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?
Gaz says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:04 pm
Sorry Gaz – it was just when I read: ‘Rangers are trying to say it is the same club after it being placed into liquidation and shafting people out of tens of millions of pounds. No one bought the original club, no-one paid off it’s debt. The victims are still there and will get nothing or as near it as makes no difference’.
I look at that comment and know a ‘club’ can’t be placed into liquidation as it isn’t a legal entity and by the same token can’t have any debt either. The operating company had the debt and that is being liquidated.
I have no problem with you stating that Rangers FC is a new club and is not a continuation of the old because that’s your opinion. I think it would actually help your argument if it was factually based and not so easily picked-apart. So get to work fire-proofing it 🙂
But that’s a task for you and not for me. Let me ask you this then: If Celtic were currently in Rangers position would you argue that Celtic had an unbroken history and was still the same club or say it was a new club with no previous history? I will trust you to be honest in your answer.
The thing about Fergus that makes him different isn’t just that he invested money but that he not only changed the bigotry culture but also the financial culture at Parkhead and made Celtic a team fit for a new era. He was a wee crabbit bugger but a giant of a man and younger supporters who never lived through the Family Dynasties will never ever begin to realise just how lucky we were that he picked us out of the gutter because that’s where we were.
The other thing about football creditors being shafted is that day and daily creditors are being shafted by every kind of business – it’s by no means a Rangers or football-specific problem. In fact it might be interesting if there are any figures which shows the total amount of stiffed Scottish creditors and what percentage of that figure is comprised of football debt. That might help set it in some kind of perspective and even more so with a UK figure.
Gaz says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:13 pm
‘.As an aside, I have reason to believe that HMRC were monitoring Ticketus’ relationship with various football clubs very closely and actively at that time.’
———-
That was perhaps rather more in the context of concern about the genuineness of VCTs generally, rather than of footballclubs’ efforts to avoid paying their taxes. That is, Ticketus would have been the target of investigation rather than the football clubs themselves.
But , who knows? An awareness of the use of football season ticket sales by a series of Ticketuses might have given a certain edge to HMRC’s dealings with RFC plc, as it then was.
slimshady61 says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:35 pm
Scottish football fans of all colours are being targeted as criminals; it is time football fans of all teams stood up and opposed this attack on democracy and attack on football.
That subject, to my mind, is at least as important as the other matters being debated on here.
====================================================================
I think it is certainly more important than any footballing matter discussed on here because it’s a serious Civil Liberties issue.
I posted on here away back, quite near the beginning of the season, wrt to what was happening at Ibrox and I warned it would most certainly spread to Parkhead. No one was particularly interested in the topic but it later had some exposure when fans at Parkhead started getting the ‘treatment’.
But Salmond’s Act is a nightmare and needs to be totally opposed by every decent football fan.
Sadly the divisions that exist for other reasons have allowed THEM to divide and conquer. Imagine if the green and blue could actually March on Holyrood – the Act would be withdrawn for redrafting immediately and I doubt if it would ever see the light of day again.
That’s not to say, of course, that we don’t have serious sectarian issues which need addressed and which I believe have been worsened since the turmoil at Ibrox. But I am convinced that in the longer term the new Act will increase the problems rather than resolve them.
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:37 pm
I look at that comment and know a ‘club’ can’t be placed into liquidation as it isn’t a legal entity and by the same token can’t have any debt either. The operating company had the debt and that is being liquidated.
=================================
Sorry I’m really not that interested in sophistry.
Rangers was a members club (a legal entity).
That became a Ltd company, still the same thing, it had just changed it’s nature in order to protect it’s members. To limited their liability.
That Ltd Company then became a PLC. It was no longer a private limited company it was public, people could buy shares, they were traded publicly.
That went into liquidation.
So you may well argue that “the club” was not liquidated. Fair enough. But the entity which it had become was liquidated.
There is no difference between the “operating company” and “the club”. There is one legal entity, it may have changed it’s nature, or structure, but there was always one legal entity.
That is all
Gaz says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:13 pm
On the Invoices
=========================================================================
I seem to remember that Ticketus sparked the HMRC activity when they reclaimed the VAT – as they were entitled to – on the clip-art invoices. I have always assumed that the VAT had never been paid from the Rangers end and the game was therefore a bogey.
john clarke says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:46 pm
In answer to the question “who knows”, I suspect the answer might well be … you do.
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:37 pm
The other thing about football creditors being shafted is that day and daily creditors are being shafted by every kind of business – it’s by no means a Rangers or football-specific problem. In fact it might be interesting if there are any figures which shows the total amount of stiffed Scottish creditors and what percentage of that figure is comprised of football debt. That might help set it in some kind of perspective and even more so with a UK figure.
==================================
Tu quoque arguments are great.
It might be interesting to see how often they are used in relation to Rangers.
Gaz says:
June 20, 2013 at 10:14 pm
Tu quoque arguments are great. It might be interesting to see how often they are used in relation to Rangers.
=================================================================
If I had a clue what you meant I might be able to respond.
can anyone clarify the significance of CW’s revelations on just WHAT and WHEN Grier knew anything at all about the Ticketus deal?
How come Richard Osman never corrected that guy on Pointless tonight?
Thought he was meant to tell them when they got things wrong?
I bet he did and they edited it out?
twopanda says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:16 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:12 pm
=====================================================================
I reckon this might be Zebra – I still have a memory trace that they had a connection with Celtic or Rangers on ST instalment finance.
http://www.zebrafinance.co.uk/
Season Ticket Finance provides finance for the supporters of many of the largest football, rugby and cricket clubs. The website provides a simple and convenient way to apply for finance and pay for Season Tickets by monthly instalments, providing finance from £50 upwards.
Is it just me or are there posters on here with Celtic sounding names that really bat for the other side ?
I see from Twitter that TRFC stalwart @STVGrant is coming to the conclusion that UEFA might not see his Heroes as the same club after all. Apparently UEFA’s decision not to recognise Newco Derry City’s European history has given him the jitters.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
June 20, 2013 at 10:20 pm
can anyone clarify the significance of CW’s revelations on just WHAT and WHEN Grier knew anything at all about the Ticketus deal?
==================================================
I suppose it is linked to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20074388 which sets the date DG claims to have known whereas the latest stuff apparently dates the knowledge to the end of June 20011 I think.
That then links in to the issue about D&Ps appointment as administrators of Rangers and the MRC Letter of Engagement tweeted recently by CF. If it is shown that DG acted beyond the remit of that Letter of Engagement then we go back to the question as to whether D&P should have been appointed as Administrator.
And then there’s the IPA who conducted their investigation and gave D&P a clean bill of health who may be out on a limb with the stuff CF is releasing and may yet have more to release.
That’s my take but I’m sure there will be others.
Re The Glasgow Rangers-supporting contestant on “Pointless” tonight.
Should he not have been on “Game for a Laugh”
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 5:16 pm
‘.So you can be guilty of inciting public disorder and yet any people there might not have heard youor there might not be anyone there at all – sounds like utter madness.’
—–
I’ve just read the Justiciary Apeal Court decision.
I have to put my hand up and say that I had not taken too much interest in the run-up to the introduction of the
‘Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012.’
I am now appalled that we have all sleep-walked into both it AND the creation of a single police state (curses, these dam.ed fingers ), I mean, single police force.
That piece of legislation has been outrageously badly drafted.
Lord Brodie implied as much when he spoke about the Act’s ‘long reach’, and identified aspects such as the fact that the time of the football match did not matter, just that there was a match on the day!
One has to hope that the accused will not be convicted on re-trial.
But before then, surely to God the Act should be sensibly amended to rid it of its worst absurdities.
Gaz says:
June 20, 2013 at 8:46 pm
“Do you really think that Replacement Hearts would just get into SPFL 4 on the nod, ..”
—————-
I suppose there should be a process of Heart’s application to join SFL4 (sorry about the speculation Jambo’s, I’m just going through the motions), which might include consideration of their application alongside other eligible clubs/companies/… I can also see that the precedent set with Rangers suggests that a club that has a certain level of prestige associated with it might be treated a bit differently than clubs not currently a member of the league set up. I see some sense in that. Expulsion from the league entirely might be a consideration however.
Hopefully for Hearts sake these arguments will not have to be fully exercised but if they are there is a precedent and although two wrongs don’t make a right, consistency in application of whatever rules you think you are working to should begin at some point.
Have any other league clubs went into liquidation?
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:51 pm
Hi Echobhoy
I totally agree with you that ‘Salmond’s Act is a nightmare and needs to be totally opposed by every decent football fan.’
I have pursued it through persistent communications with my MSPs but the replies from them via Roseanna Cunningham have been pathetic and condescending. Roseanna constantly quotes stats and tells me what the Act is about!!
I’m dismayed but will continue to communicate. Any tips?
twopanda says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:09 pm
“CF [Chat (3)] – Funds from a Zebra? – Blimey”
—————–
My mind might be playing tricks on me but I thought ‘Zebra’ looked familiar.
Charlotte has had such a prolific output that I would not know where to start looking.
martybhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 10:50 pm
So if they run out of money where do you think the loans / credit / donations will come from.
john clarke says:
June 20, 2013 at 10:57 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 5:16 pm
‘.So you can be guilty of inciting public disorder and yet any people there might not have heard youor there might not be anyone there at all – sounds like utter madness.’
===============================================================
Good piece by Paul McConville at:
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/high-court-confirms-draconian-nature-of-offensive-behaviour-act-re-boys-of-the-old-brigade/#more-3815
‘The wide reach of the Act means that it is NOT only the singing of these songs at football games which is prohibited. A person sitting alone in his car driving to or from a football match would commit the offence by singing a song a “reasonable person” would deem offensive.
‘A person driving to or from an Orange Walk however would not be committing such an offence, nor someone going to a rugby match.
‘A person driving to or from a pub to watch a Scottish football game would be guilty of the offence in those circumstances, but someone driving to watch a Confederations Cup match on TV would not’.
StevieBC says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:14 pm
“It’s unusually quiet down Govan way.”
—————–
I noticed an article on Celtic in a tabloid on the newsagents counter a few days ago. The strap line underneath referred to ‘Old Fim greats’ or the suchlike (there was a black and white photo of a hoops player). Struck me as an attempt to keep the rivalry on life support by teasing in Celtic supporters to promote the ‘myth’. Meagre pickings but every little bit helps I suppose
Castofthousands says:
Expulsion from the league entirely might be a consideration however.
===============================
Hypothetically, and in the scenario we are discussing i.e. liquidation then expulsion from the league would not be an issue.
It would be a new club applying for the place vacated by a club dying.
Similar to what happened when Rangers died and a new club was given a place in SFL 3.
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 10:32 pm
—
‘..I reckon this might be Zebra – I still have a memory trace that they had a connection with Celtic or Rangers on ST instalment finance.’
—-
Comments on the Celtic network last year had plenty to say about Zebra!
jean7brodie says:
June 20, 2013 at 11:02 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:51 pm
Hi Echobhoy
I totally agree with you that ‘Salmond’s Act is a nightmare and needs to be totally opposed by every decent football fan.’
I have pursued it through persistent communications with my MSPs but the replies from them via Roseanna Cunningham have been pathetic and condescending. Roseanna constantly quotes stats and tells me what the Act is about!! I’m dismayed but will continue to communicate. Any tips?
================================================================
Worth looking at Paul’s piece on: http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/high-court-confirms-draconian-nature-of-offensive-behaviour-act-re-boys-of-the-old-brigade/#more-3815
Well I think there probably has to be two strands to any action: A short to medium period in pressurising the Scottish Government with a mobilisation of football supporters emailing MSPs with the clear discrimination against football supporters which has been created by the Act – possibly inadvertantly because of the indecent haste in pushing the Bill through.
There also has to be a medium longer term approach wrt to the European Court because of the civil liberty issues involved. We should look towards assistance from various established campaigning groups who know how to actually carry this out. We should also be making representations to our individual clubs as all fans are at risk here.
However we have all got to accept that actual sectarianism cannot be countenanced and that campaign must run hand-in-hand with opposition the the Law as it now stands. But it would appear that FOCUS has a list of songs and chants that they believe create an offence. So I think they must publish that list for starters – I would have thought that was a responsible thing to do. It may be of course that there would be grounds to oppose the banned song list on a variety of grounds.
I am particularly worried about the comment that a historical song re the 1916 IRA is taken by the police as one which could cause an offence because the listeners (not that it matters if any exist or not) could equate the term IRA to PIRA and this creates the criminal offence. This would also hold good for historical UVF songs in particular for the WW1 period again being equated by the later organisation.
This is part of the problem I see in any united front with Ranger and Celtic fans because a vociferous element in each support will want to keep their songs but deny the other side of their’s.
But if we don’t try we will never get anywhere at worst and at best delay or reduce the effectiveness of our action.
john clarke says:
June 20, 2013 at 11:16 pm
1
0
Rate This
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 10:32 pm
—
‘..I reckon this might be Zebra – I still have a memory trace that they had a connection with Celtic or Rangers on ST instalment finance.’
—-
Comments on the Celtic network last year had plenty to say about Zebra!
=============================================================
That’s what I was nearly remembering in my original post to twopanda but it was buried a bit deep.
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:37 pm
“I look at that comment and know a ‘club’ can’t be placed into liquidation as it isn’t a legal entity and by the same token can’t have any debt either.”
—————–
At the danger of sucking out peoples will to live, I’d like to pick of the cudgels on the Club vs Company debate.
I have picked out the pertinent line from your post. This is the way I personally always post, by picking out a significant line of text rather than reproducing the whole text. It saves people reading the same comment twice.
I struggle with the concept that a club is not a legal entity.
The concept of a ‘legal entity’ came about to allow groups of people to transact business rather than just individuals. Prior to that point there was no problem defining the legal entity. It was the individual who had bound himself into a contract. When people gathered themselves into groupings to do business (maybe a carpenter, stone mason and thatcher would combine as a building company), they needed a method to transact business without the whole liability falling on any single member of the company. So the concept of a legal entity came into being. It was no longer just a single person that could be bound by the terms of a contract, groups of people could as well. This allowed such groups to engage in commercial business to buy and sell goods and a set of laws grew up to encompass the various scenarios that might occur in the conduct of such business.
A football club will find it necessary to form all sorts of contracts. Even the most basic enterprise might have to pay a few cleaners or buy some pies on credit. Larger clubs have many more such contracts. To engage in these contractual undertakings the club must be a legal entity, otherwise no-one would contract with them since there would be no legal framework to guide the transactions.
The Wikipedia page for Rangers bears the following statement :
“Rangers Football Club became a limited company on 27 May 1899[83] when it was incorporated as The Rangers Football Club Ltd. It continued in this form until, in 2000, David Murray decided to list the company on the stock exchange, making it a public limited company. The name of the company was therefore changed to The Rangers Football Club Plc.[145]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangers_F.C.#Ownership_and_finances
Rangers FC (1872) > Rangers FC Ltd (1899) > Rangers FC PLC (2000).
It is the same entity but holding a different structure. Each of these incarnations will have contracted commercially to conduct their activities.
Charlotte’s recent invoice information underscores the point :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149000499/Rangers-FC-Invoice-to-Ticketus-12-13
Although this document is ‘tainted’ it purports to be a genuine legal document and bears the logo and title of the legal entity that has entered into the contract with Ticketus. The Rangers Football Club PLC.
I just cannot see how a football club cannot be a legal entity unless it is unable to engage in commercial contracts.
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 10:43 pm
‘.And then there’s the IPA who conducted their investigation and gave D&P a clean bill of health who may be out on a limb with the stuff CF is releasing and may yet have more to release.
That’s my take but I’m sure there will be others.’
——-
I’m just a tad annoyed with myself for not keeping my own detailed log of statements made by the protagonists in this really quite interesting saga.
But then I didn’t know Charlotte was in the wings!
Perhaps barcabhoy and RTC are, even as we speak, marrying up Charlotte’s releases with what various suspects declared in Court or to the press, or with what the BBC has.
But again I have to repeat that the story of how 500 million fans world-wide were conned and duped out of their football club by guys that none of us would trust with the office tea-fund is a side-show- EXCEPT in so far as any personnel in the Footballing Authorities or any Administrators acting under warrant from the Courts, might have been art and part of that dupery and conmanship.
Some of us feel in our water that the manifest alleged misdeeds of the SFA ( or, broadly, the Footballing authorities) came about because of the malign influence of some the personnel within those authorities, an influence improperly exercised to save a favoured, and highly favoured, institution at all and any cost to truth and fairness.
It is that influence that has to be exposed, if the evidence is there.
My own take is that somewhere out there there is evidence enough to justify LH calling the Administrators before him and subjecting them to a very serious investigation.
And enough evidence to make me mark down the IPA investigators as useless fuds!
Gaz says:
June 20, 2013 at 11:14 pm
“…liquidation then expulsion from the league would not be an issue.
It would be a new club applying for the place vacated by a club dying.”
———————–
Yes Gaz, I accept your correction. Sloppy drafting by me.
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 10:43 pm
————————————
And what of RB (Octopus) apparent admission regarding LBG on previous deal …. whoosh !
#possibleAdmissionOf ……. ???
When the truth is out ……. Accountability Must Follow ….
An issue re Ticketus has been nagging at my deteriorating memory: in RTC days a Ticketus employee with a goodly Scots double surname moniker was convicted in England of a crime of dishonesty. Given recent CF revelations I have been trying to retrieve the reports (defective memory persuades me that scam involved teams in Midlands in Championship and League One) without interweb success. Am I wrong, or was said individual featured in one of CF’s posts a few days back?
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 11:30 pm
‘….. So I think they must publish that list for starters – I would have thought that was a responsible thing to do…’
——
And you are absolutely right.
The trouble is, that just as one can ‘bless’ oneself aggressively, so one can sing the national anthem of what one believes to be one’s country with equal aggression!
The national anthem of England had a nice wee verse that went
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.
Now, just as the the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas found it necessary to change their German name to Windsor when my grandfather’s generation were fighting the ( historical reference here!) H*n, so in more modern times the English politicians dropped that verse ( at least out loud) for obvious political reasons.
However, I personally may take great offence on hearing a tune which has undertones of aggression against the Scottish race.
Could I expect Constables Inglis and Stevenson to camcorder a section of a football ground in which were to be seen and heard singing the national anthem of ( mysteriously) their ‘country’?
Most certainly not could I expect that.
Why? Because it would be patently absurd to make the singing of your ‘country’s’ national anthem an offence!
And yet to many Scots that anthem is offensive, sung ‘aggressively’ or not!
Gaz says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:13 pm.
2, These invoices include VAT and as such the tax would be due on them. Rangers issued the invoices and in addition were paid for them. This might be a lot of the VAT which formed part of the debt which forced them into administrations and subsequent liquidation. The money they received and simply didn’t remit to HMRC.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Were Rangers paid by Ticketus?
From what we understand so far the RFC Lloyds debt was assigned to Wavetower who on completion would have used Ticketus funds to clear it. The deal would not have been signed off unless Lloyds got their money and so Ticketus must have provided the funds to Wavetower not RFC. Wonder how that sits with the VCT and EIS tax reliefs or indeed the recovery of VAT for Ticketus?
After the deal was done and the Board cleared out of Murray stooges it was then safe to raise the invoices to Ticketus. The effect of that would be to cancel out the debt RFC owed Wavetower for taking on the Lloyds debt which is why I think D&P could ignore the Wavetower floating charge.
Cortes says:
June 21, 2013 at 12:32 am
========================================================================
By Murray Wardrop 7:30AM GMT 16 Dec 2009
John Campbell was handed a 12-month suspended prison sentence after being convicted of a £110,000 fraud while working for Octopus Investments, a London investment company.
However, passing sentence, the judge said he believed that under the City’s “absurd bonus culture”, the 38-year-old probably could have got the money if he had simply asked for a pay rise.
The Old Bailey heard that Campbell obtained most of the money by conning his firm on a £34 million football ticket deal with Manchester United.
The married father-of-one stole £80,000 by falsely claiming that the firm had to pay an £80,000 introduction fee to a third party in the deal, which he subsequently paid to himself.
He used the same trick to take £30,000 through smaller block booking deals with Derby County and Burnley FCs by issuing false invoices.
While filling his pockets, Campbell repeatedly complained to bosses that he was overworked and underpaid, the court heard.
He told bosses that he was not being rewarded for his efforts because he was only paid a salary of £140,000 with a £5,800 a month bonus.
When Octopus confronted him in April last year over the payments, he admitted he was the mystery third party and was arrested. Campbell, of Culmstock Road, Wandsworth, southwest London, admitted three counts of fraud.
Sentencing, Judge Richard Hone said Campbell “cheated and stole … in a convoluted manner”, motivated by “greed”.
However, he added: “I accept that you were under considerable pressure to maximise and produce deals. That was what produced the complete abandonment of your usual high standards.”
The court heard that Campbell was in charge of a £220 million portfolio at Octopus and specialised in the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) set up by the UK Government.
The scheme supports fund-raising by new companies by giving tax breaks to investors.
Campbell was involved in setting up companies using EIS and at the time of his arrest was running 75 firms.
They included Ticketus LLP, JAC Film and Television LLP and JAC Right Management LLP, with a total of just over £100m of funds.
In November 2008 he negotiated the purchase of £3m of Derby County tickets and arranged for himself to be paid 0.75 per cent of the amount as if he was a “third party intermediary”.
He also struck a deal with Burnley for £1m of season tickets, this time with a commission of 0.25 per cent.
The £34m deal with Manchester United was done in an attempt to fulfil the EIS requirement that 80 per cent of funds are used within the first year of the company.
If Campbell had not been able to use 80 per cent of the funds then the Octopus investors would have had to repay the tax incentives – with a “catastrophic” effect on the future of Octopus.
Campbell, who has a 10-week-old child, has since repaid all the money.
The court heard he had invested the £110,000 back into Octopus rather than “fritter” it away on luxuries.
The judge added that Campbell had “lost everything” and would no longer be regarded as a “highflying star but as a crook”.
He was given a 12 month prison sentence suspended for two years and ordered to serve 200 hours community service.
Campbell was also barred as a company director for three years.
Spud
01-04-2011, 12:49 PM
lol – there is never a crook too far away:dismay:
from the telegraph pole… dot dot dot dash dash dash dot dot dot
By Murray Wardrop 7:30AM GMT 16 Dec 2009
John Campbell was handed a 12-month suspended prison sentence after being convicted of a £110,000 fraud while working for Octopus Investments, a London investment company.
However, passing sentence, the judge said he believed that under the City’s “absurd bonus culture”, the 38-year-old probably could have got the money if he had simply asked for a pay rise.
The Old Bailey heard that Campbell obtained most of the money by conning his firm on a £34 million football ticket deal with Manchester United.
The married father-of-one stole £80,000 by falsely claiming that the firm had to pay an £80,000 introduction fee to a third party in the deal, which he subsequently paid to himself.
He used the same trick to take £30,000 through smaller block booking deals with Derby County and Burnley FCs by issuing false invoices.
While filling his pockets, Campbell repeatedly complained to bosses that he was overworked and underpaid, the court heard.
He told bosses that he was not being rewarded for his efforts because he was only paid a salary of £140,000 with a £5,800 a month bonus.
When Octopus confronted him in April last year over the payments, he admitted he was the mystery third party and was arrested. Campbell, of Culmstock Road, Wandsworth, southwest London, admitted three counts of fraud.
Sentencing, Judge Richard Hone said Campbell “cheated and stole … in a convoluted manner”, motivated by “greed”.
However, he added: “I accept that you were under considerable pressure to maximise and produce deals. That was what produced the complete abandonment of your usual high standards.”
The court heard that Campbell was in charge of a £220 million portfolio at Octopus and specialised in the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) set up by the UK Government.
The scheme supports fund-raising by new companies by giving tax breaks to investors.
Campbell was involved in setting up companies using EIS and at the time of his arrest was running 75 firms.
They included Ticketus LLP, JAC Film and Television LLP and JAC Right Management LLP, with a total of just over £100m of funds.
In November 2008 he negotiated the purchase of £3m of Derby County tickets and arranged for himself to be paid 0.75 per cent of the amount as if he was a “third party intermediary”.
He also struck a deal with Burnley for £1m of season tickets, this time with a commission of 0.25 per cent.
The £34m deal with Manchester United was done in an attempt to fulfil the EIS requirement that 80 per cent of funds are used within the first year of the company.
If Campbell had not been able to use 80 per cent of the funds then the Octopus investors would have had to repay the tax incentives – with a “catastrophic” effect on the future of Octopus.
Campbell, who has a 10-week-old child, has since repaid all the money.
The court heard he had invested the £110,000 back into Octopus rather than “fritter” it away on luxuries.
The judge added that Campbell had “lost everything” and would no longer be regarded as a “highflying star but as a crook”.
He was given a 12 month prison sentence suspended for two years and ordered to serve 200 hours community service.
Campbell was also barred as a company director for three years.
All the more reason to bring back terracing n pay cash on the gate.
martybhoy says:
June 21, 2013 at 12:07 am
‘…..the fabric of society,blood of blood,bone of bone will be in the SPL in their current Newco form in time for 2015/2016 season.’
—-
Well, it won’t be the SPL but the SPFL ( or, as older readers might appreciate, the SPscumbag).
But, of course, by that time, officially stripped of any footballing history and trophies and record achievements pre-dating 2012 that really (and arguably, falsely) belonged to the club that died.
And, perhaps, mourning the administrative demise of some of the best administrators in the history of the SFA who may have had connections with the dead club, of which they are a mere pastiche and totally ersatz representation.
Not to mention having to find a way of washing their hands of any contact with a number of caged fraudsters.
Good to look forward with anticipation, innit?
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:37 pm
I have no problem with you stating that Rangers FC is a new club and is not a continuation of the old because that’s your opinion. I think it would actually help your argument if it was factually based and not so easily picked-apart.
———————————————————————————————————————————————-
Erm, it is factually based, but if you can easily pick apart those facts then go for it.
No-one has managed it so far!
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 3:52 pm
5 15 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
June 20, 2013 at 12:33 am
=================================
Can I point you to: http://www.scribd.com/doc/149042940/Rangers-CVA-Proposal
Within this document you will find in the title of the covering letter
and in the definitions section of the proposal:
At that time and for the purposes of the CVA document Duff & Phelps consider “the Club”, “the Company” and “The Rangers Football Club Plc (In Administration)” to be synonymous.
Now, before you do, let me state the obvious. D&P’s interchangeable use of “Club”/”Company”/”Rangers” applies only to this document. What D&P say in their documentation has no effect on what the SPL, SFL or SFA consider to be a Club (in the case of the SPL) or an association football club (in the case of the SFA).
Before I return to my original point, let me remind you of an Alex Thomson interview with Neil Doncaster: http://www.channel4.com/news/spl-boss-rules-applied-without-fear-nor-favour
r
While it is true that the SPL have a regulatory function, as its CEO openly admits, they are more akin to a trade association. Whatever they are, they are not the footballing authority in Scotland.
That said let me return – once more – to the difference between Club (as the SPL define it) and an association football club (as recognised by the SFA)
When the SPL define “Club” in its Articles the meaning applies only to those Articles. When Club” is defined in the SPL rules its meaning applies only to those rules.
If between the SPL Articles and Rules there is a minor variation in the definition, it makes no real difference as long as it does not, by doing so, create a conflict between the practical application of their Articles & Rules.
As it happens, I believe the Articles & Rules say substantially the same thing; but that is for another day.
What we cannot do, is confuse any SPL definition of Club with what it is to be an association football club as defined by the SFA.
As I said yesterday the SPL Articles say a Club has three components:
1. It is an undertaking
2. It is an association football club
3. It is entitled to participate in the SPL
The SPL Rules also has three components in its definition of a Club
1. It is an association football club
2. It is entitled to participate in the SPL
3. It includes its owner & operator
So, whichever SPL definition you choose to accept, an association football club can only be a Club if it is entitled to play in the SPL and is an undertaking or includes its owner & operator.
Any association football club (as recognised by the SFA) that is not entitled to play in the SPL, simply cannot fall under the SPL’s definition of a Club.
Dundee (the 1st example I gave yesterday) continue to be the same association football club as they have always been. There is no break in their timeline. The point I was making – and I felt was quite clear – is that they no longer meet the conditions to be considered a Club as defined by the SPL Articles and/or Rules.
Rangers FC plc (now RFC2012 plc) as the entity that held membership of the SFA – are no longer operating as an association football club. They are no longer entitled to participate in the SPL. So, it is trite to say that the former association football club now known as RFC2012 plc, no longer meets the requirements to be a Club as defined by the SPL Articles and/or Rules.
TRFC Ltd – the entity that holds membership of the SFA – have never been entitled to participate in the SPL. They are, of course, an association football club; but have never met the qualifying conditions to be Club as defined by the SPL Articles and/or Rules.
bogsdollox says:
June 21, 2013 at 1:25 am
-” He was given a 12 month prison sentence suspended for two years and ordered to serve 200 hours community service…’
——-
And there we have it!
The rank double standards of a capitalist , conman, entrepreneurial , do-your-neighbour- down philosophy, as subscribed to by certain people who try to buy football clubs without spending any of their own money .
A philosophy which now, apparently, is endorsed and shared by those obnoxious wee shites Milliband and him that’s the brother of what’s her name, wendy? , and our very own Jim Murphy.
A philosophy which allows ‘white collar’ criminals to avoid jail, while more’ ordinary’ thieves get sent to the pokey because, perhaps, they falsely claimed a couple of weeks benefit.
I am not in the least a political animal, but there is something desperately wrong in a political culture in which , in 2013, there is no effective challenge to another bunch of crooks who make the untorchable neck of the best administrator in Scottish football look like paper, and the machinations of the SFA look like childish, innocent indiscretions, as they take us back to the 19th century.
john clarke says:
June 21, 2013 at 2:13 am
2
1
Rate This
Quantcast
bogsdollox says:
June 21, 2013 at 1:25 am
-” He was given a 12 month prison sentence suspended for two years and ordered to serve 200 hours community service…’
——-
And there we have it!
***************
And especially on a day where it is becoming apparent I can be arrested for singing along to a cd in my car with no one else able to hear me! As long as I am a football fan of course!
I find it all very strange that it was an excepted fact that football CLUBS could go out of existence ,that is until it happened to Ragers 1872 .
Then all of a sudden they can’t (unless no one buys their good bits and history (stop laughing at the back )and disowns their bad bits .
The bit that really interests me is why a finance guru like CG (and his mystery backers ) would be desperate to pay £8.5m for Ragers when it is quite clear to everyone that they could have just paid £5.5m for the exact same product /club/company/legal entity/non legal entity/figment of our imagination .
As for Celtic fans being in the Ragers fans predicament ,I can only speak for myself but I would hope that whoever launched Celtic 2 would have the grace to recognise the sins of the old club and vow to any supporters prepared to follow the tribute act that those misdeeds would not be repeated .Personally I would know that it was not the same club and I would accept that by looking to the future .
I would understand fans of other clubs would see it as another club and that would be a consequence of the actions the old club had taken .What I would not do is threaten and attempt to browbeat any other club or fans who held the belief that it was a new club .
As I say this is my view and my view only
The quote below is taken from today’s Scotsman and is from Trevor Birch, one of the Hearts Administrators. In the words of the advert for a well know optician group ‘Hearts should have gone to Duff & Phelps’. If they had they may well have been asking the SFA for permission to sign a player and preparing to increase the total debt by a further £4M.
‘….As for the prospect of selling the stadium, Birch admitted it would be beyond his remit to rule it out entirely, but suggested that a deal for club and ground together made more sense. “You would entertain bids for it [the stadium] as a stand-alone as well, because you would then come under attack if you didn’t do that. People would say you hadn’t marketed it properly’
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:37 pm
Gaz says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:04 pm
Sorry Gaz – it was just when I read: ‘Rangers are trying to say it is the same club after it being placed into liquidation and shafting people out of tens of millions of pounds. No one bought the original club, no-one paid off it’s debt. The victims are still there and will get nothing or as near it as makes no difference’.
I look at that comment and know a ‘club’ can’t be placed into liquidation as it isn’t a legal entity and by the same token can’t have any debt either. The operating company had the debt and that is being liquidated.
I have no problem with you stating that Rangers FC is a new club and is not a continuation of the old because that’s your opinion. I think it would actually help your argument if it was factually based and not so easily picked-apart. So get to work fire-proofing it 🙂
But that’s a task for you and not for me. Let me ask you this then: If Celtic were currently in Rangers position would you argue that Celtic had an unbroken history and was still the same club or say it was a new club with no previous history? I will trust you to be honest in your answer.
The thing about Fergus that makes him different isn’t just that he invested money but that he not only changed the bigotry culture but also the financial culture at Parkhead and made Celtic a team fit for a new era. He was a wee crabbit bugger but a giant of a man and younger supporters who never lived through the Family Dynasties will never ever begin to realise just how lucky we were that he picked us out of the gutter because that’s where we were.
The other thing about football creditors being shafted is that day and daily creditors are being shafted by every kind of business – it’s by no means a Rangers or football-specific problem. In fact it might be interesting if there are any figures which shows the total amount of stiffed Scottish creditors and what percentage of that figure is comprised of football debt. That might help set it in some kind of perspective and even more so with a UK figure.
===========================
So ,If i’m reading you right you believe that Sevco is the same club as Rangers (IL) . I have no problem with you having such an opinion,what I really have a problem with is your sarcastic,dismissive responses to other people on here. not everyone has your ability to take a heartfelt comment and drag it into pedantry.
You seem unable to let any opinion that contradicts yours go unanswered.
HP has on many occasions posted the rules and regs so that idiots like me can understand them.
But it seems that no matter how clearly he explains the subject it’s not good enough for you.
In nearly all of your other posts on various subjects I am in agreement with you.
But I find your fixation with the LNS report and decision slightly disturbing,In my humble opinion Sevco and Rangers (IL) are two different clubs,the examples of which are myriad and have been posted on here many many times.
I used to look forward to reading your posts on all matters because I was rather in awe of your intellect, (and many others) now it’s with trepidation.
Your comment above to Gaz was unnecessary and unworthy of you.
Celtic are not in the same position as Sevco,so it’s moot.
But if they were, I like most fans would not be threatening other people,posting names of people who disagee with me ,blaming Everyone except the people responsible.Celtic fans have Proved what it takes to save a club,Sevco fans have proved that they are not worth saving.
I know that my comments are about to be torn to shreds,such is life.
jonnyod says:
June 21, 2013 at 7:15 am
As for Celtic fans being in the Ragers fans predicament
———————————————————————————-
Jonny, in that situation, I would simply just walk away from the ‘glory at any cost’, cheating b*S72rds! My club or not! In fact, I think I would run, never mind walk!
This attitude and behaviour has been strangling our game since the 80’s, and even before that to a
much smaller degree.
We have had an ideal chance to take stock and save our game, but there are too many wanting to
restore all that was sick about the game as soon as they possibly can.
Sickening, shameful, and so, so sad.
smartie1947 says:
June 20, 2013 at 10:53 pm
Re The Glasgow Rangers-supporting contestant on “Pointless” tonight.
Should he not have been on “Game for a Laugh”
————————————————————————————————————————————
I remember seeing him on the “D&P” channel starring with Nicholas Parsons on “Sale of the Century”
I believe CG was in the audience 🙂
I would like to add to my above post that I am a Celtic man, but am equally a supporter of the Scottish game and would love to see it flourish again with many teams having realistic chances of success.
I do not want my team to win every trophy every year although each time they take to the field I am
willing them to do their best.
Scottish football needs strong competition!
Some folks were suggesting a big sell off of shares after the 19-20th of this month. Not a lot happening there. Pre-season camp in Germany, international travels for ‘fund-raising’, new players coming in, shops opening, wages to CG, IA, and the gang, there’s got to be money coming from somewhere to finance this. Don’t know much about ornithology but I’d swear I just saw that rarest of birds, a phoenix, flying high.
How is this possible?
Revealed: SFA chairman Campbell Ogilvie picks up an inflation-busting £33,000 pay rise to take salary to £280k
21 Jun 2013 07:53
AS his former club Hearts struggle to survive, Ogilvie followed fellow SFA chief Stewart Regan in picking up a huge increase to his salary.
CAMPBELL OGILVIE is the latest Scottish football bigwig to pick up an inflation-busting pay rise.
As his former club Hearts struggle for financial survival, it has been revealed the SFA chairman saw his pay packet rise a whopping 13 per cent last year, up £33,267 to £280,425.
Just last month Record Sport revealed SFA chief executive Stewart Regan had been handed a £33,000 pay rise in the year Scottish football descended into financial chaos.
The association’s annual accounts showed Ogilvie trousering a staggering £280,425 salary in 2012 – an inflation-busting increase of 13.5 per cent on his 2011 salary of £247,158.
And SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster pocketed a £28,000 pay rise last year as his salary rose from £172,000 to £200,000 as the company accounts showed a six per cent fall in income from £22.7million to £21.4m.
These huge pay rises have sparked anger among clubs throughout the country who are struggling to make ends meet.
Ogilvie was company secretary at Rangers, another Scottish club who have had financial woes in recent times.
The figures released yesterday showed the SFA has reported a four-fold increase in profit for the 2012 year.
In the financial year to December 31, 2012, their turnover rose nearly three per cent to £33.2m.
Pre-tax profits rose from £278.003 last year to £698,614 and after tax, profits for the year rose to £608,155 against a profit of £143,308 reported for the 2011 year.
This lot are taking the p1ss shirley. Unfeckinbelievable!!! From the Daily Retard
Tic 6709 says:
June 21, 2013 at 7:51 am
19 2 i
Rate This
Excellent post.
I’m just a layman in legal terms, but not in accounting terms, so I can only base my interpretations on my own knowledge and experience – just as others do so well on this site. And what this knowledge tells me is that we misuse the term “club” on a regular basis. Rangers Football Club ceased to be a club the day it was incorporated. Sure; the word “Club” was retained in the name and fans and players and managers speak of the “good of the club” but in real terms the club ceased to be the moment it was incorporated.
(This is not unique to Rangers. Any “club” that has been incorporated ceases to exist as a club regardless of what they call themselves. In simple terms, the club and the company are one and the same.)
So to argue now that the club is not/was not a legal entity is not only disingenious, it simply is not true. I’m glad I’m an accountant and not a lawyer because it means I dont need to wade through tons of legal jargon and clauses to know the truth, The club was the company and the company was the club. It really isn’t that difficult to grasp.
iamacant says:
June 21, 2013 at 8:48 am
This lot are taking the p1ss shirley. Unfeckinbelievable!!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The most unbelievable part of it is this little gem- “These huge pay rises have sparked anger among clubs throughout the country who are struggling to make ends meet.”
That”s a matter of days after an AGM, at which not a single one of these “angry” clubs did anything to stand in the way of the coronation of their “dear leader”, Mr Ogilvie.
You see lots of stuff in the media about North Korea, and what a joke it is. Well the real joke is on us, and a lot closer to home. Especially those of us who contribute as much as a bent penny towards this rapidly escalating farce. I said after the AGM that I was finally finished with Scottish football. The stench of corruption really is unbearable. Not to mention the sickening hypocrisy of our “angry” clubs.
iamacant says:
June 21, 2013 at 8:48 am
1 0 Rate This
Revealed: SFA chairman Campbell Ogilvie picks up an inflation-busting £33,000 pay rise to take salary to £280k
21 Jun 2013 07:53
AS his former club Hearts struggle to survive, Ogilvie followed fellow SFA chief Stewart Regan in picking up a huge increase to his salary.
CAMPBELL OGILVIE is the latest Scottish football bigwig to pick up an inflation-busting pay rise.
As his former club Hearts struggle for financial survival, it has been revealed the SFA chairman saw his pay packet rise a whopping 13 per cent last year, up £33,267 to £280,425.
Just last month Record Sport revealed SFA chief executive Stewart Regan had been handed a £33,000 pay rise in the year Scottish football descended into financial chaos.
The association’s annual accounts showed Ogilvie trousering a staggering £280,425 salary in 2012 – an inflation-busting increase of 13.5 per cent on his 2011 salary of £247,158.
And SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster pocketed a £28,000 pay rise last year as his salary rose from £172,000 to £200,000 as the company accounts showed a six per cent fall in income from £22.7million to £21.4m.
These huge pay rises have sparked anger among clubs throughout the country …
———–
Disgrace. Seems these people have no shame. The only thing that will stop this is all member clubs uniting to protest against these unreal and unjustified levels of pay. Barring that, the paying fans themselves must let their voices be heard, via empty terraces or a massive display of red cards. I don’t see how being on gardening leave during the biggest crisis to hit Scottish football entitles a pay rise fpr EBT Ogilvie. That is money that could have gone to the lower division clubs who feel hard done by due to the reconstruction.
Perhaps an enterprising journalist will ask EBT Ogilvie how these pay rises can be justified at a time of financial cost-cutting? For that amount of money there should at least be a weekly open Q&A with the press, if there isn’t one already.
Danish Pastry says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:08 am
———————
Revealed: SFA chairman Campbell Ogilvie picks up an inflation-busting £33,000 pay rise to take salary to £280k
————————-
Please tell me CO didn’t have to suffer PAYE and NIC on this widow’s mite, like ordinary mortals? That would leave him with only £14K net a month, or a paltry £3,259 per week after tax
Castofthousands says:
June 20, 2013 at 11:49 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:37 pm
“I look at that comment and know a ‘club’ can’t be placed into liquidation as it isn’t a legal entity and by the same token can’t have any debt either.”
You have to remember that when I have been discussing the ‘club’ issue that I have been doing so using my interpretation of the legal position and not giving my personal opinion which is different from my debating stance.
I happen to believe that a ‘club’ in terms of many intangibles isn’t owned by a corporate entity and I speak of things like its history which I believe is held in trust by each succeeding ‘generation’ of fans. It can’t be bought by anyone and it can’t be sold to anyone but forms the bedrock of a club’s culture which extends way beyond on-field activities.
Obviously the songs and chants and even banners are part of that culture and form links not only to the past but to the present and indeed we can see it in action with Salmond’s anti-football legislation. Demonstrations by fans on any issue and the likes of this latest legislation which criminalises only people in Scotland who watch Scottish Football will also become part of ‘club’ culture no matter whether we can defeat the Act or not.
So to me a ‘Club’ is a concept that probably defies a single universal description because it is probably different for every different group of club fans dependent on their historical experiences. But what I am clear of is that a ‘club’ will always survive as long as a football team has supporters and can survive the death of any legal entities which mistakenly believe obscenities such as they can buy or sell a club’s history which they don’t own and never can. All they can be is a part of that history just like the players. But ‘ownership’ is vested in the fans.
You are right to return to how the organisation of football clubs began and developed in a legal sense but the old ‘basics’ remain to this day say in a 5-a-side team comprised of mates who combine to play together bound only by friendship and trust. And unincorporated associations are still alive and well and flourish in all sorts of sports to this day.
And that’s where I think the root of the problems lie in terms of the definition of a ‘club’ in terms of the SFA because its Rule Book is an echo of the past and needs to be brought up-to-date to deal with the complexities of the modern business world and to control the spivs who will use a defective rule book to financially ‘gut’ a football club. If the Rangers debacle has proved anything it’s that proper financial oversight of football clubs is non-existent and is merely a ‘form-received’ tickbox exercise.
Now to return to some of your specific points: You say that you struggle with the concept that a club is not a legal entity and I can accept that because the owners of a football club to keep the fans happy have imbued their ‘club’ with fake power. What they have done is a clever marketing trick to tap-in to that ‘culture’ that I believe is owned by the fans to create the myth that a club is a tangible creation in a commercial sense so as to maximise the income from fans.
I think the knub of your argument is contained in your statement: ‘It is the same entity but holding a different structure. Each of these incarnations will have contracted commercially to conduct their activities’.
In legal terms it isn’t the same entity – It has gone from a bunch of pals rowing on the Clyde to some of them starting to play football and forming a club. So we have an unincorporated association; a private limited company; and a public limited company.
Unfortunately the test you apply re contracting commercially isn’t the one that should be applied. The test is ownership of the company through its shareholding.
The original unincorporated associations were often ‘funded’ especially for start-up costs by public subscription by individuals with an interest in the aims of a particular association although some, like the pie seller, might have seen the business opportunity in gathering a crowd in one spot for a defined period to maximise his pie sales. Btw today’s unincorporated associations haven’t changed that much.
We then move to Ltd companies and originally the directors and shareholders would be local to the club and supporters of it and often had long family traditions associated with it. That slowly changed over the years especially when the realisation struck home of the money to be made from selling grounds in prime locations and just the whole commercial/marketing/sponsorship deals. I needn’t say more as I’m sure you know what I mean.
But the net effect was that that the actual link between lots of owners and shareholders and their clubs began to change and become more commercial rather than being based on the culture of the club and its links to its local community which many used to, not only believe, but actually ‘served’.
To feed the engine of financial ‘success’ the on-field results had to be improved to get into higher leagues for a slice of TV income and also to open the doors to cup runs and European Football. That ‘success’ meant buying better players and paying them more but this was getting beyond the capital which could be raised by a Ltd company.
So the move to listed Plc’s came about and perhaps it truly was the biggest con ever perpetrated on football fans and it still works to this day as evidenced by the Rangers flotation. Fans were given the opportunity to buy shares in their club – but it wasn’t ‘their’ club they actually invested in but usually the Plc holding company of the Ltd operating company of the club which also provided the legal entity through which the ‘club’ transacted its financial affairs. The ‘club’ owns nothing; can’t sell anything and can’t buy anything – not even pies.
Your last para is very important and states: ‘I just cannot see how a football club cannot be a legal entity unless it is unable to engage in commercial contracts’. It is a fact that a football club can’t engage in commercial contracts simply because it isn’t a legal entity and therefore has no legal ability to contract and this role is carried out by the operating company which is invariably Ltd.
As I say the spivs have taken the fan concept of a ‘club’ and rebranded it as a marketing and investment milking machine to extract as much cash as possible to provide as large a return as possible for its investors many of whom are anonymous and live overseas and have absolutely no connection with the ‘club’ as the fans know it. For brevity and simplicity I haven’t dealt with ‘trophy’ owners and the move to de-list Holding Companies from public exchanges and, in any case, they don’t affect the basics.
Now, finally, the CF VAT invoices as proof of the legal capacity of a club. I’m afraid you’ve confused the concept of Rangers Football Club with The Rangers Football Club Plc. Perhaps another way of looking at this, instead of just whether an organisation has ‘legal capacity’ or not, is to consider the legal requirements to register for VAT leaving aside voluntary registration.
Once an organisation reaches a turnover of I think at the moment £79,000 it requires in broad terms to register for VAT. As The Rangers Football Club Plc had in excess of that turnover it registered for VAT. OK so why can’t the Rangers Football Club do the same – well we’re back to the fact that the ‘club’ is a non-legal entity and can’t buy or sell anything which means it can’t have any turnover. To be fair it does get a bit more complex than that.
One of the things that the marketing people who fine-tune the performance of the holding company ‘milking-machine’ is to pick names which are associated very closely with the football club and (The) Rangers Football Club and The Rangers Football Club Plc is a classic of that. I guarantee that most fans are actually ‘blind’ to the mention of ‘Plc’ and would swear blind in a controlled test that all that was there was: ‘The Rangers Football Club’. Often advertising will give prominence to the term ‘Rangers Football Club’ and elsewhere, buried at the bottom in small print will be ‘The Rangers Football Club Plc’.
This word association is a real money spinner for the spivs who use it to mercilessly extract cash from fans by tapping into that deep consciousness inherent in them vis a vis their culture and history of the club. That’s why we get all the nonsense about owners defending the history of the club by preserving their financially ‘precious’ names which are nothing more than a skilful use of psychologically-based marketing techniques employed to play on the heart-strings of supporters and loosen their purse strings.
@DP
“Disgrace. Seems these people have no shame. The only thing that will stop this is all member clubs uniting to protest against these unreal and unjustified levels of pay.”
================================================================
I agree. However, the member clubs had their chance on 11th June at the SFA AGM and looked what happened there. Nothing.
There appears to be no desire from member clubs for change and you have to question why that is.
Maybe they enjoy the drama and secrecy, maybe they all have something to hide. They are all implicated in the infamous 5-way agreement after all.
slimshady61 says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:26 am
3 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:08 am
———————
Revealed: SFA chairman Campbell Ogilvie picks up an inflation-busting £33,000 pay rise to take salary to £280k
————————-
Please tell me CO didn’t have to suffer PAYE and NIC on this widow’s mite, like ordinary mortals? That would leave him with only £14K net a month, or a paltry £3,259 per week after tax
———–
You know Slim, if he was a dynamic leader, speaking for the fans, outing injustice, promoting financial and every other kind of fair play, impartial, a high-profile media guy who fostered respect also beyond our borders, you might think: okay, pay him that because he’s unique and a huge plus for the game. Instead, he’s tainted goods due to his dubious assocation with a tax scam, he’s played a version of kick-the-can that involves him blootering the thing into orbit while he runs for the hills, never to be seen, and appears only on photos as a stuffed suit, or handing over a trophey. Sorry Mr Ogilvie, tell us, what have you done in the past two years that could possibly justify you keeping your job, never mind a huge pay rise?
Pity Craig never recorded his menage a trois with Regan and EBT Ogilvie.
Althetim says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:44 am
3 0 Rate This
@DP
“Disgrace. Seems these people have no shame. The only thing that will stop this is all member clubs uniting to protest against these unreal and unjustified levels of pay.”
================================================================
I agree. However, the member clubs had their chance on 11th June at the SFA AGM and looked what happened there. Nothing.
There appears to be no desire from member clubs for change and you have to question why that is.
Maybe they enjoy the drama and secrecy, maybe they all have something to hide. They are all implicated in the infamous 5-way agreement after all.
———–
In that case, it’s up to the fans.
iamacant says:
June 21, 2013 at 8:48 am
Revealed: SFA chairman Campbell Ogilvie picks up an inflation-busting £33,000 pay rise to take salary to £280k
—————————-
Assuming CO considers himself an honourable man, bear in mind that he will be putting any salary increase towards paying back his EBT money. Unless he has already done so, in which case he could take Chic Young out for at least part of a good night out for that kind of money.
neepheid says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:04 am
You see lots of stuff in the media about North Korea, and what a joke it is. Well the real joke is on us, and a lot closer to home. Especially those of us who contribute as much as a bent penny towards this rapidly escalating farce. I said after the AGM that I was finally finished with Scottish football. The stench of corruption really is unbearable. Not to mention the sickening hypocrisy of our “angry” clubs.
===========================================================
I think most posters on here are well aware of the long term corruption that is destroying our game.
But most I feel keep hoping at some stage the ‘clubs’ will act to stop the rot but I’m afraid the ‘anger’ of the clubs is just some cake served-up to appease their supporters and keep the cash flowing.
We are in the middle of a god-awful recession which shows no signs of ending and everyone – except spivs – are being financially hit hard and finding it harder to justify laying out cash for football. This is a smack in the teeth of ordinary fans and I fear more will walk away.
Timing of course is everything and I wonder how this announcement if made earlier would have affected ST sales – I see a good argument for making future wage announcements say in March and I think that might keep them within the bounds of reality or even inflation. I’m seldom lost for words as many of you know 🙂 But this is nothing short of a scandal.
The more things are going pear-shaped the more we need an overarching organisation to get the fans voice heard and their questions answered. It may be that needs to become our priority or full-time Scottish Football will die.
ecobhoy says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:27 am
0 3 Rate This
====================================
is this statement referring to:
A). Your own definition of a football club? i.e. The cultural entity “owned” by its supporters.
B). The SPL’s definition of a “Club”? According to its Articles & Rules.
D). The LNS Commission? From the determination.
C). The SFA’s definition of an association football club? According to its Articles or Club Licensing Rules.
D). UEFA’s statutes? Multiple sources.
E). Some combination of the above or something else?
You continually repeat the non-legal entity mantra as if it were a generally established fact. I would just like to tie down how this fact has been established in your own mind.
Danish Pastry says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:50 am
Pity Craig never recorded his menage a trois with Regan and EBT Ogilvie.
———————————————————————————————————————–
DP, never say never in the sham that is Scottish football.
Who’s to say CW didn’t record it?
He did have a penchant for these types of japes.
Perhaps CF can enlighten us with something for the weekend.
Re CO’s salary increase
Have said it many times before.
If I recall correctly, in The Wire, when the Barksdale Crew couldn’t get their supply of the good stufff they decided to repackage the product in the hope that the addicts would think they were getting something new when in fact it was the same old same old.
Football fans are addicts. They will put up with all sorts of crap to get their fix. And like drug dealers those at the top just get richer and richer.
From being highly compromised and living in a cave, to predicting social unrest, to publicly dissing their own product to TV companies and not to forget all the numerous ‘final once and for all take or leave it deals because this is the only solution’, the Three Stoogies at the SFA and SPL must be pissing their pants that they can get away with such nonesense when at the same time telling us they are all in favour of transperancy..
Your clubs are equally culpable, especially those where directors and owners are working hard to cut costs and run the club in a viable and sustainable manner but sit back and say nothing.
And of course until there is a major protest or withdrawl of support by the fans then this will just continue.
All clubs need the cash but a major fan protest is required to get the message across that this has to stop.
However being addicts the vast majority are too blind to see what is happening and are happy to be fed a diet of poor quality product because, to the addict, that is better than nothing at all.
Danish Pastry says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:08 am
The only thing that will stop this is all member clubs uniting to protest against these unreal and unjustified levels of pay.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They were all sat in the same room less than two weeks ago, for their AGM/Coronation of Ogilvie bash. Not even one of our 42 clubs did anything to spoil the party, so anyone who believes that the clubs, all or any of them, are angry, really needs to take a reality check, in my opinion. This is classic deflection strategy. The clubs are entirely and unanimously happy with what has gone on at Hampden over the last 2 years. That is crystal clear. However they know very well that their fans are very unhappy with the situation, so they plant a little puff piece in the papers to indicate that the clubs are “angry”, so that their fans think it isn’t their club to blame. Talk about being taken for mugs. They really do think the fans are complete idiots. Our clubs, all of them, are highly delighted with the performance of Ogilvie and Regan (aka Peter Brady). Hence the mega pay rises. It’s just as simple as that.
If the stories are true about the state of the asbestos problem at Ibrox are true and have been known for quite a while then are we seeing here a case of turning a blind eye down Govan Way or should we expect an announcement soon ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22989353
please excuse the grammar in my last post, meant to take out “are true”
HirsutePursuit says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:54 am
3 0 Rate This
ecobhoy says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:27 am
0 3 Rate This
====================================
is this statement referring to:
A). Your own definition of a football club? i.e. The cultural entity “owned” by its supporters.
B). The SPL’s definition of a “Club”? According to its Articles & Rules.
C). The LNS Commission? From the determination.
D). The SFA’s definition of an association football club? According to its Articles or Club Licensing Rules.
E). UEFA’s statutes? Multiple sources.
F). Some combination of the above or something else?
You continually repeat the non-legal entity mantra as if it were a generally established fact. I would just like to tie down how this fact has been established in your own mind.
Edited for correctness: When are we going to have an edit facility 🙂 🙂
Danish Pastry says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:50 am
———————————-
You’re right of course DP – it IS a lot of money for sitting in a big room on the 6th floor of Hampden, with the blinds drawn, head on the desk, waiting for the sound of Darryl’s padded footsteps coming along the corridor with news of the latest comments from TSFM and carrying a batch of brown envelopes from HRMC with CO’s name writ large….
There but for the grace of God……
Scottish FA @ScottishFA 5m
To clarify story in today’s @Daily_Record totally incorrect. President’s salary is £20k not £280k as reported.Apology expected in print tmrw
@ Ecobhoy
I always think that your posts in the morning have a different feel around them to the ones that you post much later at night. You do spend an awful lot of time on here for one man. Maybe you just ain’t a morning person or heaven forbid someone has you guys working shifts.
TW says:
June 21, 2013 at 10:15 am
0 0 Rate This
Scottish FA @ScottishFA 5m
To clarify story in today’s @Daily_Record totally incorrect. President’s salary is £20k not £280k as reported.Apology expected in print tmrw
======================================================
I did wonder about this figure of £280k. I had understood the position of President to the equivalent of non-executive Chairman.
Perhaps they’re not just as mad as we’d feared. 🙂
£20k seems about right.
It’s all so confusing.
Here’s what I’ve gleaned from reading on here over the past few days.
That the Third Lanark side playing at Glasgow amateur level is the same club as that was declared bankrupt and liquidated in 1967.
http://www.third-lanark.co.uk/
That recently admitted to the Lowland League Edinburgh City is the same club which was wound up in 1955, before taking over Postal United’s place in the East of Scotland system in1986. No mention of those events on their website though.
http://www.edinburghcityfc.com/history.html
That the Govan police station based Police Scotland Football Co-ordination Unit, FoCUS, has a confused view of the football supporting fraternity, evidence provided by Sheriff Kenneth Hogg: “I wasn’t impressed by their suggestion that Dundee United is a sectarian club. I’ve never heard that before in my life and the officer was trying to create that impression.”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/bigotry-law-setback-as-fan-cleared-of-abusing-footballer.21389670
That the worse you do your job, the better chance of a massive pay rise, this if you are an administrator in Scottish football. Confirmation is CO’s stipend increase, to match SR and ND.
http://www.business7.co.uk/business-news/company-results-and-forecasts/2013/06/20/scottish-football-association-posts-four-fold-profit-rise-106408-23986307/
That no matter the amount of material provided by CF, the SMSM won’t investigate and continues to delay the inevitable relying on press releases from approved sources.
https://twitter.com/CharlotteFakes
And it’s presently very quiet over Ibrox way.
HirsutePursuit says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:54 am
3 0 Rate This
ecobhoy says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:27 am
0 3 Rate This
====================================
…..
You continually repeat the non-legal entity mantra as if it were a generally established fact. I would just like to tie down how this fact has been established in your own mind.
———————————————
Your doing better than me HP, I’ve simply stopped reading ecobhoys posts. Reading the same circular argument was getting tedious for me.
briggsbhoy says:
June 21, 2013 at 10:04 am
————————————
I am sceptical about the asbestos stories on Ibrox. Three of the four stands were built after asbestos was outlawed for construction purposes, so that only leaves the main stand and it was completely revamped 20 years ago. I would have thought it unlikely that the matter would not have been dealt with at that time.
I do though place credence in what CF referred to last night, and that is the state of the roofs of the three newer stands.
It seems these are now riddled with rust, to an extent where workmen are no longer to be permitted to walk on them for the purposes of carrying out repairs. If that is the case, then it is only a matter of time before the council has to consider whether or not these stands can continue to be given a safety certificate.
Sadly there have already been three, serious fatal accidents at Ibrox in its history (which unlike the club is an unbroken one), a fourth accident might seem like carelessness.
Surely whoever erected these iconic constructions didn’t skimp on the materials, did they?
And another thing: see how fast the SFA have acted when they saw a ‘wrong’ (ie Campbell’s payment) which they thought reflected badly on them. A couple of hours!
Compare and contrast to their inaction on other matters……………………..
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/legal-entity.html
An association, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, trust, or individual that has legal standing in the eyes of law. A legal entity has legal capacity to enter into agreements or contracts, assume obligations, incur and pay debts, sue and be sued in its own right, and to be held responsible for its actions.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/entity
A real being; existence. An organization or being that possesses separate existence for tax purposes. Examples would be corporations, partnerships, estates, and trusts. The accounting entity for which accounting statements are prepared may not be the same as the entity defined by law.
Entity includes corporation and foreign corporation; not-for-profit corporation; profit and not for-profit unincorporated association; Business Trust, estate, partnership, trust, and two or more persons having a joint or common economic interest; and state, U.S., and foreign governments.
If the roofs are in such a bad state how on earth did they get a safety certificate to allow the death defying squaddies to perform last year?
If the reports that Uefa didn’t add Derry City’s co efficient points from the oldco to the newco are true, then I thimk the “same” club nonsense can be put to bed.
It might be wise for Platini to order in the tin hats and sandbags in anticipation of the inevitable backlash from the peepil.
Then again the bears could easily look at the Articles of Incorporation and save themselves the bus fare to Switzerland.
slimshady61 says:
June 21, 2013 at 10:41 am
Is it not ironic that the arena subsidized for all these years with MIH money derived from taxpayers and bank depositors is falling apart due to rust. Don’t know who built Ibrokes originally in the 1980’s, but MIH you would think of all companies would have been checking the structures in order to replace them at a huge profit for themselves as usual – as they did with the Club deck!