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?
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 17m
Not quite the way it was portrayed in the press. A demonstration of how not to manage.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149245905/No-Respect …
Duplesis says:
June 21, 2013 at 8:19 pm
0 0 Rate This
@HirsutePursuit on 20/6/13 at 3:03pm
Thanks for that – the position in terms of the April 2010 Articles and the Companies Act 1985 is pretty much as I expected, although I couldn’t be bothered to check!
@HirsutePursuit on 20/6/13 at 3:48pm
=========================================================
I take your post on trust as genuine; Perhaps you have been influenced by what ecobhoy has attributed to me; but in my response I have to correct (again) some of the things you say I have said. I do hope that the similarity with ecobhoy’s MO is simply coincidental.
You referenced my post of June 20, 2013 at 3:48 pm. I reproduce the first part of it here for clarity.
For additional clarity:
Any reference I make to “Club” is the entity that is defined by the SPL’s Articles and/or Rules.
Any reference to “association football club” is a generic term – which I take to be the entity described as a “club” in the SFA Articles
DUPLESES
I agree with you; but I’m not sure how this statement is reflected in what I said. What I actually said is that the owner & operator is a constituent part of a Club
DUPLESES
As I said, my interpretation is that “undertaking = body corporate = Owner & operator” and “When the undertaking/body corporate/owner & operator holds a share in the SPL then it is also a Member”. And, once again,” that the owner & operator is a constituent part of a Club”
DUPLESES
You would have to tell me more about why you think it is inappropriate to use a Companies Act definition to help describe a company’s shareholders. It seems perfectly logical to me; but perhaps you have some additional information. I take into account that SPL Article 3 recognises there are two possible forms of an association football club: “A reference in these Articles to a person includes a body corporate and an unincorporated body of persons,”. The use of the term “undertaking” seems an obvious & deliberate construction which allows the SPL’s definition of a Club to apply to either form.
DUPLESES
Agreed. The current incarnation have never been a Club. The previous incarnation ceased to be a Club when they ceased to operate as an association football club.
DUPLESES
I look forward to reading it.
am aff tae ma lurcher ….goodnight trollbhoys ,,,,and goodnight to “The Lady of Shallot” more good views from your looking glass tomorrow …
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 2m
Rookie mistakes. How not to manage yet again. A disciplinary event in most workplaces.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149252424/Rookie-Mistakes …
goodnight lass…..
I’ve been a Celtic fan for 55 years and have never ever supported another team. Ostensibly because of my interpretation of the law/rules on the definition of a ‘club’ I have come under a sustained attack from a group of fellow posters.
That’s fine and I am prepared to fight my corner on that but it has gone much further than that and I have been accused of lying about being a Celtic supporter and have been accused that my sign-on is a front for more than one poster.
The latest attack on me suggests I am in league with another poster or possibly that I actually am that poster because he/she also deviates from the club ‘line’ that appears to be the only one acceptable to a coterie of posters on here. I have my views and will try and explain them and will also probe opposing views but I have never and will never oppose the right of anyone else to hold and expound their views.
I have never ever seen another poster subjected to this kind of personal attack. I post on a variety of topics and try to be reasonable in tone and objective in my viewpoint and attempt to answer every post addressed to me.
I am a believer in Free Speech but with that IMO comes responsibility and those who are attacking me should carefully consider their actions in that regard.
Rest assured, my detractors will not prevent me from continuing to contribute to this blog to aid its attempts to provide positive support for Scottish Football in general. As always I am happy to engage in discussion about my views with any poster who is receptive to debating issues without feeling the need to mount a personal attack.
Which characteristic of a club exists separatly from the company and vice versa?
@HirsutePursuit @10:08pm
I don’t think I’m being influenced at all by anything ecobhoy has attributed to you, but I may not be making my point particularly well.
To clarify, I’m not looking at all at the definition of club within the SFA Articles, nor am I looking at the definition of club within the SPL rules. I’m looking at the definition of club within the SPL Articles, because it is that definition which you say needs to be determined by reference to the 2006 Act, since the Articles define Club as the undertaking of an association football club.
To further clarify, I’m not saying that you expressly equated club, owner and operator of club and member as the same thing under the SPL Articles. What I’m saying is that I think it is an inevitable consequence of how you are interpreting these terms that they mean the same thing.
Because of that, I’m saying that I don’t think your interpretation can be correct, because we are entitled to assume (and indeed it is a rule of interpretation that we should assume) that a drafter would not use 2 (or indeed 3) different terms for what is the same thing in a single document.
To go back to the start of this discussion, I noted that Article 4 provided that the references to definitions within the 2006 Act were not to be applied where the context otherwise required. In my original post I noted that the outcome of your interpretation was that the SPL’s members would not be the Club’s company, but the owners of the Club’s company, which would appear to mean the share holders. This was because a Member has to be an owner and operator of a Club, and if Club=company, then owners of Club = company’s shareholders.
I did not think that could be the drafter’s intention and I suggested that was a basis upon which LNS could come to the view that, in context, it did not make sense to use the 2006 Act’s definition of “undertaking” as meaning “body corporate,” and therefore he could depart from the 2006 Act definition.
You then responded that, because the SPL rules provide that “club” includes “owners and operators of club”, that objection could be addressed – the owners and operators of the club could thereby be subsumed within the reference to Club, and so owners and operators would mean the company and not its shareholders.
I noted however that the SPL rules aren’t relevant to interpretation of the SPL Articles, since the Articles don’t allow for the use of the Rules as an aid to interpretation, and since as a generality we can’t use the definitions in one document to aid in interpretation of another. In my view therefore, we can’t use that provision in support of the interpretation you propose.
In my view therefore, my original objection to the interpretation you propose still stands.
Moreover, and as a separate argument why I think your interpretation must be wrong – I suggest that an interpretation which results in 3 different terms within the Articles having the same meaning might reasonably be objected to because of the above rule of interpretation. I’m suggesting in consequence that LNS might well have been entitled on this other ground to come to the view that the context did require a departure from the 2006 Act’s definitions.
Indeed, just by looking at the various provisions within the Articles which refer to owners and operators of clubs, as opposed to just clubs, LNS might have been entitled to come to the view that, in context, “Club” cannot have been intended to be the same thing as “owner and operator of a Club” – otherwise why the distinction? Why not just refer to Club throughout?
This, I think, is a “get out” from the strict interpretation of “undertaking” as body corporate that you propose – it has a consequence which doesn’t make sense, and/or conflicts with the normal rules of interpretation of documents. You might not agree, but I suggest there are rational grounds upon which LNS might have thought it was appropriate to depart from the use of the 2006 Act as an aid to interpretation.
I therefore don’t agree that LNS was wrong, nor do I think he missed the point you are making – I think he just disregarded it as having a nonsensical result.
I don’t think the reference to the Companies Act was intended as an aid to interpreting the nature of a club. I think that the reference to the 2006 Act as a guide to interpretation is there because it is included in Company Articles as a matter of course. It is generally useful to be able to refer to statutory definitions when interpreting a company’s rules and procedures. It’s obvious that it is a good thing for “shareholder” or “associated company” (for example) to mean the same thing in the Articles as it does in the Companies Act.
I don’t think it was ever anticipated that a reference to the Companies Act might be made to define what an undertaking is, because I think that the drafter simply intended that word to have its usual meaning of “business.” I think that’s what LNS thought too, and I think that to impose the 2006 Act’s definition of undertaking results in an interpretation which doesn’t – in context – make sense.
I wonder if Mr Greig would like to comment on Jack Irvines comment on him …. #Thick
Worth a try …..
must find his media pages ….
Opportunities to get any of the parties involved to comment should be taken ….
Once they comment …. even a denial ….. makes them ‘fair game’ for press …..
It is strange that mankind has been searching endlessly for the secret to eternal life ,when all you have to do is call yourself the ragers football club plc and bobs your uncle
Now who would have thought that ?
T’Rangers UEFA profile page… http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50121/profile/index.html…
Last updated on 26th Jan 2011.
Sure sign they’re a deid club.
How many squirrels can dance on the head of a pin?
Two posters have had posting rights suspended for unacceptable abuse of another poster.
I say suspended, but I really hope they stay away for good.
I have also removed another post or two where the offending material was quoted.
Please stay respectful; and if the only way you can counter argument is to question another poster’s provenance – especially one with a long history of contribution, you just lost the argument.
I am not taking sides here in terms of that argument, and in fact its merits are irrelevant in this context, but I do commend the poster who was the subject of abuse for his temperance, and our apologies for not stepping in earlier.
To Ecobhoy:
I disagree with one of the fundamental points you raise but right or wrong in our assertions, the argument is always won when the others resort to abuse.
A favourite line of my friends is to state that I “am just a pedantic wee fecker”, that does not make my point any less correct, just means I am a pain in the butt trying to explain why I believe I am correct based on logic and all the facts presented to me.
Keep up the good work!
HirsutePursuit says:
June 21, 2013 at 10:08 pm
” I take into account that SPL Article 3 recognises there are two possible forms of an association football club: “A reference in these Articles to a person includes a body corporate and an unincorporated body of persons,”.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have followed this debate with interest, but haven’t contributed so far,mainly because it is difficult to add anything meaningful to such a detailed deconstruction of the rulebook. However the above statement caught my eye. Surely Article 3 does not contemplate only 2 forms of club organisation. Certainly a “person” must, in normal language, include a natural person, i.e. an individual? That is certainly how it is construed in the Taxes Acts.
In this whole club/company debate, I have never seen it mentioned that there is nothing to stop an individual buying a club in his/her own name and running it as a sole trader.
I appreciate that it is a very unlikely scenario at a major club , but it would be feasible for a small club with about 30 employees. Plenty of other businesses that size are run directly by individuals with no corporate “wrapper”.
In such a case, the owner has a business bank account, usually in the form Joe Bloggs say, trading as Fantasy Football Club. He owns or rents the stadium personally. He holds the player registrations and the SFA membership, he pays the wages and probably cuts the grass himself.
Let’s say that Joe Bloggs walks under the team bus one saturday and dies on the spot. He has a will leaving everything to his son, wee Jimmy Bloggs. What happens to the “club”? Isn’t that a question worth asking? Or too hypothetical? Are there any known historical examples of a football club being owned and run by an individual in that way?
And finally, well done TSFM. I for one have no interest in any forum where an unpopular opinion, clearly, logically and politely expressed, results in the kind of abuse that was being directed at Echobhoy- a poster whom I have often disagreed with, by the way- totally politely, I hope,
Scottish Billionaire from Motherwell … Skint
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/fresh-blow-for-craig-whyte-as-liquidator-steps-in.21411612
selfassessor says:
June 22, 2013 at 12:16 am
18 2 Rate This
T’Rangers UEFA profile page… http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50121/profile/index.html…
Last updated on 26th Jan 2011.
Sure sign they’re a deid club.
…………………………………………..
Gretna remained on the UEFA web site until their coef expired…which was 3 years after their liquidation…
Secondly…Derry City have 2 seperate coef…listed 1 for the old club and 1 for the new club…
selfassessor says:
June 22, 2013 at 12:16 am
……………………………….
That link is no longer available?
ecobhoy says:
June 21, 2013 at 11:18 pm
———————————
Ecobhoy, just when you thought you were ploughing a loan furrow, along comes @alextomo to support you regarding LNS –
“alex thomson @alextomo 24m In RFC case it was ruled that making good players cheaper conferred no sporting advantage. A judgement some see as perverse.”
Unless of course you, Ecobhoy, are Alex Thomson 🙂
Good morning,In my reply to ecobhoy early this morning i’m afraid I went too far.I wish to apologize to him and to anyone else who may have been offended.
UEFA link –
navigate to teams beginning with R.
oooooff
http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/index.html
For a little balance, it’s still there if you look,
http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50121/profile/index.html
neepheid says:
June 22, 2013 at 8:31 am
“Let’s say that Joe Bloggs walks under the team bus one saturday and dies on the spot. He has a will leaving everything to his son, wee Jimmy Bloggs. What happens to the “club”?”
——————
Neepheid, I think the debate does need to be zoomed out from to appreciate what the final objective is. I am guarded to get involved in the detail since being embroiled in an unwinnable argument does not move us forward. Although I acknowledge your necessary simplification of the scenario it does allow for a simple response.
If the club sole trader owner steps out in front of the team bus and is killed, the club can indeed pass to his son as decreed by his last will and testament. If however the sole trader owner becomes bankrupt and all his assets are disposed of, his son will not inherit anything.
newtz says:
June 22, 2013 at 9:48 am
Rate This
Scottish Billionaire from Motherwell … Skint
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/fresh-blow-for-craig-whyte-as-liquidator-steps-in.21411612
Martin Williams piece steadfastly refusing to mention the ‘Liquidation’ word. Also. Does this now mean that the Club AND The holding company will now be in Liquidation?
Tic 6709 says:
June 22, 2013 at 10:30 am
__________________________________________
Thanks for that.
Tic 6709 has also posted on the comments moderation thread, a sticky post which will allow people to comment on moderation issues whilst not clogging up the main blog.
Comments Moderation Thread
EDIT. refusing to mention the ‘Liquidation’ word respect to TRFC.
Let us remember why this club vs company debate was reignited. It was due to the BBC’s decision to cite the LNS enquiry finding when arriving at their own judgement as how the BBC would report the distinction between old and new Rangers. BBC stated that the LNS distinction between club and company had no basis in company law.
If the FTT tribunal returns a verdict that finds that Rangers are due to pay outstanding tax for the EBT scheme, who will pay. Will it be Rangers, or will it be Rangers.
The BBC obviously have to distinguish between the two forms of the club to allow their viewers to make sense of the information being reported. Rangers fans may well wish to reclaim the spirit of their club but to attempt to subvert the English language to make this a seamless transistion is clearly preposterous.
Many if not most have deep misgivings concerning the outcome of the LNS enquiry. The law is often expedient and verdicts are forged by the environment in which they were cast. If the law was infallable, there would be no requirement to have an appeal process. If the BBC wish to disregard the LNS decision to allow them to report the facts in a simple and coherent manner, then that is a decision I can easily understand.
Courtesy of James Forrest:
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/the-land-of-the-blind/
slimshady61 says:
June 22, 2013 at 10:13 am
ecobhoy says:
June 21, 2013 at 11:18 pm
———————————
Ecobhoy, just when you thought you were ploughing a loan furrow, along comes @alextomo to support you regarding LNS –
“alex thomson @alextomo 24m In RFC case it was ruled that making good players cheaper conferred no sporting advantage. A judgement some see as perverse.” Unless of course you, Ecobhoy, are Alex Thomson 🙂
———————————————————————————————————————-
I wish 🙂
The huge problem when examining the LNS Decisions is that we don’t have a transcript of the proceedings nor sight of the written productions or even the full statements made by the Counsel. And, possibly importantly, we don’t have the 5-way Agreement which was part of the evidence.
So, in a sense, we are looking the wrong way through a legal telescope which doesn’t aid perception or understanding.
The problem of course with Sporting Advantage is that it is embedded in the game right from the day it began. There, as far as I know, has never been an effective set wage structure nor a wage spend limit as you see in some American sports. Effectively this means that wealthier clubs can gain a Sporting Advantage by being able to afford to buy better players and pay them higher wages. Obviously the new financial fair play regulations might help narrow the gap but it remains to be seen how easily they will be subverted or circumvented in practice.
So – leaving aside the new regs for now – Sporting Advantage of itself is not illegal and not banned by the rules of the game in the normal sense. I have always been highly critical of the SPL preparation and presentation of the case they put before LNS and it appeared to me doomed to failure – even before the Bryson intervention – but whether that was intentional or just pathetically poor professionalism on the part of some people I don’t know.
Even so, the SPL should have overseen the preparations and spotted the yawning gaps in their case. It’s a fair point to ponder whether this was also a lack of professionalism or whether darker motives were at work.
But at the end of the day, for whatever reason, the SPL didn’t provide any evidence before LNS of a Sporting Advantage for Rangers being created by the EBTs which just beggars belief because that would have a knock-on effect on the application of sporting sanctions. For other reasons we didn’t get there but I think most of us know the pros and cons of that argument.
I have never seen the point of any appeal to the SFA on the LNS Decision and would prefer a Judicial Review but even then I have doubts as to its udefulness. In any case I see no appetite on the part of the Football Authorities to re-open the case and they obviously hope the LNS ramifications will quietly slip away as we move into reconstruction.
It is an interesting discussion on whether or not a “club” can exist in and of itself, separate from a “company”. Whether there can be a “holding company” relationship with the club able to survive the holding company dying.
In the case of Rangers it is largely irrelevant. As someone pointed out the other night, Rangers did have a holding company, it was Wavetower (The Rangers Group).
It is Rangers, the Ltd company, the club, which is being liquidated and will be wound up. Wavetower held the majority of the shares, no more than that. Equally it could have been a private individual who held that many shares. It really wouldn’t make any difference. Individual Rangers supporters who held shares are not being liquidated, they have simply lost their investment. Wavetower simply held a large amount.
Rangers, the club/company/plc is being liquidated because they failed to agree a CVA. The holding company being liquidated myth is specious revisionism. RIFC PLC / TRFC Ltd, the way it is set up now is a great analogy. IF RIFC (holding company) is liquidated the club can survive, if TRFC (the club) is liquidated the club is dead.
Wavetower did not die, Rangers did.
Castofthousands says:
June 22, 2013 at 10:43 am
6 0 Rate This
neepheid says:
June 22, 2013 at 8:31 am
If the club sole trader owner steps out in front of the team bus and is killed, the club can indeed pass to his son as decreed by his last will and testament. If however the sole trader owner becomes bankrupt and all his assets are disposed of, his son will not inherit anything.
++++++++++
That’s a good point, and much more relevant than my rather silly attempt at simplification. But it raises a further question. In a bankruptcy scenario, wouldn’t a receiver in bankruptcy be appointed, with the power to sell the whole thing as a going concern to some interested party?
Can we clear this up, again.
LNS ruled that Rangers had broken the rules over a protracted period.
The issue is with the punishment.
Lord Nimmo Smith(‘s commission) ruled that Rangers had deliberately not disclosed the information. How people can perceive that is some sort of victory, legal or moral, is beyond me. An independent commission presided over by a senior judge, ruled that Rangers had broken the rules over a protracted period. The media and Rangers fans portraying that as a victory is bizarre.
neepheid says:
June 22, 2013 at 8:31 am
==========================================
Article 3 simply says that a “reference in these Articles to a person includes a body corporate and an unincorporated body of persons,”
Of course, in the appropriate context a reference to a person can also mean a natural person.
My point was in relation to the context of a “person” who is the “owner & operator” or a “person” who is a SPL “Members” – ie the holder of a (SPL) share.
Because all association football clubs that have ever participated in the SPL are incorporated, in practice, the references are all to the “body corporate”. Article 3 simply acknowledges the (remote) possibility that an association football club that is entitled to participate in the SPL may be in the form of an unincorporated body of persons.
Personally, I think the fundamental concept of a “sole trader club” would be a bit of an oxymoron. I’m not aware that it is concept that the SFA have ever had to deal with; nor something the SPL would have considered.
If anyone knows different, I’m open to be made better informed.
Tic 6709 says:
June 22, 2013 at 10:30 am
Good morning,In my reply to ecobhoy early this morning i’m afraid I went too far.I wish to apologize to him and to anyone else who may have been offended.
=================================================
Thanks for that – actually I wasn’t upset by your remarks – I felt some weren’t fully justified but we’re all human and all capable of blowing off steam and I am no shrinking violet either. At the end of the day this is a football-based blog and if there were no deep emotions at work then it would be a poorer place.
We’re all here because we care passionately about football and I hope that encompasses the broader context of Scottish Football as a whole and not just our own individual clubs.
ecobhoy says:
June 22, 2013 at 11:38 am
Tic 6709 says:
June 22, 2013 at 10:30 am
=============
Cheers ecobhoy, You’re right about the passion,sometimes it can be a bit misplaced (by me).
Back to sparring then.
Re the 150k+ roof repairs ,do you think there would be any roofing company willing to take on a contract of this size without payment up front,after all ,big Rab has already been stung from that neck of the woods by Whytey ,I wonder if he has been paid the money the court ordered Whytey to pay him ,doubt it,this could get interesting in how they will get this work done ,are they also not due works relating to the Commonwealth games next year,I think some of the bears might need to offer their skills to do a hommer,of course this will be tax free
Gaz says:
June 22, 2013 at 11:35 am
Can we clear this up, again. LNS ruled that Rangers had broken the rules over a protracted period.
The issue is with the punishment. Lord Nimmo Smith(‘s commission) ruled that Rangers had deliberately not disclosed the information. How people can perceive that is some sort of victory, legal or moral, is beyond me. An independent commission presided over by a senior judge, ruled that Rangers had broken the rules over a protracted period. The media and Rangers fans portraying that as a victory is bizarre.
======================================================================
I think the answer to your point, which I fully agree with, predates the actual Evidence Hearing of LNS let alone the issue of the Decision.
We had a situation, which I believe was skilfully created by a PR Campaign, whereby the SMSM was in full cry about the stripping of titles as if it was the only sanction available and all accompanied by threats from Ibrox and supporters that the titles would never be stripped or else.
All attention was deliberately focused on the ‘Titles’ and virtually nothing said about the other – I think 12/13 sanctions – and also the ‘wild card’ that LNS could impose a sanction of his choice which wasn’t in the rule book.
What worried the spivs IMO wasn’t the loss of titles because they cared nothing about the history of the club just the money to be ‘milked’ from it. What terrified them was expulsion from football – permanent or temporary – or heavy financial penalties.
So eventually we had LNS – handing down what was actually a damning judgement against oldco Rangers – that could be ignored by the SMSM who basically ran with the ‘victory’ story that Titles hadn’t been stripped. This was enthusiastically received by the Bears who had already been roused to fever pitch by many of their bloggers who I thought at the time were part of the PR campaign. Some of the recent CF revelations have provided insights into how the Bears and their opinion forming bloggers were actually willingly manipulated by the PR machine.
And, of course, the beauty about the PR campaign was that the SMSM could report the ‘victory’ as one actually won by them as they had opposed the stripping of titles. And there’s little a media outlet prizes more than running a successful campaign. The fact it was actually a PR campaign was lost on the SMSM who continued supping the lamb.
I accept it as a fact of life that people who get into positions of power sometimes become intoxicated by it and it can be a short step to corruption. One of our biggest defences against this is a free, questioning and fearless media. We simply don’t have that in Scotland except in a few isolated pockets which tend to be outwith the SMSM.
Duplesis says:
June 22, 2013 at 12:01 am
=====================================
Please re-read my post @ June 21, 2013 at 10:08 pm
Your post once again (for the third time) is based on a counter argument that I have not made.
To meet the SPL definition of a Club – according to its articles – there are 3 constituent parts:
Undertaking
Association football club
Entitlement to participate in the SPL
In practice, because all association football clubs that have participated in the SPL have been incorporated:
An SPL Club is a company that is a football club that is entitled to play in the SPL
That is my reading of the articles as they are written.
Folks
I think we are beginning to win the battle. I see Mark Hateley is now blaming the SFA for much of our game’s problems. Now Hateley is not exactly a great thinker but he has access to non bloggers and his DR article (can someone post the link please) takes SFA culpability into the mainstream.
I wrote about two of the issues Hately mentions a couple of years ago
http://celticunderground.net/index.php/multimedia/?option=com_content&view=article&id=693:sfa-reform-one-down-three-to-go&catid=45:season-2010-2011&Itemid=80&fontstyle=f-smaller
and good to see voices ( even Hateley’s) being raised )from the football fraternity rather than bloggers. This is the 3rd reference to SFA culpability I have seen or heard this week in the mainstream.
The failure to apply the club licensing rules has been obvious to anyone who has had a look. A prime example being the granting of the UEFA licence in 2011 to Rangers. The Charlotte Fakeover leaks show not only the rules were not applied but the SFA with Regan as spokesperson misled the footballing public when questions were asked and this will all come out in due course.
Maybe that explains the sudden change of heart ( if Regan is to be believed which is of course a giant leap of faith) but the signs are encouraging that the SFA are wakening up to the need to address a fundamental issue.
So far they have acted as if nothing serious had taken place and this is the first sign they are getting the message.
@HirsutePursuit @12:04pm
My post does not make a counter to an argument you have not made – it is showing the inevitable consequence(s) – as I see them – of the argument you do make.
My contention is that those consequences can’t have been the intention of the drafter, and that’s why LNS probably saw fit to depart from the use of the 2006 Act as an aid to interpretation of “undertaking” where it is used in the Articles.
I say it again – what I’m looking at is the use of the word “undertaking” in the Articles, nothing else. Since a central basis of your argument is that LNS erred by failing to treat “undertaking” as meaning “body corporate,” when construing the provision that a club is the undertaking of an association football club, if you are wrong about that, then your argument has a flaw.
I take it you do accept that the argument that LNS should have read “undertaking” as “body corporate” is a central part of your criticism of his decision? If you don’t, then I’ve entirely misunderstood your position.
Assuming you do accept that though, I’m saying that if we adopt that interpretation and apply it to the Articles, we end up with either:
(1) the owners and operators of a club, and thus the SPL members, being the club’s company’s shareholders, which can’t have been intended to be the case; or
(2) If we are able to refer to the SPL Rules as an aid to interpretation (which I in any event say we aren’t), 3 separately defined terms within the Articles meaning the same thing, which I again say can’t have been intended to be the case.
(I take it that you do agree that you did suggest that the SPL rules allow us to treat the word “club” where it appears within the Articles as encompassing “owners and operators of a club”? Again, if you didn’t then I’ve misunderstood your position. If you did though, then I think the use of the Rules in this way is flawed.)
I’m saying that because the consequences of the interpretation you propose can’t have been intended, LNS was probably correct to ignore the 2006 Act definitions, since the interpretation Article specifically allows him to do so if the context otherwise requires.
Bob Cobb says:
June 21, 2013 at 8:51 am
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
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
====================================================================
I realise your post centred round the ‘Club’ issue but I was particularly caught by the two statements I have noted above and particularly the second one.
It took me back to the FTTT decision on Rangers v. HMRC. The two legally qualified tribunal members gave their majority decision in favour of Rangers based on an analysis of the law as interpreted by them.
The dissenting minority opinion came from Dr Poon an accountant and tax specialist who although also using legal arguments took a broader approach in terms of applying and interpreting the law in terms of what had actually happened in practice wrt to the EBTs.
She also appeared to give much more credence to the voluminous written evidence in determining what actually happened as opposed to the witness statements on which the majority decision appeared to be more based.
So I think the appeal to the UTT by HMRC could actually be very interesting in terms of what approach is supported. It has always seemed a bit curious that the majority decision was very short in terms of the much longer minority opinion and that nothing was recorded in the majority decision to refute any of Dr Poon’s opinions.
Personally – in view of the ‘rehearsing’ of the witnesses which is allowed – I have always felt that Poon took the right approach and that the realities of what actually happened were much more important to finding the ‘truth’ than the rehearsed recollections of witnesses, also involved in the EBTs in various way, a number of years previously.
Gaz 11:35
You are of course perfectly correct ,They were found guilty on ALL four charges .Where they see their perverse victory is that they were allowed to keep their UTTERLY TAINTED titles thanks to S Brysons evidence .
Is this the same S Bryson who was at the centre of the Farrygate scandal and after Farry gave evidence and was ripped a new one the defence decided that Bryson should not be put under similar questioning .
Make of that what you will
Just asked @alextomo what the legal difference was between the GCHQ leaks and CF’s stuff. Still waiting for an answer.
Gaz says:
June 22, 2013 at 11:26 am
Rangers, the club/company/plc is being liquidated because they failed to agree a CVA.
————————————————————————————-
This is not completely correct.
The Revenue as majority creditor rejected [1] CVA & [2] the offer contained within the CVA.
This issue and the much greater point of the CVA appears to have continually misrepresented.
In order to proceed a CVA, the Creditor[s] & the Administrator with input from the Directors must [1] this is the main issue ‘agree’ what the debt is before [2] trying to reach agreement of the arrangement to pay back % as 10p in the pound etc or time to pay over.
It appears this is and has been a red [green/whyte/duff] herring all along as the Revenue were going through Tax Tribunal because the very same entity refused the debt was due.
It seems not only was it highly unlikely, it is bordering on the ridiculous the Revenue after 5+ years of legal action and associated costs would then agree to only the very recent tax debts just prior to administration, circa 9m etc.
Noted, the Administrator costs over a 3 month period were in the millions which some creditors could take issue with as it seems to be mostly involved with an undeliverable procedure / arrangement.
It should also be noted the Tax Tribunal decision notice was, as others have stated, unbelievably delayed in being delivered & published.
neepheid says:
June 22, 2013 at 11:35 am
“In a bankruptcy scenario, wouldn’t a receiver in bankruptcy be appointed, with the power to sell the whole thing as a going concern to some interested party?”
—————–
It is far from my expertise but I suppose the receiver could sell on the club. The analogy may break down at this point however since to stretch it to cover all the circumstances surrounding Rangers would bring it to breaking point.
Fundamentally, what Rangers wish to do is to be able to add to their numerous trophy haul and continue the upward count and hopefully exceeding the count of their greatest rivals. They may legitimately do this. Their greatyest rivals may question this legitimacy with some justification. Certainly I feel the accumulation of honours will not carry quite the same weight as it would have done previously. Once the memory of the debacle has receded (that will be in the distant future), less account may be taken of the ‘break’ in history. That will be a subconcious decision of everyone in the debate and not solely the preserve of a single perspective.
I noticed on CF Ticketus invoices that the Co No was SC004276
A quick look on CH web site states that that company’s date of incorporation is 27/05/1899 and that the company status is liquidated .
How does that sit with the club v holding company argument
Also states previous name as The Ragers Football Club PLC ,if it’s the holding company that was liquidated should this not be Wavetower .Liberty Capital or RFC Group .
Maybe some of the more business savvy guys could explain .
Duplesis says:
June 22, 2013 at 12:37 pm
“(1) the owners and operators of a club, and thus the SPL members, being the club’s company’s shareholders, which can’t have been intended to be the case; or…”
—————–
Duplesis, from my layperson’s perspective the whole point of having a legal entity known as a company was to apply the same constraints and rights on a group of people that would apply to an individual. The liabilities of a company fall on the company not the indivduals that it comprises.
Paul McConville:-
Wavetower Ltd
This is the original name for the company formed on 17th September 2010 to be the vehicle for the takeover of Rangers.
It was an “off the shelf” company formed by Jordans. Jordans is a business which helps by dealing with the paperwork for incorporation of bespoke companies, and provides already created companies, like Wavetower Ltd, to people who want to be “up and running” straight away.
The first substantive steps with Wavetower therefore were registered at Companies House on 22nd October 2010 when the “pre-installed” director and Secretary resigned, to be replaced as director by Mr Ellis. At the same time the registered office of the company was changed to that of Collyer Bristow, the lawyers engaged by Mr Whyte, and one of whose partners is Gary Withey, now Company Secretary for Rangers Football Club plc.
Messrs Whyte and Betts only came on board (please pardon the pun) as Directors registered with effect from 8th March 2011.
After the takeover Wavetower changed its name to Rangers FC Group Ltd, which I will refer to as “Group” from now on.
It also states that the admin start date was 14/2/12—admin end date 31/10/2012 .
How does this tie in with the LNS dates were the clubs lawyers were arguing that the club ceased on one date while the SPL were stating another .
If the club was liquidated on 31 OCT 2012 would that mean that there were two clubs for the first few months of that season and how could two clubs be the same club .
Duplesis says:
June 22, 2013 at 12:37 pm
===============================================================
I have continuously stated that the huge problem when examining the LNS Decisions is that we don’t have a transcript of the proceedings nor sight of the written productions or even the full statements made by the Counsel. And, possibly importantly, we don’t have the 5-way Agreement which was part of the evidence.
All we have is the bare decisions and some of the legal framework for arriving at them. It would be great to have the full bhoona but we don’t. However the mere absence of a mention of any point in the material we do have IMO doesn’t allow us to conclusively make the assumption that the point was missed by the tribunal members.
The proof could be there in the full transcript – we just don’t know. I certainly have revised my opinion on the meaning of ‘undertaking’ because of the arguments contained in HP’s posts. I originally thought that it meant what it said in simple language. I now believe that HP was correct in stating that it is actually defined by the Companies Act.
However, and I have no intention of going back into this as I believe you have fully dealt with the issue and I happen agree with your analysis, I’m afraid that even in agreeing with HP on the meaning of ‘undertaking’ does not IMO advance his case.
I don’t accept that LNS and his two eminent legally qualified tribunal members all missed the significance of ‘undertaking’ and it may well have been discussed. However it is fairly clear to me now that it is a very minor point and I would not expect any discussion on it to have made the actual Preliminary Hearing or Decision documentation.
I accept that this has become a pivotal point in the argument of the ‘camp’ that attacks the continuing club concept but that stance – which I accept is a legitimate one to make by the people holding that view – really is the foundation on which their whole case rests.
But it does not IMO have the same legal significance in the LNS Decision and again you have dealt with that issue.
Castofthousands says:
June 22, 2013 at 1:40 pm
———————————————————————————–
The liabilities fall on the Company Directors or the NED’s Non Executive Directors with regard to Governance.
jonnyod says:
June 22, 2013 at 1:53 pm
It also states that the admin start date was 14/2/12—admin end date 31/10/2012 .
How does this tie in with the LNS dates were the clubs lawyers were arguing that the club ceased on one date while the SPL were stating another .
If the club was liquidated on 31 OCT 2012 would that mean that there were two clubs for the first few months of that season and how could two clubs be the same club .
==============================================================
This might help from LNS September Hearing.
Rangers FC
[45] Paragraphs 2 and 6 of the list of preliminary issues advance essentially the same argument, which is that on 14 June 2012, when the business and assets of Oldco were purchased and transferred to Newco, Rangers FC ceased to be a Club as defined in the Rules, and is accordingly not subject to the jurisdiction of the SPL, and thus of this Commission, in relation to any breach or breaches of the Rules committed in the period prior to that date.
The SPL disputes that Rangers FC ceased to be a Club on 14 June 2012, and argues that the relevant date is 3 August 2012; but in our view nothing turns on the exact date, as all the breaches alleged in the Notice of Commission relate to a period before the earlier of these two dates.
Sam says:
June 22, 2013 at 2:03 pm
0
0
Rate This
Castofthousands says:
June 22, 2013 at 1:40 pm
———————————————————————————–
The liabilities fall on the Company Directors or the NED’s Non Executive Directors with regard to Governance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Does that mean the liquidators could hold Whyte and others personally responsible if they uncover mistrading?
ecobhoy
Thanks
How does that fit with the CH date of Liquidation on 31/10/12 .
I thought that this may be the date that CH received the paperwork but the Admin start date of 14/2/12 is in line with everyone’s view .
ecobhoy could it be that it did not suit the newco agenda if the old club were in existence at the start of the season
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 8m
Confirmation of the role performed by Mark Hately. http://i.imgur.com/RNcAM6Y.jpg
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
June 22, 2013 at 2:30 pm
0 0 Rate This
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 8m
Confirmation of the role performed by Mark Hately. http://i.imgur.com/RNcAM6Y.jpg
================================
Busted!
So did Rangers retain Hately on £25K per annum throughout administration? Stranger and stranger.
I have no wish to ignite another epic, but having read the “when is a club not a club/company exchange,” I spent some time digging out my textbooks from 1968 (Company Law) then checked online for an update.
http://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/TheFAPortal/governance-docs/financial-regulation/club-structures.ashx
page 14 Part 3. Incorporation Step by Step
Go below if you do not want to read the whole article.
4 Formation of a New Legal Entity.
Having obtained required internal approvals, the first legal step will be to set up the new legal entity which the club is adopting. Where the club is establishing itself as limited company (i.e. a company limited by shares or by guarantee), this will be very straightforward and quick as there are no approval processes or hurdles to be satisfied. Where IPS charitable or Community Amateur Sport Club status is chosen, the timeframe will be somewhat longer as there are certain registrations or approvals that need to be obtained.
Is he still on the payroll and if not when did he come off the payroll
Seriously, someone who “writes” for the papers was actually on Rangers’ payroll, “… to undertake activities as directed by her from a PR perspective”.
No conflict there.
A Sevconian reply to UEFA not updating RFC page is…. If it’s not the same club,
why have UEFA ranked them at 92 ? (top right corner of page)
Is it to do with, it takes 3 years to erase from records ?
Sorry if this sounds stupid….
Auldheid says:
June 22, 2013 at 12:32 pm
12 1 Rate This
Folks
I think we are beginning to win the battle. I see Mark Hateley is now blaming the SFA for much of our game’s problems. Now Hateley is not exactly a great thinker but he has access to non bloggers and his DR article (can someone post the link please) takes SFA culpability into the mainstream.
**********************************************
http://i.imgur.com/RNcAM6Y.jpg
The DR publish an ‘opinion piece’ by an employee of Rangers PR and we are supposed to believe that it was not approved by said PR office. Aye right!!
Who stands to gain from this latest proclamation? What are the motives?
MEANS – Get your employee to get the message across
MOTIVE – Negative press for SFA
OPPORTUNITY – Said employee has a byline at DR
It may be fair to expect that we will soon see ‘conflict’ with the SFA and RFC have got their retaliation in first.
Cynical? mibbes aye, ……..
Did / Do Hateley’s paymasters at the paper know he had a conflict of interests? I think they might be interested in that. If not they might want to tell us if they know of any other employees who are on other football club payrolls. Just in the interest of balance.
My my, Mr Hately on the payroll of oldco pre and during administration, wtf were Duff and Duffer up to…………did Hately TUPE over,this whole affair is beyond any logic or reason, if I was a creditor I would be taking action against the Duffers what a way to carry out an administration process.
Corrupt doesn`t begin to describe this whole farce, granted its a total hoot unless your a creditor of oldco.
Hell hath no fury than a disgruntled facepainter,cornershop owner etc.
ianjs says:
June 22, 2013 at 2:46 pm
I have no wish to ignite another epic, but having read the “when is a club not a club/company exchange
=================================================================
It would have been handy if the SFA and not the FA had commissioned the guide but it is never that simple.
I’m not exactly sure of your point but I’ll assume it is what happens to an unincorporated association – which has no legal personality – if it adopts a form which does – such as a company limited by guarantee or by shares. I think the ‘guarantee’ option is usually for a non-profit enterprise and when ‘shares’ is used it is a for-profit organisation.
Unincorporated club’s can have a written constitution and I assume bits of that like the objects of the association could be transferred into the Articles of the new Ltd Company. But perhaps a fuller answer has to be found in the relevant association and league rule books. I don’t know how the FA Rules and English League rules deal with this and I doubt my brain could handle trying to take them into account.
So we potentially have the same problem as we already have with the SFA and relevant League Articles and Rules and we obviously don’t yet have an answer we can all agree on – note the optimism though 🙂
PTD1978 says:
June 22, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Just asked @alextomo what the legal difference was between the GCHQ leaks and CF’s stuff. Still waiting for an answer.
—————————–
@PTD earlier on twitter ….
newtz@newtz_1
@BBCchrismclaug @alextomo @TomEnglishSport MSM … On Snowden – according to ‘unverified’ documents ..
On @CharlotteFakes ! … Why ?
——————————————
alex thomson@alextomo
@newtz_1 I’ve explained why
—————————————
newtz@newtz_1
@alextomo On June 9 you say hacking later provenance @CharlotteFakes disputes and offers to discuss. So is journo leverage justified ?
—————————————-
AT is a prolific tweeter and his TimeLine is incredible …. but finding stuff is a nightmare ….. so a useful tool I use is Google Power search tools ….
Eg Google search of AT Timeline for instances of “xharlotte” would be …….
site:twitter.com inurl:”alextomo” charlotte
and/or
site:twitter.com inurl:”@alextomo” hacked
Hope some find this trick useful ……. enjoy …
@ianjs at 2:46pm
I think what happens at the point at which a club incorporates is actually quite informative in this debate.
Once the company is formed it is of course is a completely separate legal person to the membership of the club (and of course completely separate to the club itself, since the club has no legal personality at all.)
How does the club then become the company?
In terms of the practical legal steps which are taken, there will be a transfer of ownership of whatever amounted to the business and assets of the club into the new corporate body. The transfer won’t be by the club to the company, since the club has no legal persona, but by the office bearers of the club as trustees for its membership to the company.
Accordingly, what happens when a club incorporates is that a defined set of assets (since “the business” is also just an asset) is transferred into the ownership of a new corporate body.
Is that defined set of assets “the club?”
If the answer to that is no, then the unincorporated club just seems to cease to exist at the point of incorporation – although I don’t think that’s how any of us would think of how this process affected our clubs.
If the answer is yes, then surely it points to “the club” just being a particular set of assets which can transferred – which is pretty much the conclusion LNS came to.
hayzaboy says:
June 22, 2013 at 3:11 pm
They were “up to” trying to keep “the business” as intact as possible in order to sell it to a new owner for it to continue trading, playing in the SPL “debt free”. The same squad, playing in the SPL with no debt and no interest and charges to service.
They were not up to serving honesty and integrity. They could not have cared less about the creditors.
They were put in place by Craig Whyte to do that. HMRC let him because they were going to liquidate the company anyway. That is what suited their objectives.
(With regard to arguing their debt level, if the administrator disagrees with that in can be settled in Court. It happened with Portsmouth. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/portsmouth/7928708/Portsmouth-win-vital-court-case-against-HMRC.html
HMRC also argued it was owed £13million more than the £24million value put on its claim. The administrators disputed the accuracy of the taxman’s figures and assessments, and today the judge ruled in their favour. )
Auldheid says:
June 22, 2013 at 12:32 pm
14 1 Rate This
Folks
I think we are beginning to win the battle. I see Mark Hateley is now blaming the SFA for much of our game’s problems. Now Hateley is not exactly a great thinker but he has access to non bloggers and his DR article (can someone post the link please) takes SFA culpability into the mainstream.
I wrote about two of the issues Hately mentions a couple of years ago
http://celticunderground.net/index.php/multimedia/?option=com_content&view=article&id=693:sfa-reform-one-down-three-to-go&catid=45:season-2010-2011&Itemid=80&fontstyle=f-smaller
and good to see voices ( even Hateley’s) being raised )from the football fraternity rather than bloggers. This is the 3rd reference to SFA culpability I have seen or heard this week in the mainstream.
The failure to apply the club licensing rules has been obvious to anyone who has had a look. A prime example being the granting of the UEFA licence in 2011 to Rangers. The Charlotte Fakeover leaks show not only the rules were not applied but the SFA with Regan as spokesperson misled the footballing public when questions were asked and this will all come out in due course.
Maybe that explains the sudden change of heart ( if Regan is to be believed which is of course a giant leap of faith) but the signs are encouraging that the SFA are wakening up to the need to address a fundamental issue.
So far they have acted as if nothing serious had taken place and this is the first sign they are getting the message.
———————————————————————————————————————————–
Confirmation of the role performed by Mark Hately. http://i.imgur.com/RNcAM6Y.jpg
How many more? How many ex sevco players speak out in a negative way when talking about the club?
hayzaboy says:
June 22, 2013 at 3:11 pm
My my, Mr Hately on the payroll of oldco pre and during administration, wtf were Duff and Duffer up to…………
Corrupt doesn`t begin to describe this whole farce.
===============================================================
Would be interesting to know if his byline appeared on any articles and for an enquiry to be made to any media outlet using material from him. The two simple questions are 1) Were they aware of the potential conflict of interest? 2) Why was no disclaimer or explanatory notification printed in the article to alert readers/viewers?
This truly has the potential to open up a real can of worms.
ForresDee says:
June 22, 2013 at 2:32 pm
7 0 Rate This
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
June 22, 2013 at 2:30 pm
0 0 Rate This
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 8m
Confirmation of the role performed by Mark Hately. http://i.imgur.com/RNcAM6Y.jpg
================================
Busted!
……………………..
Was that a typo? 🙂
Gaz why didnt the Duffers immediately get rid of staff like Hately,Jardine etc to cut costs that didnt affect keeping the business running as is the administrators role,its a disgrace. The creditors have been shabbily treated by the duffers.
Drew Peacock says:
June 22, 2013 at 2:15 pm
—————————————————————————–
All Company Directors are held responsible c/w liabilities.
From a financial view, a major creditor will follow the money for recourse.
I.e. there seems to be only 1 holding company that has circa 100m available.
TW says:
June 22, 2013 at 2:45 pm
7 1 Rate This
So did Rangers retain Hately on £25K per annum throughout administration? Stranger and stranger.
……………………………….
If I were a creditor I would find that scandelous and unforgivable if true….
How many others were on the PR payroll….whilst creditors were getting stiffed…
On legal entities and a business changing it’s legal entity.
HMRC seem to think you can do it.
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageVAT_ShowContent&propertyType=document&id=HMCE_CL_000087#P70_3000
2.5 What if I change legal entity?
If you change the entity of your business, for example from a sole proprietor to a partnership or limited company then you can cancel your existing registration and apply for a new registration number. You can do this online or you can send us a completed form VAT 7 and a form VAT 1 through the post
or
ask to keep your existing number. You can do this online or send us a completed form VAT68. If your new legal entity is a partnership, you will also need to complete form VAT2.
You can find more information in Notice 700/1 Should I be registered for VAT?
===============================
So a business can change it’s legal entity, for example from a sole proprietor to a limited company. It can then keep the same VAT registration, history etc. It is the same business, simply a different type of entity now.
Form VAT 68 Guidance
http://search2.hmrc.gov.uk/kb5/hmrc/forms/view.page?record=gmxrHlQONsk&formId=1005