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

Bybroganrogantrevinoandhogan

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?

 

About the author

broganrogantrevinoandhogan author

Boot wearing football, sport & total nonsense fan-- Gourmet, Bon Viveur and eedgit! - Oh and I write a bit occasionally!

4,181 Comments so far

TroyblainPosted on11:55 pm - Jun 22, 2013


echo

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.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
this is so nonsensical

so the staff transferred to blah blah blah

before liquidation

lol, not even worthy of argument.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:56 pm - Jun 22, 2013


Gaz says:
June 22, 2013 at 11:46 pm
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.
=====================================================================

Well it’s not my job to sort Rangers. However I do see signs among some Rangers fans of a greater awareness that they are wasting time. A lot really did want to go to SFL3 and start again clean and work their way back on merit with a team based on their youngsters. They now know they’ve been betrayed by the spivs but I think the majority are still deluded.

View Comment

TroyblainPosted on11:57 pm - Jun 22, 2013


please note that i have not insulted anybody…i just feel that discussing with certain members on here results in a ban from trfc.

View Comment

TroyblainPosted on11:58 pm - Jun 22, 2013


lol,oops, from tsfm

View Comment

DuplesisPosted on12:01 am - Jun 23, 2013


@Toryblain at 11:45pm

I did answer your words – I corrected your misunderstanding about TUPE.

I also replied to your transferor and transferee question some time ago. RFC 2012 was transferor and Sevco Scotland was transferee.

The “club” – if its anything – is the business. The transferee and transferor are the companies which operated it. Neither the transferee nor the transferor are a club in any general scots law sense, although you could make an argument whether one or both are under the particular definition of club in the SPL/SFA Articles/Rules etc.

Those SPL and SFA rules don’t affect how TUPE sees the situation though. In a TUPE context its simply a transfer from one company to another.

View Comment

GazPosted on12:03 am - Jun 23, 2013


They may have wanted to start SFL3, as an aside that is revisionism anyway it’s not like they had an option. All this “we voted for SFL3” is just rubbish.

The new club applied for the SPL and were rejected. Again that’s what actually happened, not what might have happened. New rangers wanted into the SPL.

Anyway, if they wanted a cleansed club, and a fresh start, and fixing the business model, why did they sign SPL players which they couldn’t afford. Like Black, Templeton, Shiels, Sandaze etc. On wages that were absolutely mental for an SFL3 club.

Oh that’s right, they were going to compete in the cups. Well according to Mark Hately.

Fresh start, new improved business model … my arris.

View Comment

DuplesisPosted on12:09 am - Jun 23, 2013


@TRoyblain at 11:50pm

To be honest, I’m not even sure what your argument actually is!

You first suggested – wrongly – that TUPE didn’t apply under the insolvency provisions of the regulations, and the players (and presumably staff) didn’t transfer under these provisions.

I’ve actually never heard anyone suggest that before – and I’m quite amazed that you seem to think its the case.

You now seem to be maintaining that view but suggesting that Sevco Scotland offered them all the same terms and conditions anyway (!?) Why on earth would Sevco Scotland do that? Does that make any sense event to you?

View Comment

TroyblainPosted on12:10 am - Jun 23, 2013


can a celtic player transfer to celtic ?

please tell me who the rangers players transferred from and to which club ?

please tell me the exact date when rangers players from liquidated rfc transferred to another club.

i need the EXACT date

View Comment

TroyblainPosted on12:13 am - Jun 23, 2013


Duplesis why did two rangers clubs exist at the same time ?

View Comment

TSFMPosted on12:16 am - Jun 23, 2013


Interesting discussion on the semantics of the administration and liquidation – and this new monicker, “the business”.

If I read Duplesis correctly, then what happened is pretty much the same as if someone had just bought the club – like Craig Whyte did. On the face of it, that seems pretty plausible until you then start to ask yourself, “Why couldn’t the payers walk away when CW took over”, or “why did the original RFC still qualify for SPL membership when CW took over?”

Even if you set aside the abandonment of debts and the systematic denial of opportunity to other clubs, what happened was demonstrably a a bit more complicated than someone just buying the business. And in fact this new technique of adding the word “business” before the word “assets” may I think have been just invented in May last year!

I think Duplesis is doing sterling work in the pro camp, and I can’t blame him for doing so.

I am open to argument on the whole scenario – partly because I couldn’t really care less whether it is a new or old club – but I think we are again being invited to suspend belief in a kind of intellectual mass-suicide so that others can get some relief or closure.

No doubt this argument will go on and on. There are many arguments to support the theory that TRFC are a continuation of RFC. Liquidated companies often sell popular brands off which continue to be sold on the High Sreet after the original company is long gone. Spiritually, 50000 people in blue and white scarves at Ibrox belting out “Follow Follow” (give it the benefit of the doubt folks 🙂 ) cannot conceivably NOT be Rangers, but the real problem lies elsewhere.

Granted there may be a crumb of comfort for TRFC fans with the position of LNS, but even Duplesis feels he has to put words in the noble gob to shoehorn LNS’s opinion into the new semantic.

None of the actual legal positions and definitions, nor the SFA definition of the equivalence of club and company are on their side. Fans of every other club (no matter what is written up in three feet high purple eyeliner on a toilet wall by Keith Jackson) will never concede that they are the same club. TRFC fans on the other hand, will never agree.

I think both camps just need to get used to it, and get over it.

Respect though to Duplesis for his efforts – and gratitude from me that most of us (though regrettably not all) are giving the guy a respectful hearing.

View Comment

TroyblainPosted on12:16 am - Jun 23, 2013


You first suggested – wrongly – that TUPE didn’t apply under the insolvency provisions of the regulations, and the players (and presumably staff) didn’t transfer under these provisions.

if there was a grain of truth here, why did players just walk away ?

As yet i await a shred of evidence

View Comment

TroyblainPosted on12:19 am - Jun 23, 2013


ok, agreed, i will suspend discussion.

View Comment

DuplesisPosted on12:31 am - Jun 23, 2013


@Troyblain @12:12 and 12:13

I’ve answered the question about the transferor and transferee. The players didn’t transfer from club to club, they transferred from company to company. The transferor was the old company in administration and the transferee was the new company. I’ve identified the companies to you at least twice now.

I don’t understand in what sense you are suggesting 2 clubs existed at the same time. As I’ve explained what we are dealing with are 2 companies. I’ve conceded that either or both might be the “club” as that concept is known under the SFA or SPL rules, but this simply has nothing to do with whether there is a transfer of undertakings under the regulations.

The new company buys the business of the old one. In consequence there is a transfer of undertakings to the new company. Despite what you think there is a transfer of undertakings if a business is bought out from a company in administration.

The fact that company subsequently goes into liquidation doesn’t somehow retrospectively change that – I think you are getting confused on this point. You would be right if the purported transfer took place after the company went into liquidation though.

The players’ contracts transferred on the date the business and asset sale took place – those players who didn’t object of course – I don’t remember what date that was, but it was in May 2012, I think.

View Comment

DuplesisPosted on12:38 am - Jun 23, 2013


@ Troyblain at 12:16am

In the light of TSFM’s comments above I’ll also suspend my comments after this post.

You ask though why the players just walked away if there was a TUPE. I’ve already explained that, but as my final word on the subject, the reason why that can happen is that an employee always has the right to refuse to transfer on a TUPE.

As I said above, fundamentally TUPE protects employees not employers. An employee can never be forced to accept a transfer, and the employee – any employee – can always walk away (reg 4(7) if you want to check)

View Comment

CortesPosted on12:39 am - Jun 23, 2013


Any chance the Company law trolls can be barred? Or persuaded to set up their own site? Probably just me, but the arguments remind me of the debates at the Univ of ?Salamanca?/?Valladolid? Re how many angels could stand on the tip of a needle.
Gie us all peace FFS.

View Comment

TroyblainPosted on12:55 am - Jun 23, 2013


Insolvency proceedings fall broadly into two categories. In the case of companies that have no hope of continuing as a going concern, bankruptcy and any analogous insolvency proceedings set out to liquidate company assets, under the supervision of an IP.

In these circumstances, employees will not automatically transfer to the buyer of the business under TUPE. For example, in a compulsory liquidation the employees are automatically dismissed on the appointment of the liquidator and their only recourse is a claim for wrongful dismissal against the employer now in liquidation.

This claim will be owed as an unsecured debt, not as a preferential debt like unpaid wages. In reality, this means claims go to the back of the queue, with little chance of receiving compensation.

Alternate route
But for businesses on the ‘critical’ list but still breathing, an alternate route exists in what are collectively called ‘relevant’ insolvency proceedings. Again, these take place under the supervision of an IP, but they are initiated with the aim of helping the business emerge as a going concern. In these circumstances, TUPE will apply and employees should transfer to the new owner with their employment rights intact.

Guidance from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR) states that ‘relevant’ insolvency proceedings will include administration, voluntary arrangements and administrative receivership, but not other types of receivership, bankruptcy proceedings, compulsory liquidation, or creditors’ voluntary liquidation.

View Comment

GazPosted on12:59 am - Jun 23, 2013


Apologies.

You do always have the option of not reading it.

That seems fair to me.

View Comment

GazPosted on1:00 am - Jun 23, 2013


Sorry, that was in reply to

Cortes says:
June 23, 2013 at 12:39 am

View Comment

CortesPosted on1:14 am - Jun 23, 2013


Gaz: I no longer read them. It just cheeses me off to have to scroll past thousands of words which would be better submitted for peer review at the Scots Law Journal than clogging this site.

View Comment

GazPosted on1:23 am - Jun 23, 2013


Cortes says:
June 23, 2013 at 1:14 am

If you don’t read the posts why do they annoy you so much that you feel the need to ask for the people who posts them to be banned.

That seems a bit harsh. Maybe some people actually want to discuss those things, and are doing it in a perfectly acceptable and respectful manner.

All you have to do is not read those posts. Other people can continue with their discussion. That seems reasonable.

View Comment

john clarkePosted on1:34 am - Jun 23, 2013


No one is more ready to listen and learn than I.
I have seriously and carefully followed the long debate on the question of whether a ‘club’ died with the liquidation of a “company”.

That debate has, as TSFM acknowledged, been conducted in a generally polite, academic fashion with much citation of Articles of Association and Company Law and so on and so forth.

And full credit to to the participants for that.

However, it seems to me that the debate has been on confused, parallel rather than converging, lines, based on a complete misunderstanding of terms.

It seems to me to be an incontrovertible fact that the legal entity known and registered as Rangers FC Plc unquestionably died, both in law and in terms of the SFA Articles of Association, when it was Liquidated.

Accordingly, there is now no ‘Rangers FC Plc”.
That is, there is no football club of that name registered as a member of the SFA, or as a member of the SFL.

It is, though, the case that ( God save the mark) the ‘spiritual essence’ of what had been RFC Plc, and the philosophy that for the major part of its existence sustained it (almost to the point of being its ‘raison d’etre’) is still, in the minds of its erstwhile supporters, floating about in the ether like some protoplasm seeking physical embodiment.

That ‘spiritual essence’ is still a potent force in the minds of many.

Potent enough, some might say, to make the civic and other authorities adopt a policy of ‘appeasement’, much as Chamberlain did in relation to the Nazis, as being the safest and most comfortable, if unprincipled, stance to take.

Unquestionably,that ‘spiritual essence’, drawing strength from a blindly prejudiced, or intimidated, or easily bought MSM, has materialised in the body of Rangers International FC.

But, as a matter of law, that body did not come into being until a certain Charles Green, proud owner of a dodgy football stadium and some other property ( bought at bargain prices)
-set it up last year,
– bought in the services of admin staff and some footballers who had previously worked for the dead club.
-and , in the fabled ‘five-way agreement’, made successful application for his new club to be granted associate membership of the SFA.

However, the transfer of ‘spiritual essence’ is not recognised either in company law or in the SFA Articles of Association.

Rangers International FC is not and cannot ever be recognised as being the same legal entity as Rangers FC Plc.
It may share the same repulsive philosophy, it may have ministers of state and the organs of the press in its pocket in the same way as the dead club had.
But it is not the same club.
Lucky for them, and much to the chagrin of HMRC and the many creditors of the dead club.

View Comment

hampdenhorrorshowPosted on2:05 am - Jun 23, 2013


In case anyone is in any doubt. Rangers ceased to be. Their history is exactly that – history and it has no place being attached to Sevco/TRFC. Only a complete idiot would seriously argue otherwise…or, an old RFC fan that simply cannot let go of the old, and very much dead, club they used to support. In any case, it’s called denial. To ecobhoy and various others with their heads up their bums, get over it guys. They died and their history remains only with the corpse – not with it’s zombie reincarnation.

View Comment

DuplesisPosted on7:59 am - Jun 23, 2013


@Troyblain at 12:55am

Thanks for that, although I thought we’d agreed not to say anything more!

The summary you quote is an accurate description of the position under the TUPE regulations, and I agree with what it says.

You’ll note that the question is the nature of the insolvency proceedings the company is being operated under.

The Article confirms the distinction between administration and liquidation for the purposes of TUPE, which is what I’ve been trying to explain.

Proceedings “which have been opened… not with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor” (per reg 8(6)) are subject to TUPE. They are so called “relevant insolvency proceedings”

Proceeding which have been “instituted with a view to liquidation of the assets of the transferor” (reg 8(7)) are not.

As your Article says, Guidance from DBERR states that “relevant” insolvency proceedings “will include administration”

That can also be seen from the quotes I’ve given above in relation to the regulations which are taken from the regulations directly. (Obviously, check if you wish!) Administration is not a process “opened… with a view” to the liquidation of the Company assets.

Because the company was still in administration at the time of the player transfers, 8(6) applied which made reg 4 (the employee contract transfer provision) to apply to the situation at RFC.

As I said earlier, you’re genuinely the first person I’ve ever heard suggest that TUPE didn’t apply to the RFC situation.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:10 am - Jun 23, 2013


@CharlotteFakes
Hateley booted yet at time of admin he’s still on the payroll. PR at fans expense?
1. scribd.com/doc/149399294/… and
2. i.imgur.com/L2Bf5mU.jpg
12:09am – 23 Jun 13
—————

At the risk of changing the subject, the Hateley tweet from CF seems rather significant. Not so much in that CW wanted him off the payroll but that he was a paid PR man while writing blogs for the Daily Record. I’m wondering:

* Did the Record know that it was being used as a mouthpiece for propaganda, or did it imagine this was impartial, unbiased reporting?

* Was Hateley sacked in 2011? CF indicates not, but the accompanying image file appears blank, at least on a tablet

* Was Hateley receiving renummeration from both the DR and Ibrox for ‘reporting’ … erm … PR work?

* And are other clubs doing anything similar? In the interests of fairness the question must be asked. Is any other Scottish football club paying former players or mangers to feed PR to the media in the guise of a column or blog? Hopefully, the answer to that is a resounding, ‘No’.

View Comment

FIFAPosted on8:22 am - Jun 23, 2013


Danish Pastry
I am sure Gordon Smith would not be receiving or received anything along these lines also.

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on8:32 am - Jun 23, 2013


DP – I agree with you – for me this highlight what Bill Millar said – that RFC-NIL was being run as an old boys club with everyone coming with their (big) hands out expecting freebies galore.

From Bill Millar’s friend I am reminded…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2012/10/08/what-can-we-learn-from-the-financial-meltdown-of-glasgow-rangers-fc/2/

2) Austerity. It may be unpopular and an affront to the personal sensibilities of some, but Rangers needs to learn to live within its means. It’s time to cut the fat from every department and rebuild an organization that values every pound and demands a return on any and all expenses. The club can’t afford to pay its manager over £1MM and then give every coach and executive premium healthcare, generous pensions, six weeks of vacation, exotic cars, free fuel, appearance fees and other perks. The club can’t afford to provide 45 employees with free cars. The club can’t afford to pay directors annual fees to simply attend matches, socialize and run up a large food and beverage tab. It’s also time to gently manage out that business line from every sporting club that is occupied by expensive past players who hold well paid positions, are protected from downsizing with overly generous notice periods and who do not bring professional skills to the table

Now – given that Hately is shown to be one of the hangers on who took money from the club – would be good to get a response from him what he was being paid for, Would be good to know from someone like John Hartson if CFC are paying him to write his columns in the redtops – somehow I doubt it!

Hately – a man I have never respected either as a player or as a person – did not know it was possible for you to go further down in my estimations.

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on8:36 am - Jun 23, 2013


DP – the image is the payroll report showing employee no 30357 Mark Hately getting 2083.33 salary

View Comment

DuplesisPosted on8:38 am - Jun 23, 2013


@HisuitePursuit at 11:34pm

Sorry, I missed your post last night.

The Brechin situation was clearly a fudge, and there’s no getting away from that.

On the question of what “club” in an SFA sense was playing that day, you’re quite right, the position just doesn’t make sense under the rules. A conditional membership (if I remember correctly) was issued to allow RFC to play because the negotiations had taken so long.

Its important to note though that by the 27th of July a transfer of the membership had been agreed, just not effected.

We don’t know what was meant by conditional membership in this context – since it isn’t a concept which appears in the SFA rules – did RFC operate under a different membership “certificate,” (if memberships even have certificates) or was there agreed to be a temporary conditional transfer of the old one for one day?

I think we’d need to know the answer to that to try to fit the position into the SFA rules, but either way what was done wasn’t something expressly provided for within those rules, since they don’t allow for anything termed conditional membership.

It could be that what was meant that RFC had its membership “conditional upon” completion of the final paperwork, which would be some sort of inchoate transfer which only completed when the final paperwork concluded. This would be consistent with the fact the transfer had been agreed but not effected. If that’s the case then I would say, in principle, Sevco Scotland were at that time “the club”.

What actually happened would depend how “on the ball” the parties and their lawyers were when dealing with this issue at the time, and given the pressure of time I’m not sure how much thought would have been given to all of this.

What I would say however is that the RFC which played them had by that time acquired “the business,” so in the general law sense I’ve been talking about (and if a transfer of the business allows for its continuation which I think it does) then the Rangers “business” was now continuing in that game. I don’t think the SFA Articles/rules matter to that proposition.

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on8:50 am - Jun 23, 2013


Re the new club old club argument .It seems we are now at the point were .
If we don’t have our CLUB NO ONE HAS ONE .
The Sevco fans argument now reminds me of when I was about 7yrs old and a gang of us were having a kick about ,one wee boy didn’t like the fact his team were getting gubbed and picked up HIS baw and went away in a huff .As it was his baw no one else could play either .

I now find myself wishing that ragers 1872 had not died as I and many thousands of other football fans would still have our Clubs to support .

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:03 am - Jun 23, 2013


Re-Mark Hately. He ‘wrote’ an absurd article last year when Rangers entered administration, claiming Celtic’s title win would be tainted. Is it unreasonable to assume he did not write that at all, but was willing to put his name to an article penned by a bitter individual within Ibrox? Recently another article bearing his name claimed the SFA does not do enough to help clubs that don’t pay tax, take on unrealistic bank borrowing they can never afford, and put the club at risk by using elaborate tax avoidance schemes. Those were not the actual words of course, but that is the essence of what he, or whoever actually wrote the article, was saying.

It appears no lessons have been learned within Ibrox at all. The supremacist mentality exists as strong as ever and they don’t care how they smash Celtic, as long as they do.

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on9:19 am - Jun 23, 2013


ecobhoy says:
June 22, 2013 at 11:14 pm
5 15 Rate This

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.
……………………………………….

The difference would have been…. Celtic fans like myself who if the legal facts were unquestionable…I would have been telling you publicly we died…we are a new club…the media would have been telling us we were a new club…the GOVAN fans and fans of all clubs would have been screaming we were a new club…AND THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CORRECT…

I suppose you have been honest enough to admit that under the same set of circumstances…you would find dishonesty a better option…that is not a criticism…just an observation..

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on9:21 am - Jun 23, 2013


upthehoops says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:03 am

Re-Mark Hately. He ‘wrote’ an absurd article last year…
…………………………………………………………..

I think you will find 2 things….he don’t write articles and they are consistently absurd…last year..try last week..

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on9:22 am - Jun 23, 2013


john clarke says:

June 23, 2013 at 1:34 am

There is an emotional argument and a rational one. It is like me (reason) arguing with the wufe (emotional) even if I were to demonstrate the wisdom of Solomon and logic of Aristotle in a debate with her I would still be wrong.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on9:29 am - Jun 23, 2013


UEFA, the BBC, Derry City and The Rangers

http://danieloconnel18.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/uefa-bbc-derry-city-and-rangers.html

The UEFA angle

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on9:47 am - Jun 23, 2013


The argument about rfc/sevco/TRFC is an interesting one. It highlights that if a football club wishes to succeed it should learn the lesson of previous mistakes. One of the huge mistakes that SDM, and other people, made was that he chased the ST money, whether by signing players at astronomical fees, Tore-Flo, or making promises about the developments, floating pitch, casino etc. This kind of short-termism is extremely risky and is ultimately a diminishing return. In the absence of the eye-watering amount of money available through media sponsorship in the EPL, the only sustainable revenue streams available to SPL clubs are the supporters (STs, replica kits, food & drink) and player sales. Relying on European runs is another form of casino management that has contributed to SDMs disastrous stewardship.
The main job of whoever runs TRFC is to lower fans’ expectations, drastically slash outgoings and invest heavily in youth development.
All the available information however points to no real lessons learned: six figure salaries for management staff, SPL wages for lower league standard players, no sales, operating at a loss and big ticket signings designed to attract STs. I give it until October.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:53 am - Jun 23, 2013


Exiled Celt says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:32 am
6 0 Rate This

DP – I agree with you – for me this highlight what Bill Millar said – that RFC-NIL was being run as an old boys club with everyone coming with their (big) hands out expecting freebies galore.

From Bill Millar’s friend I am reminded…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2012/10/08/what-can-we-learn-from-the-financial-meltdown-of-glasgow-rangers-fc/2/

————

That’s some article Exiled! Another one I missed (or have forgotten in the information overload). Do you know who Jon Pritchett is? I thought his estimate of the £9-15m asset value effectively lost by D&P by not doing a Hearts-style fire sale of players was stunning. I remember at the time being puzzled by the admins letting this value disappear, not to mention throwing money away on wages. I reckon many Rangers fans expected a fire sale to happen and to see of 11 kids playing. But it looks as though Green naively thought he was getting these players as part of his deal of the century from D&P, to do with as he deemed fit. At Sheffield he was quite prepared to sell big players to raise cash. Must have been a bit of a shock to see upwards of £10m worth of players walk off. No wonder we got the vindictive threats. I wonder how that black hole looks at present?

@YOURHAVINGALAUGH I thought GS actually came across well on Tommy’s recent interview. If his personal finances are as reported he seems not to have done as well out of Ibrox as certain others.

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on10:04 am - Jun 23, 2013


Danish Pastry says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:53 am
0 0 Rate This

Exiled Celt says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:32 am
6 0 Rate This
%%%%%%

Part of the gamble that CG took was that, if he put up pennies he would get pounds back. There is little doubt that he would have sold all the high value players immediately, replaced them with SFL1/2 players and returned cash to his investors before the IPO. As it was, when the players made him aware that they were leaving, as a result if the amended contracts they had negotiated with D&P, he was forced to buy players but he had to look as if they weren’t panic purchases, hence Sandaza. This also meant that he had to wait for the share issue before he was able to ‘cash out’ (incidentally anyone know what happened to Orlit?).
CG, like CW before him always hoped that Ally & the boys would walk away from their contracts, Ally’s made of stronger stuff!

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on10:10 am - Jun 23, 2013


DP – Jon Prichard was one of Bill Millar’s guys reviewing the books

http://blogs.forbes.com/people/tobaccoroadguy/

I am CEO at CLUB 9 SPORTS. The firm invests in, manages and provides advisory services to companies in the sports, media and entertainment sectors. I have worked in the sports industry since 1988, including stints with IMG, ScheerSports, USC, TRAC and AstroTurf. I studied communications and journalism at Appalachian State University and the University of South Carolina, respectfully and picked up an Executive Ed diploma at the Sports Management Institute. I live in North Carolina…where I’m one of the few remaining, native species

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on10:16 am - Jun 23, 2013


Prichard = Pritchett

Sorry!

View Comment

FIFAPosted on10:41 am - Jun 23, 2013


Danish
Over the years GS has resembled a town hall clock ,as with Hateley I happened to be in a bar a year past Feb/March and lo and behold all our hacks where in for a few sherbets ,as it turned out it was a retiral party for Gym Traynor and surprise surprise who walks in the door to join Keevins and co but Mr H,one of the hacks who is scarce of hair on top handed Mr H a number of GBP and the party went on ,Mr H then presented Gym with a large picture frame with his face super imposed onto, wait for it ,an Airdrie strip ,the party went on and I had to leave ,I dont know what position Gym was retiring from as he was still on RS and had his rant page also in the red top for months after ,but,it does seem there are GBP handouts all over the place.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on10:42 am - Jun 23, 2013


davythelotion says:
June 23, 2013 at 10:04 am
3 0 Rate This
———-

Gamble is the word davy. If he’d just read a bit of the Pritchett report he would have been properly clued up. I must say, for a non-soccer American (@Exiled), he’s written a truly excellent and insightful piece. Still can’t help feeling the CG and IA exit was somehow engineered though, before they fell into that black hole. Btw, no end to the entertaining aliases on here, ‘davythelotion’, the etymology of that wan has had me guessing for a wee while 😀

View Comment

Philip SpicerPosted on10:46 am - Jun 23, 2013


IMO in this whole old/new club debate, the simple reality for all Football fans is that Rangers the Club died but Rangers the Team lives on.. The Club is merely the Legal Entity of the Football Team. Enough Said. I am not a Supporter of any Scottish Football team, but merely an interested observer of this whole debate.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:49 am - Jun 23, 2013


Danish Pastry says: June 23, 2013 at 9:53 am

That’s some article Exiled! Another one I missed (or have forgotten in the information overload). Do you know who Jon Pritchett is? I thought his estimate of the £9-15m asset value effectively lost by D&P by not doing a Hearts-style fire sale of players was stunning. I remember at the time being puzzled by the admins letting this value disappear, not to mention throwing money away on wages. I reckon many Rangers fans expected a fire sale to happen and to see of 11 kids playing. But it looks as though Green naively thought he was getting these players as part of his deal of the century from D&P, to do with as he deemed fit. At Sheffield he was quite prepared to sell big players to raise cash. Must have been a bit of a shock to see upwards of £10m worth of players walk off. No wonder we got the vindictive threats. I wonder how that black hole looks at present?
===================================
I think it was D&P who took the gamble and not Green, but also they probably get more criticism than they deserve with regard to the salary cuts agreed with the players.

Any administrator coming into a club will look to cut his outgoings. Well D&P did that, not by immediately releasing all the high earners, but by having them agree to temporary wage cuts of between 25% to 75%. .

The wage cuts in themselves kept the players, and their asset values. within the club. Where D&P failed however was in allowing the players to negotiate their own reduced fee escape clauses Had the escape clauses been avoided and a CVA been approved, then those asset values would have been retained within the club. The players should have been given the choice of accepting the wage cut, or being made redundant and only that. Had they accepted the redundancy, then the wages saved would have been 100% and not 25%, 50% or 75%

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on10:56 am - Jun 23, 2013


Duplesis says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:38 am
======================
With so many references in my post, it got stuck in moderation for a while. I was going to repost without the references; but, by then, the conversation appeared to have moved on.

However, since you have responded…

Specifically, on the conditional membership. Obviously, no membership category exists. I think you are correct in that what they meant was that an agreement had been reached in principal to transfer the full membership held by Rangers Football Club plc to Sevco Scotland Ltd. That agreement being subject to certain conditions being met.

That said, the “conditional” membership issue isn’t really the point I was trying to make. As I understand the process, it was enough for Sevco Scotland to be registered members of the SFA (13th July 2012 – when they were accepted into the SFL) and to have APPLIED for associate or full membership within 14 days. They had made their application, so had no membership issue (as far as I can tell) in being able to take to the field. The joint statement on the 27th July was on that 14 day deadline for submission of their application; but this may simply have been a co-incidence as I can’t see any reason why the SFA would have to grant or deny the application within that timescale.

I digress…

I disagree that the SFA position does not make sense. The SFA, as they were bound to do, were treating them as two distinct “clubs” under their own articles. There is no conundrum to solve. It really is that simple.

Your problem with the SFA’s actions, if I read your response correctly – and please tell me if I have misunderstood – is that you believe the club had been purchased as part of the business and assets on 14th June 2012.

If I understand your perspective, the “club” is contained within the accumulation of assets – presumably principally the intellectual property, goodwill and the stadium – now owned by The Rangers Football Club Ltd.

Regardless of how UEFA, SPL, SFL or SFA would categorise an association football club (or indeed a “Club”) these would all be different to its meaning in what you regard as a general business sense.

Is this an accurate summary of what you mean?

If so, I’m not going to disagree too much with your perspective. That perspective appears too much a personal view, not based on the footballing authorities articles or rules. My argument has always been on how the authorities have applied their rules to the detriment of the majority to the benefit of one (or two) of their members. I’m not disagreeing with anyone who believes the personal cultural entity they wish to describe as a “club” has transferred from RFC plc to TRFC Ltd.

Club means different things to different people. It has specific meanings within different contexts.Unfortunately, some people conflate their personal view with the meaning that specific words & expressions are given in documents, articles, rules and laws.

Your personal perspective of what it is to be a “club”, it appears, is pretty much in accord with the LNS Commission’s description of a Club as an ethereal “undertaking” of a company.

Your current position I can understand as you acknowledge that you “don’t think the SFA Articles/rules matter” to that personal proposition.

The SPL’s position – as given by the LNS Commission – I disagree with most strongly.

Oh no, here we go again…. 🙂

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on10:56 am - Jun 23, 2013


I was of the opinion that when ragers 1872 finally expired there was always going to be a tribute act to fill the void and I have no problem with that at all .The Sevco fans can argue till they are blue in the face that it is still the same club they have supported all their lives and that is up to them .
The fact is that I do not have to believe them .
It’s a bit like the argument regards the EBTs .Ask any ragers /sevco fan if they believe that the EBTs were legitimate loans and not payments for playing football .if they tell you they believe they were loans then I suggest you end the conversation there and then .
As you will only be p****ing in the wind

View Comment

GazPosted on10:56 am - Jun 23, 2013


Philip Spicer says:
June 23, 2013 at 10:46 am

As Craig Whyte promised, there would be A Rangers playing at Ibrox.

Buy Ibrox, form a football team, dress them in blue and put the word Rangers in the name. You have A Rangers playing it Ibrox.

That’s exactly what Charles Green did.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:02 am - Jun 23, 2013


Don’t know why my last post is up twice???

View Comment

GazPosted on11:04 am - Jun 23, 2013


Danish Pastry says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:10 am

What I would like to know is who was actually writing the articles.

Was it an employee of the paper, who spoke to Hately, got his thoughts and put them into a finished piece. Or did he hand them in to them complete and ready to go.

In short, were the Rangers PR department actually writing pieces which were being placed in a newspaper, and these were being passed off as the product of a “former” player.

And also, was Hately being paid by both sides, it would appear that is a distinct possibility.

View Comment

FIFAPosted on11:07 am - Jun 23, 2013


I would be greatful if someone can update on the position the Rangers football club are at ,will they be able to distance themselves from the issues of the parent company soon to concentrate on the football side of things or do they or the parent company need to meet financial commitments to keep the involvement in scottish footbal alive,they way I see it the fans of this club will not stomach too much more of this fayre before looking elsswhere for entertainment value,the opening fixture ,against Brechin ,would not have me blocking the calender off ,in fact none of the fixtures would get me to cancel an appointment with a taxidermist.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:12 am - Jun 23, 2013


YOURHAVINGALAUGH says:
June 23, 2013 at 10:41 am
1 0 Rate This
———–

Sounds like a fun party @YHaL. No St Mirren fans?

You’d think those GBP would have to be in a large enough quantity to be anything other than a loan (to buy a round) or a few quid owed for entirely benign reasons. Btw, one of the CF tweets had a communication between JT and CW (I believe it was dated around January 2012) regarding – what sounded like – future employment. But to be honest I thought the Your Call host had sounded tired for a very long time, at least on his radio stints. JT has had a fairly cosy relationship with the three previous owners, so there could be a certain helpful continuity in having him around. But what on earth was he thinking when he wrote that club obituary?

View Comment

ForresDeePosted on11:15 am - Jun 23, 2013


Gaz says:
June 23, 2013 at 10:56 am
0 0 Rate This

Philip Spicer says:
June 23, 2013 at 10:46 am

As Craig Whyte promised, there would be A Rangers playing at Ibrox.

Buy Ibrox, form a football team, dress them in blue and put the word Rangers in the name. You have A Rangers playing it Ibrox.

That’s exactly what Charles Green did.

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

A rangers but not THE Rangers!

Oh wait, I see what he’s done there ……….

View Comment

dedeideoprofundisPosted on11:16 am - Jun 23, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:02 am
0 0 Rate This

Don’t know why my last post is up twice???
=================

Bit like New York—-So Good?

View Comment

TartawulverPosted on11:16 am - Jun 23, 2013


Exiled Celt says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:32 am

From Bill Millar’s friend I am reminded…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2012/10/08/what-can-we-learn-from-the-financial-meltdown-of-glasgow-rangers-fc/2/
————————————————–
It looks like one of the biggest catastrophes to hit Rangers in the last year was not having Bill Millar take over. If he had followed this guy’s outline, they would be one year into the worst of the pain and one year closer to the cure, instead of tickling along on life support, wasting energy arguing over whether the body and the soul of the club still exist.

View Comment

TartawulverPosted on11:20 am - Jun 23, 2013


Danish Pastry says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:12 am

JT has had a fairly cosy relationship with the three previous owners, so there could be a certain helpful continuity in having him around. But what on earth was he thinking when he wrote that club obituary?
————————
Just a guess – maybe someone at the Rangers at the time told him that there wasn’t going to be a job for him at the end of the process, and so he decided that he would take his ball home with him too?

View Comment

dedeideoprofundisPosted on11:28 am - Jun 23, 2013


TW says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:16 am

It looks like one of the biggest catastrophes to hit Rangers in the last year was not having Bill Millar take over. If he had followed this guy’s outline, they would be one year into the worst of the pain and one year closer to the cure, instead of tickling along on life support, wasting energy arguing over whether the body and the soul of the club still exist.
=============================

But then the argument would have started about Hicks’ peculiar type of takeover, I can’t remember the details but it seemed to go that he would somehow cast aside the distressed part of the company and then reinstate it once the debt had been shredded.

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on11:32 am - Jun 23, 2013


Gaz says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:04 am
0 1 Rate This

Danish Pastry says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:10 am

£££££££
It isn’t as if MediaHouse were pumping lazy journals with made up nonsense about SDM or the ‘Motherwell born billionaire’?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMQCcOSfaYw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

View Comment

paradisebhoyPosted on11:32 am - Jun 23, 2013


If Ranger’s PR dept are/were writing Mark Hateley’s column for him – what about non – Rangers material ?

View Comment

Mark (@awolz1)Posted on11:34 am - Jun 23, 2013


I suppose you have been honest enough to admit that under the same set of circumstances…you would find dishonesty a better option…that is not a criticism…just an observation..

better than as a default position i suppose

View Comment

GazPosted on11:34 am - Jun 23, 2013


Yeah, the bloke who was going to keep the good parts (not sure what those were) put the bad part to one side, have their debt “written off” in some way and then put the lot back together again.

He said something about an “incubator” being involved somewhere along the way.

Unfortunately for him the fans saw this as liquidation by another name and chased him out of Govan.

“A statement from the Rangers Supporters Trust read: “The Miller bid amounts to nothing other than liquidation by the backdoor and is completely unacceptable to the vast majority of Rangers supporters.”

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/uk/rangers-takeover-fans-against-us-tycoon-bill-miller-s-incubator-plan-1-2248790

Turns out liquidation was acceptable after all, who would have though it at the time. Certainly not the Rangers Supporters Trust.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:34 am - Jun 23, 2013


TW says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:20 am
1 1 Rate This

Danish Pastry says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:12 am

JT has had a fairly cosy relationship with the three previous owners, so there could be a certain helpful continuity in having him around. But what on earth was he thinking when he wrote that club obituary?
————————
Just a guess – maybe someone at the Rangers at the time told him that there wasn’t going to be a job for him at the end of the process, and so he decided that he would take his ball home with him too?
—————————-

There’s a novel thought @TW. I was imagining him for a minute as the Avenger of the Airdrieonians 🙂 A little bit of gloating at the team that effectively killed off his beloved Diamonds.

It is interesting though that he’s a big piece in the jigsaw that connects three previous owners, you’d almost think he wasn’t really a Clydebank fan … erm …

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on11:44 am - Jun 23, 2013


Bill Miller’s due diligence uncovered a £30M black hole, which at that time was based on the understanding that the club would continue to play in the SPL. Given that the IPO money is going towards running costs and that SPL football, let alone European money, is years away, even Dr Who couldn’t pull them out of this one!

View Comment

tic6709Posted on11:53 am - Jun 23, 2013


I see the Kids are up.

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on11:56 am - Jun 23, 2013


Good to see they’re reading!:-)

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on12:01 pm - Jun 23, 2013


davythelotion says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:44 am
1 0 Rate This

Bill Miller’s due diligence uncovered a £30M black hole, which at that time was based on the understanding that the club would continue to play in the SPL. Given that the IPO money is going towards running costs and that SPL football, let alone European money, is years away, even Dr Who couldn’t pull them out of this one …
—————

Well, there’s been quite a few clubs doing multiple administrations, so maybe that will be the next piece of big news? I’m not sure what the penalties for admin will be in the new SPFL, but even if still 15 points, they may still be able to climb out of Div 2. Of course, not many clubs have collapsed into liquidation and then had the newco club falling into admin before the liquidation of the original club is complete. That would probably be some kind of record.

Regardless of the ethics of Bill Millar’s plan to incubate, and so on, the failure of his bid – with its common-sense financial approach and overall forward-looking advisors – now looks like a huge opportunity missed. As TW mentions above, a year on things would have been tough but surely on the road to a sustainable recovery of sorts – even if it was a ‘Glasgow’ version of Airdrie United.

View Comment

john clarkePosted on12:03 pm - Jun 23, 2013


davythelotion says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:32 am

Great video clip link, dtl, thank you.

View Comment

ianjsPosted on12:09 pm - Jun 23, 2013


Miller’s incubator (not to be confused with Phil’s)
http://www.scotzine.com/2012/05/thoughts-on-bill-miller-buying-rangers-and-newco-oldco-conundrum/

View Comment

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on12:28 pm - Jun 23, 2013


Gaz says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:34 am

Unfortunately for him the fans saw this as liquidation by another name and chased him out of Govan.

“A statement from the Rangers Supporters Trust read: “The Miller bid amounts to nothing other than liquidation by the backdoor and is completely unacceptable to the vast majority of Rangers supporters.”
————————————————————————–
I wonder who prepared the statement for them and who was asked to clear it for publication.

View Comment

newtzPosted on12:31 pm - Jun 23, 2013


Hope all interested are following the twitter Fest preceding and following Charlottes latest tweet #GoreFest

Twitter > charlotte fakes > ALL

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on12:53 pm - Jun 23, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
June 22, 2013 at 11:34 pm

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

We know for a fact that on Friday, 27 July 2012 a Joint statement was issued on behalf of The Scottish FA, The Scottish Premier League, The Scottish Football League and Sevco Scotland Ltd.

It stated: ‘That agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club’.

‘Following the completion of all legal documentation, the Scottish Premier League will conduct the formal transfer of the league share between RFC (IA) and Dundee FC on no later than Friday 3rd August 2012. At this point, the transfer of Scottish FA membership will be complete.’

As part of the statement Stewart Regan, Chief Executive of the Scottish FA added: “We are pleased for everyone involved in this process, and indeed the whole of Scottish football, that a conclusion has been reached.

“There were a number of complex and challenging issues involved but, primarily, the Scottish FA had to be satisfied that the new owners of Rangers would operate in the best interests of the club, its fans and Scottish football in general.

“We have reached agreement on all terms and conditions attached to the transfer of membership and are able to grant conditional membership, ahead of the formal transfer of the SPL share a week today. This will allow the season to kick-off as planned this weekend and I am sure there will be many who will join me in welcoming the start of the new football season in Scotland.”

Many posters on here have enthusiastically congratulated and supported the accountant’s view that all the technical legal details and definitions mean nothing in actually recognising the truth of a situation and I agree in some respects with that view but not all.

However, in attempting to answer HP’s question it would seem self-evident to me using only the SFA statement that the club ‘owned and operated’ by Sevco Scotland Ltd played Brechin City on 29 July 2012 after having been granted a conditional membership to do so. It seems to me the granting of the conditional membership was solely to allow the lawyers time to get the paperwork prepared and signed by the parties before the following Friday. But the verbal agreement had clearly been reached.

HP has also stated: ‘Sevco Scotland Ltd were admitted as associate members of the SFL on 13th July 2012.’ However what might actually have happened was that the SFL member clubs voted on 13/07/2012 to willingly accept ‘The Rangers Football Club’ as an Associate Member of The Scottish Football League.

I believe their formal admittance date was possibly later to accommodate paperwork and whatever. But I have been unable to trace an actual official SFL membership date for Rangers. Perhaps someone can assist with this. It might have importance or might not.

HP further stated: ‘With membership of the SFL, Sevco Scotland automatically became registered members of the SFA’ and he cites SFA Article 6.1 in this regard. But it would appear to me that this doesn’t mean that in the split-second that a Club is admitted to the SFL that it is ‘automatically’ a member of the SFA and I cite:

SFL 16. REGISTRATION WITH SFA
A CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP

‘A Member or Associate Member who is not already a full or associate member of the Scottish Football Association must make application to become a full or associate member of the Scottish Football Association (as the case may be) within fourteen (14) days of being admitted to membership of the League.

Some may regard this as nit-picking but in a situation where hours might be the determinant of a legal position held by some never mind days then I think it should be considered.

So once we can establish the actual date Rangers FC was admitted to membership of the SFL then they had to apply within 14 days to the SFA for membership but we know from the SFA Rules that this application would be automatically accepted.

It’s tempting to speculate that the SFL admitted Rangers to membership on 13 July and that the 14 day clock for the SFA application started ticking with a deadline of 27 July when the SFA statement was announced. But we don’t know that for certain and it may well be that the Brechin City game two days later had set it’s own deadline clock ticking.

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

I have already dealt with my reservations about the 13 July date but the interesting point about the citation page is that it includes the remarks:

* Rangers went into administration owing up to £134m to unsecured creditors and will eventually be liquidated
* As a result its registrations with the Scottish FA and Scottish Premier League were terminated

If those are true then it clearly removes the proposition that RFC2012 Plc was still registered as a full-member of the SFA when the Brechin City game was played.

Personally I try not to rely on often faulty MSM reporting but attempt to go back to original sources – preferably written. And, in a change for me, I’m not getting at journalists who are often working to tight deadlines and trying to explain complex stories within a limited space or time-frame.

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on1:11 pm - Jun 23, 2013


From an old Scotsmen article – Glenn Gibbons seems to have know back in his article on Feb 2nd 2013 about Hately – so it was common knowledge maybe? What about Johnstone – how much did RFC-NIL pay him to deliver his verbal diarrhea

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/football/glenn-gibbons-celtic-old-boys-are-harsh-critics-1-2772717

On Rangers’ side, Mark Hateley and Derek Johnstone are the two most commonly held to be so gentle in their handling of the Ibrox club – no matter the ignominy the latter may have suffered – as to be almost laughable. In addition, there have been frequent references to the inappropriateness of Hateley and Johnstone working for a supposedly neutral mainstream media while also on the Rangers payroll.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on1:11 pm - Jun 23, 2013


ecobhoy says:
June 23, 2013 at 12:53 pm

I believe their formal admittance date was possibly later to accommodate paperwork and whatever. But I have been unable to trace an actual official SFL membership date for Rangers. Perhaps someone can assist with this. It might have importance or might not.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My understanding at the time was that the SFL voted in principle to admit Sevco to the SFL, but that was subject to them getting SFA membership. I may be totally wrong, though. I am trying to track down some press release or statement at the time, to clarify whether my recollection is correct.

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on1:15 pm - Jun 23, 2013


Charlotte giving it to Martin Williams

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rkvnm0

@Martin1Williams Here’s another thing. I agree that the Big Tax Case hanging over Rangers made them toxic. Who would have been mad enough to invest with their own money?

Had Craig Whyte not appeared on the horizon, Rangers FC may well have entered administration (and consequently liquidation) much earlier than they did.

Lloyds couldn’t call in their £18 million – There had been no breach of that agreement. Working capital was the issue and Sir David Murray had nothing left to inject from other sources. It could be argued he knowingly sacrificed Rangers in order to save the rest of his empire.

I’d say the Discount Option Scheme or the Wee Tax Case as it became better known, was a major factor. Ticketus also.

£2.8 million was overdue at 31 March 2011 for the wee tax case. Due to the takeover talks, this was bundled up for payment and incorporated into the share and purchase agreement.

£2m was scheduled for repayment on the Ticketus 2010-11 deal by end of June 2011. Previous Ticketus deals were masked so that full repayment happened prior to the year end and not identifiable within the public accounts.

Whilst the £18m was safe, credit lines were to be pulled. Furthermore season ticket money was to be ringfenced and not used for working capital. The existing directors had to ensure that for their own good in the event of an insolvency event.

In my opinion: Sir David Murray drove RFC into the ground. He doesn’t have the balls to take responsibility. His evidence at the EBT FTTT hearing was that of a man who knew he was culpable, but still unwilling to take responsibility. It’s all about self preservation, sod everyone else.

He didn’t appear to take the blame for the EBT situation developing, nor side letters mysteriously disappearing. His get out clause appeared to be that he was merely facilitating deals during his reign. With over 100 companies to manage, he never ever got into the nitty gritty of the deals. Passing the buck – that’s not a sign of leadership, that’s an indication of a coward and a man of no self respect.

Just my view – SDM needed to get out and Craig Whyte delivered a deal that could be believed.

View Comment

DuplesisPosted on1:34 pm - Jun 23, 2013


@HirsutePursuit at 10:56am

“If I understand your perspective, the “club” is contained within the accumulation of assets – presumably principally the intellectual property, goodwill and the stadium – now owned by The Rangers Football Club Ltd.

Regardless of how UEFA, SPL, SFL or SFA would categorise an association football club (or indeed a “Club”) these would all be different to its meaning in what you regard as a general business sense.
Is this an accurate summary of what you mean?”

More nor less. What amounts to the “business” of RFC and whether it can transfer from corporate body to corporate body is a question for the general law, which operates independently to the rules of the bodies you refer to.

You suggest that is too much of a personal view, but I disagree. The question of whether there has been a lawful transfer of assets and/or a business isn’t a matter for the football authorities. By its very nature it is a question for the general law.

Whilst looking at the rules and articles of the bodies you mention is a useful exercise, as you know ultimately all we are doing is examining how particular Limited Companies have contracted to organise their business, and the rights and obligations of their members.

So far as the Articles and rules seek to define concepts such as “club” they are doing so to allow us to make sense of these rules. They don’t create some definitive definition of the meaning of these words which follows their members into a different legal sphere. The definition of “club” in a particular document allows us to construe what is meant by that word where it is used in that particular document, but nothing more.

The rules of the bodies you refer to tell us how a particular “club” (and I use the word loosely…) will be treated by those bodies in the event of certain scenarios (or how it should be treated, at least).
None of the bodies have rules about whether a club “dies” or “continues” in the event of insolvency. The rules aren’t for that purpose. They just have provisions about how such an event is to be treated in a regulatory sense.

(In passing, for the reasons I’ve given (and always with the caveat that the SPL Articles/rules deal with “SPL Clubs” only), I think the SPL rules are consistent with “the club” as a defined grouping of assets. As I say, that’s what LNS meant when he said the club was an undertaking like any other etc. I think the SPL rules and articles were drafted with commercial law issues like this in mind.)

In my view therefore the question of the continuation or otherwise of RFC is primarily a general law question – so I suppose I come at this from almost exactly the opposite position to you!

On the conditional membership and the Brechin game.

I think the question of what the conditional membership actually was is relevant to this because it’s relevant to whether there were strictly 2 clubs (and by “club” here I mean “club” as defined in the SFA Articles.)
My position is indeed as you say that the club (in the business and assets sense) was purchased. Amongst the assets purchased was the SFA membership. Because of the SFA company rules, such a purchase had to be authorised by the SFA though – i.e. it wasn’t entirely within D&P’s “gift” to sell the membership.

As far as I’m aware, the only application to the SFA that Sevco made was to authorise the transfer of this membership. I am unaware of them simultaneously applying for a separate (and new) SFA membership.
I haven’t checked the provisions you refer to, but if entry into the SFL together with an application for membership within 14 days was sufficient to allow the Sevco variant of RFC to play, then presumably the application for transfer was made within that timescale and sufficed from that point of view. In any event, by the 27th of July (within that 14 day period) it had been agreed that the transfer would take place.

If I follow your position, you’re saying that once applied for, the team were allowed to take to the field even if the membership hadn’t actually transferred, and that there was no time limit within which the membership had to be transferred.

On that basis RFC/Sevco were playing in Brechin on the strength of an agreed transfer of the RFC membership which just hadn’t taken place yet – but not under a new membership.

In a general law sense, I would see that as something like an inchoate transfer which becomes ratified/or complete once the transfer actually took place – so I see there being one “club,” (in the SFA sense) the one which actually played the game.

You be pleased to hear that I think we’ve done the discussion on LNS and the SPL Articles to death, so I note your disagreement and will leave it at that! :)

I have to catch up on some work now, and probably won’t look in again until this evening, so won’t be able to come back on any response until later.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:41 pm - Jun 23, 2013


neepheid says:
June 23, 2013 at 1:11 pm

ecobhoy says:
June 23, 2013 at 12:53 pm

I believe their formal admittance date was possibly later to accommodate paperwork and whatever. But I have been unable to trace an actual official SFL membership date for Rangers. Perhaps someone can assist with this. It might have importance or might not.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My understanding at the time was that the SFL voted in principle to admit Sevco to the SFL, but that was subject to them getting SFA membership. I may be totally wrong, though. I am trying to track down some press release or statement at the time, to clarify whether my recollection is correct.
========================================================================

It’s funny when I read my post after it went up I had another thought – hindsight is a wonderful thing 🙂

In reality I don’t think the ‘automatic’ link to SFA membership through SFL membership is actually relevant because the SFA statement of 27 July stated: ‘Agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd.’

So, wrt to the context of SFA membership, this had nothing to do with SFL membership but was based on the previous SFA membership of the club owned and operated by THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB Plc. That has obvious consequences for the debate but I won’t immediately go there.

And the reason I say that is I have never been terribly fussed about the ‘club’ issue and thought there were more important things to concentrate on. I do have my own personal view of the ‘club’ position which isn’t based on the legal niceties but on the pure gut emotion of a football fan and I posted on iot a few days ago.

But, possibly unfortunately, I became drawn into the ‘club’ debate because it hasn’t gone away and they legal challenges for a layman are awesome and I love challenges. But in the process I have begun to understand that until fans, and in particular those of Celtic and Rangers, reach some kind of accommodation or shared understanding of the ‘club’ issue then I fear it will be another barrier in the road, not just to reconciliation, but tackling the poison that infects much of Scottish society.

I have no interest in point scoring or proving a point and indeed because I have come late to the issue I actually had no pre-conceived beliefs or viewpoint on it as I had mistakenly not realised its overall importance in the jigsaw.

When I look at some of the contributions that have been made it seems clear to me that there is a clear grouping who would rather that the debate didn’t take place or continue as it might undermine the foundations that underpin the diametrically opposed views of two sets of antagonists happy to retain the a big stick to beat the opposition with.

View Comment

GazPosted on1:45 pm - Jun 23, 2013


The bottom line is that without European football Rangers were running at a loss somewhere in the region of £10m per year, possibly more. We all knew that and Craig Whyte even admitted it. Bill Millar corroborated it.

They had take Lloyds as far as they could and there was no more credit available there. They had gone to Ticketus and pre-sold season tickets for four seasons, making the shortfall in income even higher. 20,000 season tickets at say £450 each, £9m. Money going straight to Ticketus and not available to the club.

So realistically under Craig Whyte Rangers were looking at losses of something like £19m or more in a season. The damage had been done long before, and based on nothing but arrogance and a sense of supremacy and entitlement. Rangers could not fail, it was unthinkable.

However the business was absolutely fecked and not likely to get better for quite some time if at all. The business model had failed so badly it’s laughable for anyone to suggest otherwise.

There was nothing left but administration and they all knew it. It was a contrived insolvency in order to save the club. the plane was clearly to wipe the debt through a derisory CVA and to be kept in the SPL. It meant other people losing tens of millions of pounds, but none of them cared about that. And I include the owners, management, administrators and fans. Saving Rangers matter more than any honesty or integrity.

That didn’t work, they were liquidated. Neither did an attempt to bully the new club into the SPL, again debt free.

Two groups stopped the plan working. HMRC and the fans of Scottish football who let their teams know that a place in the SPL or SFL1 were both unacceptable.

View Comment

Comments are closed.