The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !

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?

 

4,181 thoughts on “The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !


  1. Duplesis says:
    June 22, 2013 at 9:46 pm

    What “can” happen is irrelevant. They could have used a pre-pack administration but didn’t.

    What did happen is what mattered.


  2. Duplesis says:

    June 22, 2013 at 9:28 pm

    0

    4

    Rate This

    Quantcast

    @reilly1926

    I have read it, I just don’t think it’s correct (or at least not entirely – I actually agree that the “club” in the sense of the unincorporated association) came to an end on incorporation, as that’s rather the point I’ve been making.

    Only the club’s assets transferred to the company, not the club itself, and yet we regard the club’s business as continuing after incorporation. If a transfer if the clubs assets allows that to happen in one context, why not another?
    ————————

    Tell me this where was this child like view of liquidation before the CVA failed ?

    This tale might have worked through the MSM pre Internet Bampot days but not anymore.

    Utterly desperate stuff.


  3. @gaz at 9:28pm
    I’m not trying to make up a reason why it happened – I’m just pointing out that it’s a spurious argument because there are a number of reasons why RFC may have played in that round of the Scottish Cup, and neither of us know which one is correct.

    It’s somewhat ironic though that you treat RFC’s position in the Scottish Cup is determinative of its status as a new club, where in fact if RFC were an entirely new club under the SFA rules, they shouldn’t have been playing at all last season. If we RFC are a new club without any history of accounts etc, how is it they were allowed to play?

    I presume you explain that on the basis that the SFA must have bent their rules for RFC, but if so you fall in to the same trap you accuse me of. I don’t want to put words in your mouth though.

    Your final point about the original company still existing after the transfer of the business is factually correct, but irrelevant. That will always be the case when there is a sale of business and assets from a company in administration. None the less the right to own and operate the business has transferred.


  4. @Robert Coyle at 9:48pm

    I don’t want to be rude, but you don’t understand TUPE.

    TUPE happens precisely because there is a transfer of the business from one company to another.


  5. @reilly 1926 at 9:28pm

    I don’t think you’re really contributing anything to the debate with that post, but if you want to criticise my analysis I’m happy to respond to you.


  6. Duplesis says:

    June 22, 2013 at 10:01 pm

    @Robert Coyle at 9:48pm

    I don’t want to be rude, but you don’t understand TUPE.

    —————–

    I don’t want to be rude, but you don’t understand LIQUIDATION.

    🙂

    TUPE happens precisely because there is a transfer of the business from one company to another


  7. @ Gaz at 9:51pm

    do you think that the legal consequences of a pre-pack would have been different to what actually happened? I disagree but would be happy to hear your explanation.


  8. duplesis
    Sevco started in that round possibly as part of the 5 way agreement ,hilarious
    At least you seem to be getting a grasp with your other point regarding them even being allowed in the competition at all


  9. Duplesis says:
    June 22, 2013 at 10:01 pm

    @Robert Coyle at 9:48pm

    I don’t want to be rude, but you don’t understand TUPE.

    TUPE happens precisely because there is a transfer of the business from one company to another.
    —————————————————————————-
    That’s why i said T.U.P.E was a lie,it did’nt happen because there was no transfer of buisness.

    Duff n phelps=liars…….S.F.A= liars.If there was a transfer of buisness it would have been called a takeover.


  10. Duplesis says:

    June 22, 2013 at 10:02 pm

    @reilly 1926 at 9:28pm

    I don’t think you’re really contributing anything to the debate with that post, but if you want to criticise my analysis I’m happy to respond to you.

    —————-

    Could you answer the question of why this child like view of liquidation didn’t come up before the CVA failed ?


  11. Duplesis says:
    June 22, 2013 at 9:56 pm

    They applied for a place in SFL3, the clubs voted on it and they got that place. Personally I don’t think they should have gotten preferential treatment in that but they did. That is what happened, it is different from what might have happened or should have happened but it is what happened. Like Rangers not being in the SPL, it’s what happened. Like rangers being in the first round of the Scottish cup, it’s what happened. Like rangers not having the players registrations, it happened. Like the new business having a new VAT number and not being liable for the huge tax debts, it happened.

    The rest of your post is you just going over old ground and you making claims of things that you think may have / could have happened. I can see nothing which indicates that Rangers as a football club survived a failed CVA an liquidation. Nothing other than you believing that it could in theory have happened, it didn’t

    The club and the company were the same thing and the company is being liquidated. Even if your specious argument was right then all you are really trying to get people to accept is that the activities of Rangers continued, so what. The club had the 140 years history and it is no more. It’s anew way of looking at it though, we have been through the “holding company” myth, we are now somehow on “the business” being different from the club/company.

    I will be stopping this soon, as it is ultimately a pointless discussion. Please don’t take that personally it’s not intended as a slight it’s just a waste of your time, my time and everyone else’s who has to skip over it.

    Do me a favour though, ask the people who run Rangers to pay me the tens of millions of pounds of tax you still owe. And to put a contingency aside for when the result of the tribunal comes out. The country could really use the money.


  12. I am throwing in my tuppence worth on the player registration issue as

    The Rangers AIM Prospectus stated: RFCL purchased Ibrox Stadium, Murray Park, the Albion car park lease, the SPL share, the player registrations, intellectual property rights, SPL monies and season ticket monies player transfer receipts, certain contracts and other assets. RFCL excluded from the purchase any creditors or liabilities of RFC 2012 plc prior to the completion date and including any liability to HMRC or to other football clubs (save that the 5 Way Agreement, further details of which are set out in paragraph 12.1.11 below, required RFCL to take responsibility for football creditors.

    The APA contains indemnities from RFCL to the RFC 2012 plc and its administrators relating to the following . . .

    (b) any claims made or losses suffered in respect of any of the employees (including those
    which arise by virtue of TUPE including any failure by RFCL to comply with its
    obligations and in respect of any failure by RFCL or the Administrators to comply
    with the Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992)

    From what I gathered in various media reports it was obvious that there was a real failure to carry out the Tupe procedures and the players had the right to walk. There have always been a number of rumblings that at least some of the players also had an agreement they could walk away because they had taken a wage cut.

    I don’t think there has ever been an argument that Green hadn’t purchased their registrations. But the players walking meant Green was going to lose a lot of dosh so he put in a complaint to try and squeeze cash out of some of the clubs the players had gone to. It worked and he got some small sums for a few players who didn’t want the hassle of fighting over the registrations. But he would never have won if the case had gone to an Employment Tribunal.

    Some other clubs refused to pay so Green continued to arbitration. My memory of the process is that if a complaint is made by the old club which holds the registrations then the players are allowed to play for their new club while the arbitration process sorts things out. It was clear that Green had no possibility of winning at Arbitration and I don’t know if the final decision has been released but he certainly lost the first round.

    I think this is another issue that will have been quietly dropped now that Green has gone.


  13. ecobhoy says:
    June 22, 2013 at 10:12 pm

    As I recall the players had their contracts amended and (fairly low) buy out clauses put into their contracts as part of the agreement which saw them agree the wage cuts.

    If I remember correctly someone on the radio said it wiped £15m from the value of the assets at that time.


  14. Duplesis says:

    June 22, 2013 at 9:41 pm
    —————–

    You obviously understand T.U.P.E.

    You do not however, understand business. How can you transfer something that failed and was subsequently placed in administration before being placed in liquidation for not paying debts or agreeing a package with creditors? You cannot transfer the business unless you transfer all debts.

    New or old club argument aside, it really is that simple.


  15. It’s a small point but I think an important one that Tupe is designed to protect workers so that the incoming entity which has purchased the business can’t just sack the existing workforce and bring in cheaper labour or drastically reduce terms and conditions.

    If there wasn’t a transfer of business then the workforce would be made redundant by the administrator. It’s the transfer of business that allows the Tupe mechanism to actually come into play.


  16. To me TUPE did not apply with RFC because RFC died. The fact that someone offered the same terms and conditions proves nothing,

    and TRFC and RFC existed at the same time, explain that SFA ?


  17. Gaz says:
    June 22, 2013 at 10:19 pm

    ecobhoy says:
    June 22, 2013 at 10:12 pm

    As I recall the players had their contracts amended and (fairly low) buy out clauses put into their contracts as part of the agreement which saw them agree the wage cuts. If I remember correctly someone on the radio said it wiped £15m from the value of the assets at that time.
    =====================================================================

    I think that’s roughly my recollection as well but I never saw any kind of official figures. But the contracts that were amended I would have thought were the old ones and it would have been D&P that did it. So why did Green not know about this or did he and it was just his usual mock outrage to try and squeeze a few bob more?


  18. @gaz at 9:49pm

    On the SPL question – come on, you know exactly why the club isn’t in the SPL. The SPL’s Articles allow the other members to object to a transfer of the SPL share where that transfer is effected in the context of one of its members becoming insolvent.

    RFC isn’t in the SPL because the SPL membership refused that transfer – are you seriously suggesting that the actions of these third parties can in some way determine whether the business of the club continued? I’d be interested to see your authority for that.

    The administrators agreed to sell the business to the new company. The new company agreed to buy it. The administrators had authority to transfer the business. There was then recorded to be a sale of the business. On what basis can you possibly say that the business didn’t transfer?

    The registration issue is complicated. The regulations allow registrations to be terminated where there is “just cause” or something similar, I believe. Although this regime runs in parallel with the TUPE regime I understand that the question was whether a refusal to TUPE amounted to just cause to terminate the registration. We have abolished slavery, so whatever the seller and purchaser agreed about transfer of registrations it was always likely that a player’s refusal to transfer would be regarded as terminating the registration.

    We didn’t get that far though because the SFA tribunal decided it didn’t have jurisdiction – I believe this was because the objection to the transfer of the player’s registrations was taken by the administrators on behalf of the oldco, and they were the wrong party to do so.


  19. Here’s the point that sticks in most people’s throats I think.

    Rangers can decide to be the same club if they want..

    They can decide to be a new club if they want.

    I really don’t mind, I’ll even let the club and the fans decide for themselves and live by that decision.

    What you can’t be is whichever one you want to be when it suits you. New club, new start, no debts. Not good but fair enough it’s the law and it’s what happened. Same club if you want, just pay everyone that club owed money to or come to an arrangement with them to do it.

    There is no facility for this to happen, it is a new club, but in the spirit of reconciliation I will accept it if Rangers will.


  20. @Madbhoy24941 @ 10:21pm

    That’s a common misconception, but the business and assets of failed companies are carved out of them and sold on all the time.


  21. Duplesis says:
    June 22, 2013 at 10:29 pm
    @gaz at 9:49pm

    On the SPL question – come on, you know exactly why the club isn’t in the SPL. The SPL’s Articles allow the other members to object to a transfer of the SPL share where that transfer is effected in the context of one of its members becoming insolvent.

    RFC isn’t in the SPL because the SPL membership refused that transfer – are you seriously suggesting that the actions of these third parties can in some way determine whether the business of the club continued? I’d be interested to see your authority for that.

    ===============================

    So I was right, it is another way of looking at it. Not the “holding company” rubbish.

    You are not claiming it is the same club, you are claiming it is a continuation of the club’s business.

    You therefore accept the club ceased to exist.

    At least that is a step forward.


  22. Troyblain says:
    June 22, 2013 at 10:24 pm

    To me TUPE did not apply with RFC because RFC died. The fact that someone offered the same terms and conditions proves nothing, and TRFC and RFC existed at the same time, explain that SFA ?
    ———————————————————————————————————————————

    If Tupe didn’t apply then who paid the wages of the workers after Sevco Scotland purchased the assets as I have listed in a post above. TRFCL and RFC 2012 Plc (IA) existed at the same time but when you refer to RFC do you mean Rangers Football Club which is a non-legal entity and I believe that’s the case no matter whether you believe it died or continued.


  23. @reilly 1926 at 10:10pm

    Actually, I expressed this view long before the CVA failed. Its based on the normal consequences of a business being bought out from a company in administration.


  24. I think I’m right in saying that in the first cva document produced by D+P there was no mention of transfer of history and when Charles realised the mistake ie the bears wouldn’t stand for losing their history ,it was conveniantly included in the final draft of the cva document along with the purchase of the goodwill.

    If and this is hypothetical I know but if Charles decided to keep the name Sevco and call the “club” Sevco True Blues how would that go in regards to the debate about old / new/same club.


  25. @ Gaz at 10:36pm

    I’ve never claimed anything other than its a continuation of the club’s business. What I’ve been trying to say is that when LNS referred to the club as being a collection of assets, that’s what he really meant – the “club” is just what we call the collection of assets which represent the club’s business.

    Please don’t misunderstand me – I don’t think of the club as some mystical concept. I think of it as the “business.” When LNS described a club as an undertaking, I think he was getting across exactly the same point.


  26. Duplesis says:

    June 22, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    Don’t know what you’re doing tomorrow but I’m off to an ex- golf company liquidation Sale in a hotel in Paisley. Hoping to pick up a couple of clubs.

    Maybe see you there.


  27. Duplesis says:
    June 22, 2013 at 10:43 pm

    So do you think the club has survived a failed CVA and ultimately liquidation.

    Or is it your position that the club is no more (or won’t be when it is liquidated) but that it’s “business” has been sold to a new club / company.

    BTW I expect obfuscation rather than an answer.


  28. @reilly 1926 at 10:03pm

    I understand what liquidation is perfectly well.

    I also understand what a sale of the business and assets is. I further understand the powers an administrator has to effect a sale of the business and assets.


  29. In scenarios where an employer company is wound up by the court on the grounds that it is
    unable to pay its debts, TUPE Regulations 4 and 7 will not apply. On the granting of a
    winding-up order, an employee’s employment contract is deemed to have been terminated
    and NIF insolvency and redundancy payments shall be due to such employees.


  30. Duplesis says:
    June 22, 2013 at 10:29 pm

    We didn’t get that far though because the SFA tribunal decided it didn’t have jurisdiction – I believe this was because the objection to the transfer of the player’s registrations was taken by the administrators on behalf of the oldco, and they were the wrong party to do so.
    ===================================================================

    The Players Union challenged RFCL’s rights to participate in the arbitration process in any capacity as it wasn’t a member of the SFA when the original claim was launched in July 2012 and D&P agreed to Green’s request that the claim could be lodged in the name of RFC 2012 Plc (IA) which accepted it had
    no financial interest in the outcome.

    And the SMSM sat back and ignored a move that I find it impossible to believe was kosher.


  31. To be honest I’m surprised it’s taken so long to get to this whole “sell the bushiness” stuff. I expected it long before now.

    It’s kind of the next place to go after accepting that the club died. I suppose it really had to wait until that was a no win situation.

    I can’t think where anyone will go with next. Other than “well I think it’s the same club, and that’s all that matters to me”. Which to be fair would be a perfectly acceptable, if factually flawed, position to take.

    A few of the fanboys on the radio have already gone down that route.


  32. @ Gaz at 10:47pm

    “BTW I expect obfuscation rather than an answer”

    I’ll try not to disappoint you then!

    I think the business and assets were sold to a new company. That’s always been my position.

    As I said much earlier on, I think whether that amounts to the club continuing is probably really a philosophical question rather than a legal one, but I certainly think that what was transferred constituted everything that amounted to “the club” in the first place.

    I think though that “th


  33. @ Gaz at 10:47pm

    “BTW I expect obfuscation rather than an answer”

    I’ll try not to disappoint you then!

    I think the business and assets were sold to a new company. That’s always been my position.

    As I said much earlier on, I think whether that amounts to the club continuing is probably really a philosophical question rather than a legal one, but I certainly think that what was transferred constituted everything that amounted to “the club” in the first place.


  34. reilly1926 says:
    June 22, 2013 at 10:44 pm
    1 0 Rate This

    Duplesis says:

    June 22, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    Don’t know what you’re doing tomorrow but I’m off to an ex- golf company liquidation Sale in a hotel in Paisley. Hoping to pick up a couple of CLUBS.
    ======================================
    Or maybe businesses!!


  35. Duplesis says:
    June 22, 2013 at 10:56 pm

    Do you think the club survived. It’s an untenable position and you know it, but would you be willing to express it as an opinion.


  36. Troyblain says:
    June 22, 2013 at 10:53 pm

    In scenarios where an employer company is wound up by the court on the grounds that it is
    unable to pay its debts,
    =======================================================
    Perhaps its time for my bed but it is my understanding the company wasn’t wound-up but placed in administration by the court


  37. This is an example of a club bought out of administration,clydebank whilst in admin were bought out by airdrie united.Clydebank were never liquidated.

    Airdrie buy Bankies

    The Bankies have been bought out by Airdrie United
    Airdrie United chairman Jim Ballantyne has been successful in his bid to buy out Clydebank.
    The newly-formed Airdrie United had already been given the go-ahead by the Scottish Football League to take over the doomed Second Division Club.

    Bankies fans defiant
    The United Clydebank Supporters lodged an 11th hour rival offer in the hope of saving the club’s name.

    But Bryan Jackson, corporate recovery partner of administrators PKF, said the decision to accept Ballantyne’s offer was simply because they were the highest bidders.

    He said: “I received two offers, the highest one being from Airdrie Football Club Limited.

    Airdrie target Bankies takeover
    “As Nominee of Clydebank FC Limited, my primary duty is to the creditors and, accordingly, having taken legal advice, I accepted the highest offer received.

    “I sympathise that the Clydebank-based bid was unsuccessful, but unfortunately there was going to have to be one loser.

    The United Clydebank Supporters are due to meet on Thursday to discuss ‘the future’ of the club and Jackson was quick to praise their support.

    “I would like to publicly record my appreciation to David Munro of the United Clydebank Supporters, who has assisted me in keeping the club alive in the last 20 months.

    “I regret that his efforts have been unsuccessful in retaining Clydebank as is, but I was obliged to accept the highest offer.”

    Airdrie want Kenny Brannigan as coach
    Airdrie United will now take Clydebank’s place in the Second Division at the start of the coming season and play at Excelsior Stadium in Airdrie.

    The stadium is now vacant after the liquidation of First Division club Airdrieonians.

    The new club say that they would employ Clydebank player-boss Kenny Brannigan as a player-coach.

    Former Clydebank general manager Mick Oliver was the man spearheading the hunt for the cash and Clydebank supporters remained hopeful that his bid to prevent a takeover would prevail.

    Sadly, it was not to be and Clydebank will now join Third Lanark and, more recently Airdrieonians, in the obituary pages of Scottish football history.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/2118528.stm


  38. Duplesis…Uefa will answer you perplexing question. we all know the answer but it takes an organisation outside the west of scotland to talk sense.


  39. ecobhoy says:
    June 22, 2013 at 11:00 pm

    And it is now being liquidated and at the end of that will be wound up.

    Which is why the new company can’t be the same one as before.

    It still exists. As does it’s holding company.

    After all of the fancy dan arguments are done away with that’s what’s left. Rangers still exists, BDO are in the process of getting rid of the body.


  40. Duplesis says:

    June 22, 2013 at 10:38 pm

    @reilly 1926 at 10:10pm

    Actually, I expressed this view long before the CVA failed. Its based on the normal consequences of a business being bought out from a company in administration.
    —————————
    That’s when the buying company picks at the corpse of the dead co. It takes on the “good” things and spits out all the bad things like creditors. (Civil tax, Ambulance services et al)

    RFC(IL) supporters, not all, appear quite happily to admit that they have dumped RFC 1899 dying in the ditch that is liquidation to protect RFC 1872. Is that something to be proud of ?

    Had Celtic went to the wall in 1994 the vast majority of fans would have went down admirably and proudly with the ship and started again. The pathetic stance of company/club wouldn’t have even been thought about.

    Another difference between the two clubs.


  41. AIRDRIE UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED

    Company Register

    Status Active – Accounts Filed
    Registered date 02/06/1965
    Company number SC042250
    Type Private limited with Share Capital
    Country of registration GB
    Previous Names

    Previous name CLYDEBANK FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
    Date changed 30/07/2002


  42. @Troyblain at 10:53pm

    That’s right, but of course the player transfers took place prior to winding up – whilst the company was in administration.

    That meant that this was not “relevant insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of regulation 8 (Reg 8 is the provision which sets aside 4 and 7 in appropriate circumstances.)


  43. Robert Coyle says:
    June 22, 2013 at 11:01 pm

    That’s cheating, introducing facts and what actually happened. rather than meaningless conjecture on what could have and what that would have meant, if it had actually happened.

    Oh and that would be the same Bryan Jackson, the honest pragmatist with integrity who is dealing with the Hearts situation.


  44. Lisbon67 says:
    June 22, 2013 at 10:41 pm

    I think I’m right in saying that in the first cva document produced by D+P there was no mention of transfer of history and when Charles realised the mistake ie the bears wouldn’t stand for losing their history ,it was conveniantly included in the final draft of the cva document along with the purchase of the goodwill.
    ====================================================================

    I vaguely remember something about the history in the cva but not the detail – I’ll try and remember to check tomorrow or Monday.

    But it’s interesting if the ‘history’ was put in the D&P report but wasn’t included in the Rangers AIM Prospectus.


  45. the player transfers did not take place, complete nonsense.

    thats why some players just walked away.

    in your world, who did the players transfer from and to.


  46. @Reilly 1926 @ 11:05pm

    I’m not saying its anything to be proud of. What happened at RFC was a disgrace.

    What I’m setting out is my understanding of the implications of what happened though.


  47. reilly1926 says:
    June 22, 2013 at 11:05 pm

    Had Celtic went to the wall in 1994 the vast majority of fans would have went down admirably and proudly with the ship and started again. The pathetic stance of company/club wouldn’t have even been thought about. Another difference between the two clubs.
    ==============================================================
    It’s all hypothetical of course but I know that would not have been my position and I doubt if it would have been the position of more than a handful of Celtic fans. Give up all of the club’s history – all the titles – don’t think so.


  48. I work for a local authority, I clean schools. The local authority decides to outsource or privatise school cleaning. I have not been made redundant as my job has been transferred t a company, TUPE applies, I have, de facto, become an employee of the privatised company on exactly the same, or equivalent, terms and conditions as I had when I worked for the locals authority. There is, however no obligation placed on me by the TUPE regulations to join the private company, in my experience local authorities offer employees the choice of staying or going and the private companies welcome this because they don’t want the employee costs plus pension.
    CG was always blowing smoke with his TUPE case. He knew it, the players knew it, the agents knew it. CG dismissed Sandaza for gross misconduct because he spoke about his contract to a third party. CF has given multiple examples of this by just about everyone at Sevco.
    When a company has been liquidated the employees have never been able to claim that they have a valid employment contract with a company that provides the same service. BECAUSE IT’S NOT THE SAME COMPANY!!!!
    Here’s a line from the DR:
    The numbers would have been significantly reduced because of secret sweeteners handed out to the players by administrators when the squad agreed savage wage cuts to keep the club alive.

    ‘Secret sweetners’??? Do tell!!


  49. Nail on head martybhoy nail on head.

    Good night all…..


  50. echobhoy, you argue well for trfc.

    nobody, not msm, or the sfa argued to save Celtic but you are such a balanced individual. i guess we would all like to be like you…oj]om[9]0


  51. @Troyblain at 11:07pm

    Of course the player transfers took place – why are Lee McCulloch, Neil Alexander etc playing if their contracts didn’t transfer?

    What TUPE provides is that if there is a transfer of undertakings then (except in limited circumstances) the transferee must accept the transferor’s employees. An employee can’t be forced to work for a “new “employer following on a transfer of undertaking to that new employer, however.

    It’s a provision which protects employees not employers, basically.

    If an employee chooses not to work for the “new” employer, what happens is that his contract of employment terminates altogether – i.e. not only does that employee not transfer to the “new” employer, he ceases to have a contract with the “old” one too.

    In RFC’s case a number of employees chose not to transfer so their contracts terminated as a matter of law. Those who chose to transfer did so, though.

    In my world (and indeed the actual world) the transferor was what is now RFC 2012 (IL), and the transferee was what is now The Rangers Football Club Ltd.


  52. davythelotion says:
    June 22, 2013 at 11:15 pm

    The numbers would have been significantly reduced because of secret sweeteners handed out to the players by administrators when the squad agreed savage wage cuts to keep the club alive.

    ‘Secret sweetners’??? Do tell!!
    —————————————————————————————————————

    We discussed that on the previous page – don’t think it was actually secret as there were some not very specific references to it. Basically the players who took a wage cut were allowed to go on the cheap. But I don’t know if Green was told and tbh that might be the ‘secret’ bit. Maybe CF will have something on it but maybe not.


  53. @Robert Coyle at 11:01pm

    I’m aware of the Clydebank / Airdrie scenario, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

    Airdrie bought Clydebank to get its football membership/licence, but with the specific intention use them and to change Clydebank’s name to Airdrie. It was a back door means for Airdrie (and of course whether this is the same Airdrie as before is an interesting question…) to get playing again.

    Clydebank “died” in this context because its name, strip etc were changed after this takeover, and the company was run as Airdrie.

    As the article shows though, there was a competing bid by a Clydebank consortium who would presumably have continued with the club as Clydebank.


  54. martybhoy says:
    June 22, 2013 at 11:12 pm

    I’m not so sure the new club will last that long or be that successful.

    I don’t think they have a viable business model and I have seen nothing to suggest they have a credit facility to bridge the gap twixt income and expenditure.


  55. echobhoy, sorry, i meant Duplesis

    tell me

    who the players transferred from and who they transferred to ?

    which club they transferred from and which club they transferred too ? because as you and your echo know, there were two clubs playing at Ibrox at that point sanctioned by the sfa.


  56. Troyblain says:
    June 22, 2013 at 11:18 pm

    echobhoy, you argue well for trfc.

    nobody, not msm, or the sfa argued to save Celtic but you are such a balanced individual. i guess we would all like to be like you…oj]om[9]0

    ================================================================

    I’m sure you would 🙂 However some of us were fighting to save Celtic when the Family Dynasties were taking it down the pan and some of us were also fighting to prevent Dempsey getting his hands on things. And some of us were even fighting to help Fergus. And there again some of us booed the Wee Man as well – a shameful period in my club’s history and the nearest I ever came to walking away.


  57. ecobhoy says:
    June 22, 2013 at 11:22 pm

    They weren’t allowed to go on the cheap. They would have been allowed to go on the cheap if Rangers had achieved a CVA. Their new contracts had buy out clauses in them.

    As it transpired they didn’t need to use those clauses and simply walked away when the club died.


  58. @Troyblain at 11:27pm

    I think I already answered that in my 11:18pm post.


  59. ecobhoy says:

    June 22, 2013 at 11:27 pm

    0

    0

    Rate This

    Quantcast

    Troyblain says:
    June 22, 2013 at 11:18 pm

    echobhoy, you argue well for trfc.

    nobody, not msm, or the sfa argued to save Celtic but you are such a balanced individual. i guess we would all like to be like you…oj]om[9]0

    ================================================================

    I’m sure you would 🙂 However some of us were fighting to save Celtic when the Family Dynasties were taking it down the pan and some of us were also fighting to prevent Dempsey getting his hands on things. And some of us were even fighting to help Fergus. And there again some of us booed the Wee Man as well – a shameful period in my club’s history and the nearest I ever came to walking away.
    ===============

    I’m pretty sure you don’t do “walking away”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7zw92lSNus

    Away this time.


  60. Duplesis says:
    June 22, 2013 at 11:24 pm

    I’m aware of the Clydebank / Airdrie scenario, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
    —————————————————————————————-
    I’m pretty sure you do get the point i’m making,it;s just that you don’t want to.


  61. if my company died like RFC and another company offered me the same term and conditions, that is not TUPE.

    TUPE is there to protect individuals when a service or business is sold not when the company is liquidated.

    Neil Alexander joined new rangers because a similar contract was offered, others thought, division three, lol, yer havin a laugh.

    RFC are and have always been a small west of scotland and nrthn irland club and they could only complete with Celtic through dEBT and brotherly love.


  62. Duplesis
    I shall respond to your post from this morning shortly; but since you appear to have moved on to the SFA’s definition of a club, can you give your opinion on this.

    The business and assets of The Rangers Football Club plc were transferred to Sevco Scotland Ltd (as it was then) on 14th June 2012.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/scottish/charles-green-completes-purchase-of-rangers-assets-7851528.html

    Sevco Scotland Ltd were admitted as associate members of the SFL on 13th July 2012.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18813407

    With membership of the SFL, Sevco Scotland automatically became registered members of the SFA.
    http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2012-13/SFA_HANDBOOK_53-136_Articles_of_Association.pdf
    See Article 6.2

    Sevco Scotland Ltd (using the recently purchased “Rangers” brand) played their first match against Brechin City on the 29th July 2012.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2180643/Brechin-1-Rangers-2.html

    On 31st July 2012 Craig Whyte agreed to the change of name of The Rangers Football Club plc to RFC2012 plc
    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/shareholders-vote-to-change-name-of-owning-1193492

    RFC plc (now RFC2012 plc) remained the registered shareholder in the SPL and registered & full members of the SFA until 3rd August 2012.
    http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=10252&newsCategoryID=1
    http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=3218&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10287

    On 11th August 2012 Sevco Scotland Ltd (by now re-named The Rangers Football Club Ltd) played their first SFL match using the “Rangers” brand.

    The SFA articles define a full member as: “a club or association which is a full member of the Scottish FA”

    SFA Article 6.2 prohibits a club from having membership in more than one league.

    If RFC2012 plc were still registered & full-members of the SFA at the time, what club played Brechin City on 29th July 2012?


  63. Duplesis

    tell me

    who the players transferred from and who they transferred to ?

    which club they transferred from and which club they transferred too ? because as you and your echo know, there were two clubs playing at Ibrox at that point sanctioned by the sfa.


  64. Gaz says:
    June 22, 2013 at 11:27 pm

    martybhoy says:
    June 22, 2013 at 11:12 pm

    I’m not so sure the new club will last that long or be that successful. I don’t think they have a viable business model and I have seen nothing to suggest they have a credit facility to bridge the gap twixt income and expenditure.
    ==============================================================

    Well I have no disagreement with you on that. They can’t survive without slashing costs. So it’s down to a sugar daddy or momma or another flotation. Looking at the current second wave of investors I think they’re small time and neither have the wish or capital to get the club performing well in the top flight. It seems to me they’ll just strip off the scraps that the big predators haven’t bothered with.

    I think the real problem is what happens to the properties because if they end up in some kind of sale and lease back then a bank wouldn’t have any security for advancing money so that might put the kibosh on that as well.

    Lot of hard choices ahead I reckon and a lot of pain for the Bears because I don’t think this os over by a long chalk.


  65. @Toryblain at 11:35pm

    It wasn’t a question of being offered the same terms, it was a question of their contracts transferring and therefore just continuing.

    The insolvency provisions under the TUPE regulations are complicated, but there’s no doubt that sales of businesses out of administration are covered by TUPE.


  66. duplesis, it would be polite to answer my words, rather than a bland nondescript comment.

    you have yet to argue one valid point as to why two Rangers football clubs existed at the same time last year.

    1 and counting.


  67. ecobhoy says:
    June 22, 2013 at 11:36 pm

    The future is nowhere near as important as securing their perceived past though.

    They are missing the fact that they had a chance to try to achieve a working model which actually worked for them. However they continue to ignore that opportunity and the reality of the situation.

    It’s been broken for decades. David Murray did it. You need to fix it or your new club will die like the old one. Arguing that it is the same business / club / company / whatever is largely irrelevant. You really want to sort out the new one. That’s where the energy should be used.

    Sort the new club out, not arguing that it is the same one which racked up tens of millions of pounds of debt.


  68. As well as the players there were all the non-footballing staff who Tuped over to TRFCL – if their former employer had gone into liquidation before they transferred they would have been on the streets and become victims just like the many creditors.

    However – talk of the employees IMO has nothing to do with the ‘club’ whether it is alive or dead because the club is a non-legal entity and can’t issue contracts of employment and can’t deduct tax and NI which I trust is now being done.

    Just a final word and then I’m off.

    That’s me off!


  69. as rod would say, you wear it well.
    ————————————————-
    It wasn’t a question of being offered the same terms, it was a question of their contracts transferring and therefore just continuing.

    The insolvency provisions under the TUPE regulations are complicated, but there’s no doubt that sales of businesses out of administration are covered by TUPE.
    ————————————-
    unfortunately for you it was that they were offered the same terms and conditions.

    i have yet to see any valid argument from you.

    do you have any slither of argument worth my oxygen ? i remain optimistic that you have a nano argument worthy of discussion.

Comments are closed.