FC_Memo_&_Arts.pdf.html
Clic on slow download
Page 8 is the one for club and company are the same.
Or a screenshot of page 8
jake the snake @celticservant 7m
Rangers certificate of incorporation. Page 8 otherwise known as the headshot. pic.twitter.com/XlwWwXmKBS
OOps here is the link
https://twitter.com/celticservant/status/347420442761506816/photo/1
troubledfan says:
June 19, 2013 at 6:51 pm
4 1 Rate This
Ogilvie stepping down in 2015 ?? got another job lined up has he ??
nuff sed eh !
StevieBC says:
June 19, 2013 at 7:31 pm
It does look like Ogilvie will only leave when he chooses to leave
———————
I’m sure you will both be pleased to know that while it is wholly regrettable that CO is currently president there is no chance of him being in this position after the next election in 2015 as he is unable to stand for re election as the SFA articles of association prohibit him from doing so.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
June 19, 2013 at 7:38 pm
3
1
Rate This
Quantcast
OOps here is the link
https://twitter.com/celticservant/status/347420442761506816/photo/1
================
I have a feeling that TRFC fans will argue the definition of synonymous until they’re facially blue.
So
The club and the company are the same thing, according to their own articles.
And their holding company (Wavetower / the Rangers Group) was not and never has been in liquidation, in fact never even into administration.
Specious argument, the re-writing of history, totally dead.
Never let logic, facts and the truth get in the way of propaganda that a certain group desperately wants to believe though.
pilgrim1888 says:
June 19, 2013 at 8:03 pm
troubledfan says:
June 19, 2013 at 6:51 pm
4 1 Rate This
Ogilvie stepping down in 2015 ?? got another job lined up has he ??
nuff sed eh !
StevieBC says:
June 19, 2013 at 7:31 pm
It does look like Ogilvie will only leave when he chooses to leave
———————
I’m sure you will both be pleased to know that while it is wholly regrettable that CO is currently president there is no chance of him being in this position after the next election in 2015 as he is unable to stand for re election as the SFA articles of association prohibit him from doing so.
===========================================================
pilgrim1888, you are teasing us – are you not ? 🙄
In addition to death and taxes, the other certainty in life we now know : the SFA does not apply its own rules without fear or favour..
Ogilvie will arrange it so that he can outstay his welcome for many, many years – like Havelenge or Blatter.
martybhoy says:
June 19, 2013 at 7:11 pm
12 1 Rate This
How does guy, who was a landscape gardener to trade,like Ogilvie become the ‘greatest football administrator in Scottish football’?
Seriously,there must have been better qualified candidates when he first assumed such a role at Deadclub,with everything that must have been going on there at the time.
Did he just turn up for interview and mention he had a shredder for his garden waste that could be adapted for ‘office use’…..?…….the mind truly boggles when you consider his previous employment history.
=============================
Confusing him with Jim Farry maybe. I’m sure Ogilvie started out as a lowly clerk at the SFA and then moved to Ibrox some years later.
Auldheid says:
June 19, 2013 at 7:03 pm
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.
++++++++++++++++++=
I prefer to wait for the truth to come out, and let these scoundrels sweat it out in the meantime. Meaningful change requires a total “rid oot” , not some amnesty process where we end up with the same people in charge, all sins forgiven, and ready to start again with a clean slate. Do you really think they will have learned their lesson, and behave fairly and honestly given a fresh start? I know damn well they won’t. Get rid of them. It’s the only way forward.
With feelings high that Hearts may well survive in some form after administration and the same thing happening at Dunfermline FC. Will TRFC fans not look on and ask why are these teams not relegated to the 3rd division as that is what happened to us after our Administration……
Carfins Finest. says:
June 19, 2013 at 8:56 pm
=========================
I have already heard and read some Rangers fans saying if Hearts are not sent to the 3rd division then they are receiving special treatment that was denied to Rangers.
Maybe they don’t understand the difference between emerging from administration and being liquidated. Maybe the mire of confusion created by Rangers media friends has genuinely confused them – after all, it’s not unusual to read in certain papers that Rangers ‘came out of administration’. Or maybe they’re just thick – you decide!
newtz says:
June 19, 2013 at 7:24 pm
5 1 Rate This
@CharlotteFakes @BBCchrismclaug “When the Truth Is Out …Accountability Must Follow” …. Now where did I hear that quote Today
==========================
Now, there is one BBC employee that I would like to see outed as a Media House puppet, he rather timidly accepted being removed from ibrox as part of a ‘ban’. Then he suddenly started to appear with all sorts of rfc* related exclusives, what did he do to earn them?
upthehoops says:
June 19, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Carfins Finest. says:
June 19, 2013 at 8:56 pm
=========================
I have already heard and read some Rangers fans saying if Hearts are not sent to the 3rd division then they are receiving special treatment that was denied to Rangers.
Maybe they don’t understand the difference between emerging from administration and being liquidated. Maybe the mire of confusion created by Rangers media friends has genuinely confused them – after all, it’s not unusual to read in certain papers that Rangers ‘came out of administration’. Or maybe they’re just thick – you decide!
——————————
U.T.H. That Decision was made long,long time ago.
There seems to be a wee thumbs downer running around. If you are really that bored I have a wee train set that my Grandson does’nt use any more. You can have it….
reilly1926 says:
June 19, 2013 at 8:11 pm
14
2
Rate This
nowoldandgrumpy says:
June 19, 2013 at 7:38 pm
3
1
Rate This
Quantcast
OOps here is the link
https://twitter.com/celticservant/status/347420442761506816/photo/1
================
I have a feeling that TRFC fans will argue the definition of synonymous until they’re facially blue.
________________________________
I can help here:
Synonym: Club and Company.
Not a Synonym: Administration and Liquidation.
Its amazing how many bears get that confused!
Gaz says: June 19, 2013 at 7:17 pm
EJ
Just read your last.
I’m afraid there is good and bad in it if there is a pre-pack.
======================
I may not have explained my thinking in the best way possible. I’m well aware that a pre-pack invokes the newco scenario and all the pain that goes with it, so it will be avoided at all costs.
What I was trying to get over is that one consortium seems to have got away ahead of the game and was preparing a CVA based solution, some time before administration hit. The fact that they have gone over to Lithuania and seemingly agreed an acceptable bid with the biggest creditor seems to me very similar to what you would expect in a pre-pack where major creditors, shareholders, purchasers and administrators generally know in advance what the plan is.
If my instincts are correct, then a plan is already unfolding, but will follow the process of a normal administration leading to a CVA. Unless “an offer that you can’t refuse” appears on the table within the next few days, I can see this consortium being given preferred bidder status very quickly. The administrator will confirm that the creditors are being given a reasonable offer and that the company will be maintained as a going concern. The CVA proposal will be given the required cooling off period but will be voted through. – Job done.
If I’m right, then Hearts will emerge in the best condition possible. It still won’t be good, left with an inexperienced team and starting on -15 points with a favourite’s chance of being relegated, but it will be infinitely better than a long drawn out administration with a lingering threat of liquidation, cuts in staff, maybe also cuts at Riccarton and the Academy.
I’m sure there will be some bad days coming along soon, but I’m more encouraged by today’s news than I have been for several weeks (and months).
@Hirsuite Pursuit @4:03pm and 5:16pm
I found your argument here interesting and well reasoned.
I had a nagging doubt about the approach you were taking though, and having looked at the articles of association further, don’t think you are correct.
It probably isn’t relevant, but for the sake of completeness, the 22/10/12 articles you quote from in fact post-fate LNS’s decision of September 2012, when – in the main – these issues were discussed. I think the current articles at that time were dated April 2010, and these articles refer to both the Companies Act 1985 and the Companies Act 2006 in their interpretation section, and in fact expressly say that the expressions used are to bear the same meaning as the 1985 Act rather than the 2006 one (article 2 and article 4.) This probably isn’t relevant though as the 2006 Act was really just a codifying statute, so likely the definition of “undertaking” is the same in both acts.
Using the October 2012 articles for consistency though, your argument is that because in the Articles
(a) “club” means the undertaking of an association football club…;
(b) “undertaking” is given the definition “a body corporate” in the 2006 Act; and
(c) Article 4 of the Articles says “Unless the context otherwise requires, words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act”,
therefore
“club” means the body corporate of an association football club.
i.e. where the word “club” is used in the articles it means the club/company (I’ll refer to this as the “FC company,” and by that I mean what you regard is the single concept of club and company.)
I think the problem with your argument starts when we look at article 4 again: “Unless the context otherwise requires…”
We have to be sure that the context in which the word “Club” is used within the Articles is consistent with the definition in the 2006 Act. If it’s not then we are entitled to depart from the 2006 definition.
Looking at an example of the use of the word “club” within the 2012 Articles:
Article 6 deals with who can hold an SPL share.
“6. A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by a person who is the owner and operator of a Club and if a Member shall cease to be the owner and operator of a Club then such Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share.”
If your interpretation of “club” within the Articles is correct, then this Article says that an SPL share can only be held by someone who owns and operates the FC company. That’s to say only the (majority?) shareholder(s) of the FC company can hold the SPL share, and even then only if the shareholder operates the company (i.e. is a director?)
Further, since it is the Members which hold the SPL shares, it would also mean that the Members of the SPL are the individual(s) which own the FC companies, and not the FC companies themselves. That’s to say in the case of a holding company such as Wavetower, it was the Member of the SPL, not what’s now RFC 2012 PLC (IL) – which just isn’t correct.
In a case where there was no holding company it would mean the majority shareholder was the Member of the SPL, and not the company itself, which again isn’t correct.
It seems to me that the adoption of the 2006 Act’s definition of “undertaking” as an aid to interpretation patently doesn’t work when applied to Article 6.
In fact the concept of “owners and operators of the club” appears in a number of the 2012 SPL Articles (e.g. 13, 14, 15,21) and again these just don’t make sense using your interpretation that club always equals company for the purposes of the Articles.
I think we have to go back to whether the context requires another interpretation for the purposes of Article 4.
I think (and I suspect what LNS thought was) that, in context, the use of “Club” within the Articles requires a departure from the 2006 Act definition of “undertaking”, so that “undertaking” where it is referred to in Article 2 has its more usual meaning of “business.”
Applying that approach, the owner and operator of the Club (and Member of the SPL) for the purposes of Article 6 would be the club’s company – i.e. in RFC’s case RFC 2012 PLC (IL) (as now), and not Wavetower.
Certainly, that’s the only way I can make sense of “club” as “undertaking” in the context of Articles 6,13,14,15,and 21.
neepheid says:
June 19, 2013 at 8:52 pm
13
1
Rate This
Auldheid says:
June 19, 2013 at 7:03 pm
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.
++++++++++++++++++=
I prefer to wait for the truth to come out, and let these scoundrels sweat it out in the meantime. Meaningful change requires a total “rid oot” , not some amnesty process where we end up with the same people in charge, all sins forgiven, and ready to start again with a clean slate. Do you really think they will have learned their lesson, and behave fairly and honestly given a fresh start? I know damn well they won’t. Get rid of them. It’s the only way forward.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By amnesty I was thinking they could leave quietly.
Auldheid says:
June 19, 2013 at 10:20 pm
Never a truer word. Hear, hear!!
By the way, I am utterly amazed by the words of truly brilliant, incisive minds on here. I just don’t understand an effing thing they’re talking about!!! -:)
hirsutepursuit says:
June 19, 2013 at 5:16 pm
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.
————————————————————————————————————————
It might surprise you to know the LNS Commission agrees with you over the meaning of ‘undertaking’ so I don’t know who you think is ‘misusing’ or ‘abusing’ the word.
I have become increasingly confused with your position and on the basis that yourself and LNS are happily in agreement – well at least in agreement – I will walk away and leave the pair of you in peace and I’m sure other posters will be heaving sighs of relief.
LNS states: ‘[46] It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule I1 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club.
‘Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated. While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.
‘In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator.
‘In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold’.
jean7brodie says:
June 19, 2013 at 10:40 pm
=============================================
SHhhhhhhhh! Neither do they…
Should have added ‘lol’ after that last comment. (In case anyone’s a wee bit touchy.)
Extracted from Vanguard Bears latest piece about Spiers’ article, [won’t post link]
================================================================
“…Mr Spiers argues that Rangers did in fact die and are in essence a new club. To support his assertion he cites a number of examples including comments from …Walter Smith…
Those who are familiar with courtrooms will notice the absence of any expert witnesses from the examples cited by Spiers…”
======================
So, are the VB’s implying that their Sir Walter of Cardigan doesn’t know what he is talking about ?
Is that sort of comment allowable amongst TRFC fans ? 🙄
Please read the attached link…….. http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=254192
How about we all right to the BBC Trust objecting to their original ruling and present an opposite view to the one being suggested by DeadCo fans? It’s got to be worth a laugh!
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=254213
Such nice people, aren’t they? 🙁
Duplesis says:
June 19, 2013 at 10:19 pm
—————————————————————————–
In view of the posts which have been whizzing between myself and HP I decided to cut the last one down as I argued – not as lucidly as yourself – that LNS got it wrong. But then I thought everyone would think I had flipped including myself 🙂
So I’ve undernoted it and think I deserve another glass of vino watching the footie. Brazil/Mexico had some good spells earlier.
UNDERNOTE
It would appear that we are not going to agree on this one.
SPL Articles
‘Club means the undertaking of an association football club . . . ‘.
SPL Article 4
Unless the context otherwise requires, words or expressions contained in
these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act . . . ‘.
Companies Act 2006
Part 38 Companies: Interpretation
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.
My position is that ‘undertaking’ in the SPL Articles means nothing more than the ordinary meaning of the word because if it held a special meaning such as its meaning under the Companies Act then it would be in the list of words specified in the Articles which have a special meaning. I also don’t accept that you can simply substitute ‘body corporate’ for ‘undertaking’ as in: ‘Club means the body corporate of an association football club . . . ’.
If that is how the SPL wanted to draft the definition of ‘club’ it would have done so – but it didn’t. The term ‘body corporate’ also has a number of meanings and two of them are mentioned in Article 3.
You repeatedly refer to the definition of ‘club’ in the SPL Articles as a ‘unique’ definition apparently in a dismissive manner but the SFA Articles define ‘Club’ as: ‘A football club playing Association Football’ which to my eye is essentially identical to the SPL Articles definition.
We mustn’t forget the SPL definition of ‘club’ under Rule I1 is: ‘Club means an association football club . . . and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club’.
jean7brodie says:
June 19, 2013 at 10:40 pm
‘…amazed by the words of truly brilliant, incisive minds on here. I just don’t understand an effing thing they’re talking about!!! -:)
—-
Jean7brodie,some on the blog have the forensic skills for detailed argument, and others,like us perhaps,who constantly keep the big picture in focus.
And that picture is clear enough on the facts generally accepted, namely, that there are and have been bad guys in football administration connected with bad guys in a particular new club.
A new club that tries to insist that it is entitled to be accepted , and to advertise itself (as regards football honours and history) as being a debt-ridden, liquidated dead club, BUT rejects liability for the debts, and the shame, and the disgrace, that the dead club brought to Scottish football, ably aided and abetted by generations of utterly unprincipled ‘newsmen’ and ‘sports reporters’ who settled for pieces of succulent lamb.
Unlike Master Thomas Cromwell who demanded Wales as the price of his integrity, and was witheringly mocked by Thomas more for being ready to accept such a low price for his soul.
Did somebody mention ‘amnesty’?
Over my dead body, if by ‘amnesty’ is meant ‘capitulation’!
Isn’t there another, shorter phrase used by some of the baddies in their emails? It’s slipped my memory for the moment. 🙂
john clarke says:
June 19, 2013 at 11:11 pm
…
Unlike Master Thomas Cromwell who demanded Wales as the price of his integrity, and was witheringly mocked by Thomas more for being ready to accept such a low price for his soul…
=====================
Totally OT, but it is quiet…
jc your post reminds me of my two favourite portraits: More and Cromwell, and both hanging / facing each other at the Frick Collection here.
Either Rangers have continued on for 140 years, despite liquidation or they haven’t.
Why is it important?
Admitting that the institution you support has come to an end is extremely difficult, whether it be a relationship, a bereavement, a retirement or any abrupt conclusion you didn’t see coming. The natural response is to cling on to the previous institution, the problem is described as stalking or denial. People become extremely antagonistic towards people who point out the truth, in effect, the people who point out the truth are held to be responsible for the bad news. To the disinterested outsider this behaviour may be illogical because it doesn’t change the facts!
Rangers have been liquidated, whoever and whatever is playing at Ibrox cannot be the same thing.
easyJambo says:
June 19, 2013 at 9:50 pm
I think you have every right to be encouraged. Hearts have taken the first steps on the road to a “fresh start”.
It won’t be easy for the fans, but as I said earlier Bryan Jackson is to the best of my knowledge a good quality honest professional. I believe he will play things with a “straight bat”. If he can legally and transparently sort the situation out then best of luck to you. He seems to think he can.
I will resist the temptation to juxtapose the above with another recent administration scenario.
StevieBC says:
June 19, 2013 at 11:29 pm
‘..jc your post reminds me of my two favourite portraits: ….’
———
I’ve only stayed in NY for three days, snatched in a gap in the ‘business’ schedule, and couldn’t get to the Frick, but I know the portraits you refer to, and I will say that I had two colleagues in the civil service who could have sat as models for those portraits, especially the beady, piggy eyed Cromwell!
Gaz says:
June 19, 2013 at 11:42 pm
2
0
Rate This
easyJambo says:
June 19, 2013 at 9:50 pm
_________________________________
Good luck to Hearts… and to their Creditors.
Honest hypothetical question for the Hearts fans out there:
If you could have your club restored to you (no newco), solvent and in good standing, with a clean financial slate, and with all your creditors paid in full, your obligations met, and your good name in tact: the price? Hand over the 2012 Scottish cup to Hibs, with good wishes and apologies… Would you ‘Deal’ or ‘No Deal’?
I hope I know the answer… but am asking the question nevertheless!
Duplesis says:
June 19, 2013 at 10:19 pm
0 0 Rate This
=======================
We have had a similar discussion fairly recently I think. 🙂
If you don’t mind I’ll post separately on each of your points.
Firstly and apologies if I’m repeating myself; but the SPL’s definition of a Club is considerably different from what the SFA consider to be a club.
So, to be a Club (in SPL terms) there are several tests to pass:
If the club is liquidated it ceases to be a Club
If the club ceases to operate as a football club, it ceases to be a Club
If the club is relegated or otherwise leaves the SPL, it ceases to be a Club
As examples:
Dundee are no longer a Club (in SPL terms) but of course, remain as a club recognised by the SFL & SFA.
RFC plc are no longer a club on points 2 and 3 (and will ultimately have a full-house).
TRFC Ltd have never been a Club – never having been entitled to participate in the SPL.
As the SPL Member (shareholder) must be the owner & operator of a club, yours is a perfectly reasonable question to ask who or what is the owner and operator.
Remember (where the context allows) a Club includes the owner & operator.
needs to be read in conjunction with:
If we take the person who is the owner & operator of a Club to be the body corporate (and I think we agree on this) it is the company that is the Member. It is the company that is the owner & operator.
The SPL Rules say (where the context allows) that a Club “includes the owner and operator of such club;”
Ergo a Club includes the body corporate.
The SPL Articles say that a “Club means the undertaking of an association football club…”
Ergo a Club is the body corporate of an association football club.
The SPL’s use of the term “owner & operator” does not undermine the Companies Act definition of “undertaking” as a body corporate. It actually re-enforces it’s meaning. The Club (even in SPL terms) and company are not separate entities. Being a company is actually part of what it is to be a Club.
I’ll post tomorrow (or should I say later today!) on when the current definition for undertaking first applied to the Companies Act 1985 and how that applied to the SPL Articles prior to the commencement of the LNS Commission.
I had been rather enjoying HirsuitPursuite’s and ecobhoy’s exchange concerning club vs company and note Duplesis late entry into the discussion. I had hoped to learn something from the debate and I did. I learned again the age old adage that if you put two lawyers in a room the result is three opinions. The conclusion surely is that the host of rules referred to fail to bring accessible clarity.
Having seen HirsuitPursuite’s previous interest in this topic and knowing him/her to be a trusted information source I felt that a conclusion to this discussion would be forthcoming. Whilst my viewpoint has not changed what I see is the complexity of the rules means that they cannot easily be implemented. HP may offer some further opinion but at the moment this is my conclusion. The rules appear to be a blank cheque for the lawyers. No surprise there then.
I also observe that Rangers fans intend to pursue the matter with the BBC. This may be the most thorough manner to run this particular fox to ground. Since the BBC made the distinction between referring to ‘Rangers’ in an onfield context (for simplicity) and making a distinction between old/new Rangers otherwise where necessary, it seems clear to me that they were not considering footballing codes when arriving at their findings. It may be possible, using the confused football rule books to muddy the waters between club and company however it will not be disputed that old Rangers went into liquidation. So new Rangers are not old Rangers.
That is something I can understand without reference to footballing codes or legal statutes. Most people will understand this. If the BBC wish to continue to make this distinction so I do not become confused over which incarnation of Rangers they are talking about then I am quite comfortable with this.
Love the Sevconian spirituality…
So, the quack tells me I have six months to live, and I assign my soul to AN Other next day and three days later a Death Cert is signed regarding my physical demise. Molly Bloom’s ramblings on Met Him Pike Hoses springs to mind… Perhaps that could transpire for a natural person, but just how exactly does it work for a legal (fictional) person like a limited liability company?
Re the King’s new clothes – ie New ‘Gers
The child sees that the King is naked.
The lawyers then tell the child that he is mistaken and is upsetting people so he should keep quiet.
Other eminent legal minds tell the child that sometimes ‘naked’ in fact means ‘clothed’.
In Scotland.
Me ?
I’m sticking with the kid.
He may not know the law
But he sure knows the truth.
resin_lab_dogH says: June 20, 2013 at 12:23 am
Good luck to Hearts… and to their Creditors.
Honest hypothetical question for the Hearts fans out there:
If you could have your club restored to you (no newco), solvent and in good standing, with a clean financial slate, and with all your creditors paid in full, your obligations met, and your good name in tact: the price? Hand over the 2012 Scottish cup to Hibs, with good wishes and apologies… Would you ‘Deal’ or ‘No Deal’?
I hope I know the answer… but am asking the question nevertheless!
====================================
It’s an impossible question to answer other than on a personal basis.
I’ve openly accepted that Hearts were guilty of financial doping in the early Vlad years (spending significantly more than your income over a sustained period).
I also admit that while Vlad was willing to put in his own money I was comfortable with that. I look back on the roller coaster ride with affection for the good times, but with what was more annoyance rather than sadness about the bad times.
However, when Vlad effectively pulled the plug in January 2012 and stopped funding the club, I became one of his strongest critics. Basically because he stopped honouring contracts that he had authorised. That was unacceptable to me.
The cup win in 2012 is an odd one because of the timing. Hearts were no longer benefitting from Vlad’s largesse, but their line-up was still a bit stronger than it would otherwise had been had we not had his support in earlier years. Would I give it back? Probably not. On the day, Hibs were that bad that a pub team would have beaten them, but that view is clouded by the tribal loyalty thing and being able to continue to bait your greatest rivals about their latest cup failure. 110 years and counting at that point.
That said, when Ukio Bankas folded in February/March of this year, it became apparent that Vlad hadn’t been investing his own money in Hearts, but had borrowed money from his own personal ATM (Ukio Bankas) to fund Hearts and his other business interests. That revelation, left me with a bad taste in my mouth about the good things we had achieved during the Vlad years and I said so on a Hearts forum, but was quickly shot down, so I’m probably in the minority with that view.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the cup wins immensely, and I don’t feel sorry for the Hibs or Gretna fans, but I do feel sorry for the Ukio depositors and investors who lost out because of Vlad’s actions.
I believe that Vlad will eventually face up to his wrongdoings in the Lithuanian courts and will deserve all he gets.
For the Hibs fans, they have every right to taunt us with “We told you so” and to enjoy a cycle of superiority for a year or two, but if Hearts do emerge from administration debt free, then they will be back in very short order, then it will be Hibs finances being scrutinised, as they have been losing money year on year despite the recent cup runs. Their net debt is currently £6.4M with a further 7 figure sum due to their parent company. They do have Tom Farmer as a benefactor at the moment. Will he continue to fund the losses? Who knows?
Dear Jim
Can you fix it for me?
The wonders of our universe. Dark matter. Quantum theory. General relativity. Schrodingers Cat. The Higgs Boson, wave particle duality, whether red wine should ever be served with fish:
By dint of studious application of logistic reasoning, and creative thought, I am pleased to say I have arrived at plausible rational explanations for all of the above.
However, the situation as to how a billionairre with wealth of the radar would (a) even have a mortgage on a propery with an estimated value of between £0.8m and £5m, let alone (b) be unable to pay it has me entirely flummoxed!
Perhaps you can help? Here are some words to get you started:1
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/craig-whyte-profile-the-scots-billionaire-1076110
Cortes says:
June 20, 2013 at 1:05 am
1
0
Rate This
Love the Sevconian spirituality…
_______________________
Careful… that’s how religion’s get started. And that leads to wars… (not really)
Whenever talk turns to Same Club V New Club I always find it helpful to have a listen to James who called into SSB back in March. The unheard voice of the small creditors in all of this…..totally stiffed…dignity eh….
https://soundcloud.com/peterjung1/james-on-ssb-2013-03-27
easyJambo says:
June 20, 2013 at 1:54 am
4 1 Rate This
For the Hibs fans, they have every right to taunt us with “We told you so” and to enjoy a cycle of superiority for a year or two, but if Hearts do emerge from administration debt free, then they will be back in very short order, then it will be Hibs finances being scrutinised, as they have been losing money year on year despite the recent cup runs. Their net debt is currently £6.4M with a further 7 figure sum due to their parent company. They do have Tom Farmer as a benefactor at the moment. Will he continue to fund the losses? Who knows?
================================================
I am not a Hibs fan but I am a fan of clubs being run in an honest manner and the bills being paid. I don’t really get your point, because if Hearts do emerge debt free it will be at the expense of others who have not been paid what they are owed. I don’t see what Hibs have done wrong at all, but the sins of Hearts, like Rangers, are there for the world to see, and being able to freely cast them aside is nothing much to be proud of in my opinion.
Re old club new club
I suggest the liquidation may be about to be concluded and maybe the report will not suit the sevco/MSM agenda hence the rule change to allow Airdrie to assume the name of the old club again without settling it dues .
Looks to me like it will soon be the official end of Ragers 1872 and long live Ragers in the minds of the peepil .
I for one don’t think that this sudden rule change was made for the good of Airdrie ,so I wonder who the peepil had in mind .
jonnyod says:
June 20, 2013 at 7:10 am
Re old club new club
I suggest the liquidation may be about to be concluded and maybe the report will not suit the sevco/MSM agenda hence the rule change to allow Airdrie to assume the name of the old club again without settling it dues ………..
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Can you or someone else provide a link to some information on this rule change?
thanks
The latest Charlotte about Health & Safety requirements is serious stuff. For all the new / old club definition arguments, if you mess up your H&S, you leave a paper trail, then something happens – you are in major trouble. I sincerely hope that they have got the stand roof repaired in particular, the thought of any supporters, Rangers or otherwise, being caught in something going wrong with that brings back bad memories of football grounds from the 80s, something none of us should ever have to go back to.
On the health and safety issues it may be worth noteing that the board of Rangers during the 60’s continually ignored health and safety warnings surrounding Stairway 13 at Ibrox. In fact even after earlier deaths on the stairway they did little or nothig re new safety measures leading to the now infamous Ibrox Disaster. I sincerely hope that the safety of no TRFC fan or indeed any visiting fan is put at risk due to negligence or cost cutting.
Is it just me or is the fact that someone highlights that that they need to run the same plates through the dishwasher 4 times in order to get them clean – does that not indicate that the extra costs of the 3 times – electric, water, staff costs, detergent costs – were all not considered in the cost of replacing the machine – only as a nuisance.
So not only did they run the football team in the same manner (audacious spending without proper financial models) but they ran the football club’s kitchen in the same manner.
peterjung says:
June 20, 2013 at 7:15 am
1 1 Rate This
jonnyod says:
June 20, 2013 at 7:10 am
Can you or someone else provide a link to some information on this rule change?
thanks
+++++++++++++++
I can’t find any mention of a rule change- apparently it is open to the SFA Professional Game Board to permit name changes within the current rules. If I have time later, I’ll check the rule book.
This link is my source of information- it’s the Record, I’m afraid, so not exactly gospel!
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sfa-approve-name-change-airdrie-1930459
neepheid says:
June 20, 2013 at 8:18 am
_______________________________________________________________________
Many thanks neepheid….however I have to say the following cut and paste of the article raises far more questions than it answers….
What does it mean by:
“…it was a different football environment and the use of the name was not possible at that time…”
and “…recent changes and rulings…”
and “…with the support of last year’s club sponsors…” – why should a “rule change” have anything to do with the old sponsor?
and “…formal SFA clearance was finally granted at the recent meeting of the Professional Game Board…”
Oh really?
and “…The club has today confirmed that they will also return to their old club crest….”
Is there not laws about this sort of thing?
I really find this all rather puzzling? Indeed I would like to know the details of these “recent changes AND rulings” and exactly what the reason for these changes are?
Do you think we will ever find out…phfft!
________________________________________________________
Text of artcle from the Daily Record website dated 2013-06-04. writer is stated as “by Dailyrecord.co.uk”:
AIRDRIE UNITED have changed the name of the club back to Airdrieonians.
After a long campaign by Diamonds fans, clearance has been granted by the SFA to use the name for the first time since 2002.
Chairman Jim Ballantyne said: “When the old company went into liquidation it was in a different football environment and the use of the name was not possible at that time.
“However, recent changes and rulings paved the way for us to make the move.
“It was actually raised at a fans meeting a few months ago but we could not give too much away as there was still much work to be done.
“However with the support of last year’s club sponsors. E & A Heating Ltd, we were able to progress matters to a conclusion and formal SFA clearance was finally granted at the recent meeting of the Professional Game Board”.
The traditional all-red crest will be the new official badge, with the club also using an alternative black and red version on next season’s away kit.
Here is the extract from the SFA rules regarding clubs changing their name:
10.7 Each club in full membership or associate membership shall in its Official Return register
its ground and playing field dimensions and no such club shall remove to another
ground without first obtaining the consent of the Board. Any club in full membership or
associate membership wishing to make any alteration to its name, its registered ground
or its playing field dimensions must first obtain the prior written consent of the Board.
No club in registered membership shall adopt in whole or in part the name of a club
in full membership or associate membership without the prior written consent of the
Board.
resin_lab_dogH says:
June 20, 2013 at 12:23 am
” the price? Hand over the 2012 Scottish cup to Hibs, with good wishes and apologies… Would you ‘Deal’ or ‘No Deal’?”
———————–
A fair point Resin and it brings forth a point for discussion.
Penalty for financial doping : inslovency.
Penalty for misregistration of players over a prolonged period : £250,000 fine.
Hearts are taking their punishment.
easyJambo says:
June 20, 2013 at 1:54 am
For the Hibs fans, they have every right to taunt us with “We told you so” and to enjoy a cycle of superiority for a year or two, but if Hearts do emerge from administration debt free, then they will be back in very short order, then it will be Hibs finances being scrutinised, as they have been losing money year on year despite the recent cup runs.
================================
That really isn’t like you. It’s a mixture of arrogance and whataboutery. What on Earth makes you think that if Hearts manage to shed their rightful debts then “they will be back in very short order”. Really, back where and on what basis. Are you so confident that you will keep your whole squad, not get relegated with a 15 point deduction and sail back to the top handful of the SPL “in very short order”.
With regard the Hibs comment, that’s just whataboutery. Hibs debt level is irrelevant, whether they can manage it or not is the issue. Either way it is no part of your own club’s problem. Hib are in debt but they have invested in stadium improvements and historically have a very productive youth system. Can Hearts say the same
Sorry, you are normally a decent well balanced poster but I thin that one, and in particular those commennts drifted well away from that.
resin_lab_dogH says:
June 20, 2013 at 1:59 am
“Perhaps you can help? Here are some words to get you started:1
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/craig-whyte-profile-the-scots-billionaire-1076110 ”
——————-
Fictional doping.
Penalty : Ignominy.
upthehoops says: June 20, 2013 at 6:13 am
I am not a Hibs fan but I am a fan of clubs being run in an honest manner and the bills being paid. I don’t really get your point, because if Hearts do emerge debt free it will be at the expense of others who have not been paid what they are owed. I don’t see what Hibs have done wrong at all, but the sins of Hearts, like Rangers, are there for the world to see, and being able to freely cast them aside is nothing much to be proud of in my opinion.
=========================================
There is nothing to be proud of in going into administration and the impact of that will be felt by a number of staff who will be made redundant in the next few days. Hearts have nothing to be proud about re their financial mismanagement, but I’m at a loss to see where we go from here.
Are you suggesting that any club that goes into administration is cast aside for their profligacy until all the debts are paid, or are they given the opportunity to rebuild themselves to be managed sensibly? If the former is the case then there would be no TRFC, Dundee, Livingston, Hearts, Motherwell, Dunfermline etc.
There are a stack of dominoes still waiting to fall in Scottish football and there is no escaping the fact that Aberdeen, Dundee United, Kilmarnock and Hibs all have what I’d describe as uncomfortable debt levels.
Hearts were paying their way (eventually) until last week. The other clubs I mention are also paying their way for the moment. Will they ALL be able to continue to do so. I don’t think so, or at least not without a benefactor, which brings us full circle to Vlad having been Hearts benefactor for seven out of the eight and a half years he was in charge and we will see the full impact of that being played out over the next few weeks.
jonnyod says:
June 20, 2013 at 7:10 am
“Looks to me like it will soon be the official end of Ragers 1872 and long live Ragers in the minds of the peepil .”
——————-
The King is dead. Long live the King!
peterjung says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:01 am
+++++++++++++++++++++
Regarding the club crest, so far as I am aware that is entirely up to the club itself. Only recently Everton changed their crest to the universal disapproval of their fans- I don’t think the FA were involved in any way.
Like you, I found Ballatyne’s comments confusing (maybe more like confused). I usually work on the basis that football club directors don’t know what they’re talking about, but feel obliged to talk a lot all the same.
I wondered whether the original name wasn’t used because of concerns about “phoenixism”, which could have got the directors into trouble under the Insolvency Act, but I just don’t know enough about the background of this particular club. Certainly after a 10 year lapse, phoenixism will no longer be an issue, if it ever was.
I recall that there was a discussion regarding the circumstances of Airdrie Utd’s creation on this forum a few months back. Some people knew a lot about the detail, so I’m sure someone can explain the whole name business.
Just keep referring to Ballantyne’s/JT’s favourite team as Clydebank ought to be sufficient. The truth is to those as daylight is to Alucard.
neepheid says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:31 am
“I wondered whether the original name wasn’t used because of concerns about “phoenixism”…”
——————-
I recall a post some considerable time ago when an individual (perhaps to prove a point) made an approach to purchase the name of Airdrieonians. Apparently they were told if they were willing to pay the outstanding debts of the club/company then they could do so.
This may be an apocryphal tale but perhaps others will recall it.
Easyjambo says
There are a stack of dominoes still waiting to fall in Scottish football and there is no escaping the fact that Aberdeen, Dundee United, Kilmarnock and Hibs all have what I’d describe as uncomfortable debt levels.
———————————————————————-
Those clubs have been living beyond their means but nowhere near the extent of Hearts.
it was jim – he said on your call that he had tried to buy just the old badge but couldn’t unless the debts were settled too.
Castofthousands says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:43 am
I recall a post some considerable time ago when an individual (perhaps to prove a point) made an approach to purchase the name of Airdrieonians. Apparently they were told if they were willing to pay the outstanding debts of the club/company then they could do so.
+++++++++++++++
That’s a good point. I believe that the name, brand and associated trademarks would have remained with the liquidator, given that they weren’t sold. So until the old company was finally dissolved, the name would not have been available, but once the old company dissolved, the name could then be used, having no owner? Maybe Ballantyne was too tight to pay the liquidator for the name, so just waited until the company was dissolved and got it for nothing..
Well there is a new thing – an administrator coming in and making cutbacks and redundancies – obviously they are clueless and never read the Paul Clark Handbook of CVA for Dummies……
http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/230067-redundancies-to-be-made-at-heart-of-midlothian-football-club/
I can’t help thinking back to another throwaway line from Green when he talked about how he had been approached by possibly D&P from memory about 2/3 other Scottish clubs in financial trouble and whether he would be interested.
I dismissed it at the time without a lot of thoughts as I was thinking that the ‘rules’ would have prevented that kind of move – but he has now gone from Rangers. Would he be interested in another bite at the cherry with Hearts?
I doubt if he would want to get as involved as he was at Rangers but he could either be approached to head a consortium or put one together and end-up with a nice slice of commission.
Probably I’m way off-beam but with Green I think anything’s possible. And BDO’s involvement I think would appeal to Green’s sense of showmanship.
Castofthousands says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:26 am
jonnyod says:
“Looks to me like it will soon be the official end of Ragers 1872 and long live Ragers in the minds of the peepil .”
——————-
The King is dead. Long live the King!
——————————-
Or more precisely soon to be “the King is dead. Long live D. King”?
Exiled Celt says:
June 20, 2013 at 10:07 am
Well there is a new thing – an administrator coming in and making cutbacks and redundancies – obviously they are clueless and never read the Paul Clark Handbook of CVA for Dummies……
——————————————————————————————————
The above available in all good bookshops now………..
The D&P – RFC – CVA was total nonsense from the start.
It was a red [green & whyte] herring which is still being inaccurately reported by SMSM.
How would those Jambos, who had already bought season tickets, feel if they were told their ST’s were worthless and they’d need to pay at the gate/buy a new one post admin and that they were now creditors of the club and would be put “on the pile” with all others.
it’s what SHOULD happen…….but will it?
neepheid says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:53 am
——
‘.. So until the old company was finally dissolved, the name would not have been available, but once the old company dissolved, the name could then be used, having no owner? ‘
———-
This is from CompanyWizard.co.uk:
” Company names that are in liquidation or have been dissolved
You cannot register a company name that is currently in liquidation, this is denoted by an ‘L’ character situated next to the name on the Companies House search facility. You can however register a company name that has been dissolved. This will be denoted by a ‘D’ character next to the name.”
This would seem to suggest that the use of ‘Airdrie’ was only legally possible if the club that wanted to use it registered it as a new Club?
I looked up the Companies House site, but, frankly, there seems to be so much ducking and diving with companies that I can’t work out which company with Airdrie ( eg ‘Airdrieonians’, ‘Airdrie FC and Events Ltd’, etc) in its name might be the Airdrie club in question.
I have to say that since all this started, I’ve developed a deep scepticism about businesses and business men.
Can they all be cheats and shafters at heart?
So Richard Britten has now been registered at the SFA and the SPL but with different clubs. Where is the brains and forensic knowledge of regulations of Mr Bryson and Mr Ogilvie when you need them?
Given their assertion that once a player is registered, rightly or wrongly, that registration must stand how will this be resolved? what are the procedures? Who in the SFA / SPL is responsible for checking whether a player CAN be registered before the registration is accepted to avoid such difficulties? Did they describe the process, procedure and regulations that describe how the de-registration of a wrongly registered or ineligible registration is handled?
Loving this implication of their crazy justification to LNS. it had to happen.
peterjung says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:01 am
2 0 i
Rate This
neepheid says:
June 20, 2013 at 8:18 am
_______________________________________________________________________
Many thanks neepheid….however I have to say the following cut and paste of the article raises far more questions than it answers….
What does it mean by:
“…it was a different football environment and the use of the name was not possible at that time…”
and “…recent changes and rulings…”
and “…with the support of last year’s club sponsors…” – why should a “rule change” have anything to do with the old sponsor?
and “…formal SFA clearance was finally granted at the recent meeting of the Professional Game Board…”
Oh really?
and “…The club has today confirmed that they will also return to their old club crest….”
Is there not laws about this sort of thing?
I really find this all rather puzzling? Indeed I would like to know the details of these “recent changes AND rulings” and exactly what the reason for these changes are?
Do you think we will ever find out…phfft!
________________________________________________________
Text of artcle from the Daily Record website dated 2013-06-04. writer is stated as “by Dailyrecord.co.uk”:
AIRDRIE UNITED have changed the name of the club back to Airdrieonians.
After a long campaign by Diamonds fans, clearance has been granted by the SFA to use the name for the first time since 2002.
Chairman Jim Ballantyne said: “When the old company went into liquidation it was in a different football environment and the use of the name was not possible at that time.
“However, recent changes and rulings paved the way for us to make the move.
“It was actually raised at a fans meeting a few months ago but we could not give too much away as there was still much work to be done.
“However with the support of last year’s club sponsors. E & A Heating Ltd, we were able to progress matters to a conclusion and formal SFA clearance was finally granted at the recent meeting of the Professional Game Board”.
The traditional all-red crest will be the new official badge, with the club also using an alternative black and red version on next season’s away kit.
———————————————————-
If Airdrie United were changing their name BACK to anything it would be CLYDEBANK, the club they bought over, changed name and moved to a new stadium. This is not a precedent that applies to Sevco FC at the present time.
Airdrieonians are dead, deceased, shuffled off this mortal coil, an EX club
pau1mart1n says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:50 am
‘.it was jim – he said on your call that he had tried to buy just the old badge but couldn’t unless the debts were settled too
——
Aye, and his doppelganger ( see link on Paulsatim post at 9.48 today) didn’t contradict him!
( but what a wonderful collective memory this blog has. Nobody can get away with anything, somebody will dig out and verify (or not) what anybody says.)
Gaz says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:16 am
easyJambo says:
June 20, 2013 at 1:54 am
For the Hibs fans, they have every right to taunt us with “We told you so” and to enjoy a cycle of superiority for a year or two, but if Hearts do emerge from administration debt free, then they will be back in very short order, then it will be Hibs finances being scrutinised, as they have been losing money year on year despite the recent cup runs.
================================
With regard the Hibs comment, that’s just whataboutery. Hibs debt level is irrelevant, whether they can manage it or not is the issue. Either way it is no part of your own club’s problem. Hib are in debt but they have invested in stadium improvements and historically have a very productive youth system. Can Hearts say the same
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may have got this wrong but I suspect I haven’t but didn’t Tommy Farmers Hibs Holdco write off a lot of the debt owed by Hibs “the club” a few years back. Off the park Hibs are a well run club. but on it is a different story.
Joking apart and at risk of giving HP and Ecoboy a coronary, therein is the problem as said on here many times, most notably latterly by Graham Spiers
“The King is dead. Long live the King!”
You can laud the king, you can follow (follow?) him in your droves. You can’t pin a medal on him, at least not the same one, and you can’t sign a form as him at least in his previous guise. No, the Britten case (which I hope works out for him, always liked him as a player), the Hearts/Dunfermline admin process, even the BBC nonsense is only going in one direction. The simple truth that you can’t kill a strong brand as long as some people want to believe in it. You can kill a legal entity, whether that entity likes it or not!