UEFA Club Licensing. – To Comply or not to Comply ?
On 16 April 2018 The UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) adjudicatory chamber took decisions in the cases of four clubs that had been referred to it by the CFCB chief investigator, concerning the non-fulfilment of the club licensing criteria defined in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
Such criteria must be complied with by the clubs in order to be granted the licence required to enter the UEFA club competitions.
The cases of two clubs::
Olympique des Alpes SA (Sion Switzerland )
and
FC Irtysh (Kazakhstan)
are of particular interest to those following the events under which the SFA awarded a UEFA License to Rangers FC in 2011 currently under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer because
- The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
- The cases tell us what might have happened to Rangers FC in 2012 had they not gone into liquidation and as a consequence avoided the same type of sanctions that UEFA applied to Sion and Irtysh.
FC Sion (Olympique des Alpes SA)
Here we are told how the Swiss FL and then the UEFA CFCB acted in respect of FC Sion in 2017 where a misleading statement was made in the Sion UEFA licensing application.
Full details can be read at
but this is a summary.
In April 2017 the Swiss FL (SFL) granted a licence to Sion FC but indicated that a Disciplinary case was pending.
In July 2017 the CFCB, as part of their licence auditing programme, carried out a compliance audit on 3 clubs to determine if licences had been properly awarded. Sion was one of those clubs.
The subsequent audit by Deloitte LLP discovered Sion had an overdue payable on a player, amounting to €950,000, owed to another football club (FC Sochaux ) at 31st March 2017 as a result of a transfer undertaken by Sion before 31st December 2016, although the €950,000 was paid in early June 2017.
Deloitte produced a draft report of their findings that was passed to SFL and Sion for comment on factual accuracy and comment on the findings. Sion responded quickly enabling Deloitte to present a final report to the CFCB Investigation Unit. In response to the Deloitte final report Sion stated:
“il apparaît aujourd’hui qu’il existait bel et bien un engagement impayé découlant d’une activité de transfert. Ce point est admis” translated as
“it now appears that there was indeed an outstanding commitment arising from transfer activity. This is admitted”
What emerged as the investigation proceeded was that the Swiss FL Licensing Committee, after granting the license in April and as a result of a Sochaux complaint of non-payment to FIFA, had reason to refer Sion’s application to their Disciplinary Commission in May 2017 with regard to the submission of potentially misleading information by FC Sion to the SFL on 7th April 2017 as part of its licensing documentation.
Sion had declared
“Written confirmation: no overdue payables arising from transfer activities”, signed by the Club’s president, stating that as at 31 March 2017 there were no overdue payables towards other football clubs. In particular, the Club indicated that the case between FC Sion and FC Sochaux regarding the transfer of the player Ishmael Yartey was still under dispute.
The SFL Disciplinary Commission came to the conclusion that FC Sion had no intention to mislead the SFL, but indeed submitted some incorrect licensing documentation; the SFL Disciplinary Commission further confirmed that the total amount of €950,000 had been paid by the Club to FC Sochaux on 7 June 2017. Because of the inaccurate information submitted, the SFL Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine of CHF 8,000 on the Club.
Whilst this satisfied the SFL Disciplinary process the CFCB deemed it not enough to justify the granting of the licence as UEFA intended their FFP rules to be applied.
Sion provided the CFCB with a number of reasons on the basis of which no sanction should be imposed. In particular, the Club admitted that there was an overdue payable as at 31 March 2017, but stated that the mistake in the document dated 7 April 2017 was the result of a misinterpretation by the club’s responsible person for dealing with the licence (the “Club’s licence manager”), who is not a lawyer. The Club affirmed that it never had the intention to conceal the information and had provisioned the amount due for payment and that, in any case, it has already been sanctioned by the SFL for providing the wrong information.
The CFCB Investigation Unit accepted that the Sion application, although inaccurate, was a one off misrepresentation and not a forgery, (as in intended to deceive ) but that nevertheless an overdue payable did exist at 31st March and a licence should not have been granted.
Based on their findings, the CFCB Chief Investigator decided to refer the case to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber and suggested a disciplinary measure to be imposed on FC Sion by the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, such measure consisting of a fine of €235,000, corresponding to the UEFA Revenues the Club gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
The CFCB Investigatory Chamber submitted that it was appropriate to impose a fine corresponding to all the UEFA revenues the Club gained by participating in the competition considering the fact that FC Sion should not have been admitted to the competition for failing to meet one of its admission criteria.
The Adjudicatory Chambers took all the circumstances (see paras 91 to 120 at http://tiny.cc/i8sxsy ) into consideration and reached the following key decisions.
- FC Sion failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 49(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the SFL not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
- To exclude FC Sion from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next two (2) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19 and 2019/20).
- To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
- FC Sion is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings.
Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.
It is now public knowledge that an actual liability of tax due before 31stDecember 2010 towards HMRC, was admitted by Rangers FC before 31st March 2011.
This liability was described as “potential” in Rangers Interim accounts audited by Grant Thornton.
“Note 1: The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. A provision for interest of £0.9m has also been included within the interest charge.”
The English Oxford Dictionary definition of potential is:
Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.
Which was not true as the liability had already been “developed” so could not be potential.
This was repeated by Chairman Alistair Johnson in his covering Interim Accounts statement
“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. “ where he also added
“Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised.”
This could be taken as disputing the liability but In fact the resolution to the assessments raised would have been payment of the actual liability, something that never happened.
In the Sion case it was accepted the misleading statement was a one off misrepresentation, but at the monitoring stages at June 2011 in Ranger’s case the status of the liability continued to be misrepresented and in September the continuing discussions reason was repeated, along with a claim of an instalment paid whose veracity is highly questionable.
The Swiss FL Licensing Committee did at least refer the case to their Disciplinary Committee when they realised a misleading statement might have been made. The SFA however in August 2011, when Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox for payment of the overdue tax , did no such thing and pulled up the drawbridge for six years, one that the Compliance Officer is now finally charged with lowering.
The case of FC Irtysh of Kazakhstan is set out in full at http://tiny.cc/y9sxsy and is a bit more straightforward but is nevertheless useful to compare with events in 2011 in Scotland.
Unlike Rangers FC , FC Irtysh properly disclosed that they had an overdue payable to the Kazakhstan tax authorities at the monitoring point at 30th June 2017. This caused the CFCB Investigatory Unit to seek further information with regard to the position at 31st March
It transpired that Irtysh had declared an overdue payable at 31st March but cited their financial position (awaiting sponsor money) as a reason for non payment to the Kazakhstan FA who accepted it and granted the licence. The outstanding tax was paid in September 2107.
The outcome of the CFCB Investigation was a case put to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber who agreed with the CFCB Investigation Unit that a licence should not have been granted and recommended that Irtysh be fined the equivalent of the UEFA prize money, (that had been withheld in any case whilst CFCB investigated.)
The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber however decided that a fine was not sufficient in sporting deterrent terms and ruled that:
- FC Irtysh failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 50bis(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the FFK not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- To withhold four hundred and forty thousand Euros (€440,000) corresponding to the UEFA revenues FC Irtysh gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
- To exclude FC Irtysh from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next three (3) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons). This sanction is deferred for a probationary period of (3) three years. This exclusion must be enforced in case the Club participates again in a UEFA club competition having not fulfilled the licence criteria required to obtain the UEFA licence in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- FC Irtysh is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings. “
The deferral was because unlike Rangers FC, FC Irtysh had properly disclosed to the licensor the correct & accurate financial information required, so the exclusion was deferred for a probationary period of (3) years.
Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.
From the foregoing it could be deduced that had Rangers FC qualified for the Champions League (or European League) and not gone bust as a result and so not entered liquidation BUT it became public knowledge by 2012 that a licence had been wrongly and possibly fraudulently granted then
- Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
- At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
- The consequences of both would have been as damaging for Rangers survival as the real life consequences of losing to Malmo and Maribor in the qualifying rounds of the Champions and European Leagues.
Karma eh!
Interestingly in the UEFA COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY REPORT 2015 – 2017 , the CFCB investigatory chamber recommended that both the Kazakhstan FA and Swiss FA as licensors
“pay particular attention to the adequate disclosure of the outstanding amounts payable towards other football clubs, in respect of employees and towards social/tax authorities, which must be disclosed separately;
Would the same recommendation apply to the Scottish FA with regard to their performance in 2011 and will the SFA responses thereafter to shareholders in a member club be examined for compliance with best governance practice by the SFA Compliance Officer investigating the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011?
This would be a welcome step in fully restoring trust in the SFA.
ALLYJAMBOMAY 6, 2018 at 00:14
20
0 Rate This
Fact: Rangers Football Club incorporated in 1899 to become Rangers Football Club Limited. There is no record of a separate entity, or club, anywhere. There would be, without any doubt, a record if there was such a thing as a Rangers Football Club separate from the incorporated club. Until someone comes up with an explanation for such an obvious missing record, there could only ever be one Rangers, and that was the incorporated body.
It matters not one jot who says old club, new club, there is no evidence of the existence of whatever it is they claim continues as Rangers. Not then, not now, and there never will be.
Question that needs answered: if having bought the assets of Rangers FC Ltd, Sevco had not changed it’s name to The Rangers Football Club Limited, would there still be people claiming Sevco as a continuation of Rangers?
—————–
If there was a separate entity, or club, anywhere.
would they not have their own board of directors with a minutes of meetings.There would be, without any doubt, a record if there was such a thing as a Rangers Football Club separate from the incorporated club. would there not?
EASYJAMBO MAY 5 01.52
EJ You have always replied to me in a courteous manner (which i appreciate) but come on, you can’t be serious?.
On one side – Law Lords, Governing bodies who have taken legal advice on the subject, Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs.
On the other side – The unqualified opinions of the Media, Players, Managers & Internet Bampots.
Who to believe.
Just kicking around and came across this.
Rangers director Dave King today revealed he is going to sue former club owner Sir David Murray for 20 million pounds.
Mr King, the South African-based businessman who made a flying visit to Scotland last week, confirmed his intentions in an explosive statement released today.
As well as taking action over the non-disclosure of the full financial picture at the Glasgow club, Mr King said that:
– He believes Rangers will not emerge from administration and liquidation is inevitable
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13049667.Dave_King_to_sue_Sir_David_Murray_for___20m/
———————-
I wonder how this is going? could give SG a warchest.
– And if his legal action against Sir David is successful he will invest every penny of the money back into Rangers.
———-
Maybe PM and DK never did see eye to eye.
Meanwhile, former Rangers director Paul Murray believes the club can be saved from liquidation despite fears to the contrary by Mr King. He told talkSPORT: “From my point of view and talking to the administrators, I’m certainly not working on the basis that liquidation is inevitable. “I’m surprised Dave King has actually released that statement, as he certainly didn’t clear it with me. I agree with a lot of what he said, but with regard to liquidation I’m not sure I agree with that.”
Got to say, slimjim, that you’ve done the best job for a while in momentarily diverting the main blog with your magical-mystery old club/new club fantasy.
I feel your pain and… as I do have some sympathy for sentient fitba fans… here’s a way to continue posting on here without having to daily defend the indefensible.
Be honest in your posts, when referring to the club that Gerrard may one day ‘manage’, by using its correct name – The Rangers. Many on here do. It’s the truth and no biggie…
You’ll have the thrill of being loyal to your new club and, when reading posts by idiots like me who refer to it as Sevco, you can feel superior and dignified.
I think the easy answer to people demanding that we accept Rangers as the same club is to ask when the £90m+ they owe to HMRC is going to be paid. If you want the same club, then you are forever guilty of the same disgrace – can’t have it both ways.
FISHNISH MAY 6 08.47
3.49 on the video. What name is on the League Title flags?
THE RANGERS FC
No pain, No Superiority. SErVice COmpanyis a very popular name.
https://rangers.co.uk/news/rangers-tv/gerrard-behind-the-scenes/
Cluster OneMay 6, 2018 at 08:13
ALLYJAMBOMAY 6, 2018 at 00:14200 Rate ThisFact: Rangers Football Club incorporated in 1899 to become Rangers Football Club Limited. There is no record of a separate entity, or club, anywhere. There would be, without any doubt, a record if there was such a thing as a Rangers Football Club separate from the incorporated club. Until someone comes up with an explanation for such an obvious missing record, there could only ever be one Rangers, and that was the incorporated body. It matters not one jot who says old club, new club, there is no evidence of the existence of whatever it is they claim continues as Rangers. Not then, not now, and there never will be.Question that needs answered: if having bought the assets of Rangers FC Ltd, Sevco had not changed it’s name to The Rangers Football Club Limited, would there still be people claiming Sevco as a continuation of Rangers? —————–If there was a separate entity, or club, anywhere.would they not have their own board of directors with a minutes of meetings.There would be, without any doubt, a record if there was such a thing as a Rangers Football Club separate from the incorporated club. would there not?
________________
Correct, though not actually a board of directors if the thing that floats on high is an unincorporated body. If ‘the club’ that was the pre-incorporation Rangers had somehow continued, there would, of course, have been a list of members and minutes of meetings, but not only do they not exist, there has never been a word written, nor spoken, of this floaty football club to even suggest it existed in the hearts and minds (one of the suggestions for the ‘existence’ of that floaty thing) of the supporters. Only after Charles Green made his ludicrous claim to have bought the ‘history’ of Rangers did anyone start to look for a way to explain this fanciful ‘football club’ notion, and though some will claim that various bodies have said they are the same club, not one (body) has even attempted to explain how or why they are! Not one. Not one ‘journalist’ has tried to explain how they came to be converted to the ‘belief’ of continuation, either.
And, of course, the man who sold the whole idea of the continuation of Rangers to it’s supporters, Charles Green, completely retracted the claim, through his lawyer, in court, with the judge laughing out of court the pathetic attempt to argue otherwise!
But, of course, the question I posed last night still remains unanswered; if Sevco hadn’t changed it’s name to The Rangers Football Club Limited, would anyone consider Sevco to be Rangers?
SLIMJIMMAY 6, 2018 at 09:23
Why was the owner/operator company name on the club crest?
I remember EJ posting this link:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2018csih30.pdf?sfvrsn=0
And in it was a quote, ‘The reclaimer had held shares in the old Rangers club before it went into administration in 2012′
What does this mean, ‘Old Club‘? and ‘went into administration 2012‘? Who is this LORD DRUMMOND YOUNG? Somebody will have to tell him he’s wrong, there is no, ‘Old Club’, just the One club!
This OC/NC nonsense is getting out of hand. There really is no need for it, all this he said, she said, my list is bigger than your list piffle.
There is only one list that matters. The definitive unarguable authority on the subject.
It is the list of He’s, She’s, and organisations that have publicly shown an interest, and declared that Rangers(I.L.) were NOT liquidated, which after much research, I have reproduced below.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ALLYJAMBOMAY 6, 2018 at 09:28
Correct, though not actually a board of directors if the thing that floats on high is an unincorporated body. If ‘the club’ that was the pre-incorporation Rangers had somehow continued, there would, of course, have been a list of members and minutes of meetings,
————–
Thanks for that clarification.
————-
But, of course, the question I posed last night still remains unanswered; if Sevco hadn’t changed it’s name to The Rangers Football Club Limited, would anyone consider Sevco to be Rangers?
And that my dear sir is a belter as one would say.
DBD MAY 5 17.32
I apologize for the time taken to reply, missed your post yesterday as it was a busy day for me on here.
I agree with everything you say but would urge you to stay. No LAWMAN apparently, for reasons unknown?, so we need a voice on here otherwise inaccuracies will go unchallenged.
You’re decision of course but reconsider after a day or so would be my advice.
We may not agree on every subject but we both support and want the best for THE RANGERS.
SJ
craig whyte bought ragers fc 1872 from DM for a quid ,the company he used to buy said club was WAVETOWER
So we have WAVETOWER and ragers fc 1872 .
One of those two went into admin and is currently awaiting liquidation .
If yo read the link you supplied WAVETOWER is in the report as being taken to court over a disputed floating charge .
Can you please give me the name of this mysterious never before known company that is being liquidated .
SJ if I could also ask you another question .
Do you think that the money payed to the players of ragers 1872 were loans or renumeration for kicking a ball around a football field
1. loans
2. remuneration
number 1 or two would suffice thanks
MERCDOC
MAY 6, 2018 at 09:37
——————————————————
Why would you take the opinion of the most senior Court in the country. Particularly when it is so unequivocal.
It’s almost as if you think that anything said before becomes irrelevant once that Court has spoken. Well until the Supreme Court says differently of course.
From this moment life has begun From this moment you are the one Right beside you is where I belong From this moment on
From this moment I have been blessed I live only for your happiness And for your love I’d give my last breath From this moment on
I give my hand to you with all my heart I can’t wait to live my life with you I can’t wait to start You and I will never be apart My dreams came true because of you
From this moment as long as I live I will love you, I promise you this There is nothing I wouldn’t give From this moment on
You’re the reason I believe in love And you’re the answer to my prayers from up above All we need is just the two of us My dreams came true because of you
From this moment as long as I live I will love you, I promise you this There is nothing I wouldn’t give From this moment I will love you as long as I live From this moment on
IMHO for what it’s worth this latest shyster trying to convert us non-believers is on the media payroll somewhere so please stop responding.
His family time will be his days off.
Although I love when I see all the info the blog has in it’s locker.
Three quick points, if I may:
Scanning the SMSM this morning, there seems to be a definite recalibration of the Ibrox Expectation-ometer. DCK’s ‘immediate success’ requirement seems to have been dropped for a more even-paced progress next season.
::
::
Gordon Waddell in the Sunday Mail, ‘Their [RIFC/TRFC’s] PR operation asked on Friday at Gerrard’s unveiling that all financial questions be left out because King would address them on Monday.’ How nice of the SMSM & wider media to comply, despite knowing that King just can’t help himself & you were almost guaranteed to get him to go off-script & say something he shouldn’t. Journalists: asking the hard questions, eh?
::
::
Re tomorrow’s much trailed announcement: If DCK announces a huge investment from the Man from Atlantis or the Abominable Snowman, how does that help him in his current difficulties? Even if, as part of the investment, he agrees to sell his shares & remove himself from the company (or accept an honorific like ‘Life President’), surely the TOP (who he seems to have run ragged for a year) would demand that he comply with their requirement to make an offer, via the agreed Laird vehicle, for 70% of the RIFC shares, before being able to sell up? They surely can’t just accept that he’s selling up & moving on?
HIGHLANDERMAY 5, 2018 at 23:58
SLIMJIM MAY 5, 2018 at 23:25I’ll give you one https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=c72b2da7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7Now it’s your turn. Links also essential. ThanksWith all due respect (ie zero imho), would you care to explain exactly what it is you think you’re providing proof of? As I recall, and I’ll admit to being rusty on it, all that the betting case proved was twofold. Firstly that Rangers weren’t relegated and secondly that every effort was made by all concerned to avoid discussing the elephant in the room at all costs.
Earlier you wrongly informed us that HMRC said “same club” yet HMRC helpfully told us that the club (not just company) went into liquidation.
I think it would also be helpful to clarify that the recent tax case is categorically not the reason why the club was put into liquidation. It is a matter of public record that Rangers was placed in administration by its principal shareholder and director because it was unable to pay its creditors, including HMRC. At the time of liquidation, published court papers showed that the undisputed tax that was owed by the company was approximately £21 million. This is an entirely separate issue from the amount in dispute due to the former owner of the club’s use of the EBT scheme.You mentioned concerns that confidential information was leaked about the case. These matters were investigated by the Police Service of Scotland in conjunction with HMRC and the Police Force West of Scotland. No evidence was found that there was any leak of information from HMRC.I hope you find this reply helpful. If you need to contact us again, please quote the reference number at the head of this email.
Yours sincerely
Steve GrovesHM Revenue and CustomsMinisterial Correspondence UnitFirst FloorHoward HouseNottinghamNG2 1AB
———————————————————————————————–
Thanks Highlander.
Any chance of an SFM “Files” section with a library of scans of these kind of letters and documents?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
On Slim Jim’s wee dog whistle about the absence of Lawman. SJ inviting us to imagine that his champion is being prevented from posting.
He hasn’t posted anything.
The victim-hood protestations begin. My personal opinion is that SJ and Lawman are in cahoots. Too many coincidences over the past few days.
OC/NC is not a debate. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but Trumpian “alternative facts” are not an entitlement at all.
That said, there is no need to attack anyone on the basis of an opinion or fantasy, however much it is in conflict with the facts. Please keep things civil, and try to filter out sarcasm and invective before you post. Mods have been told not to amend such messages – just bin them.
Since the trolling is ongoing, and since, despite years of experience of it people still respond to them, I have enabled a new post thread on the Forum, entitled “Here’s what I think: Old Club Opinion”
https://www.sfm.scot/forums/topic/heres-what-i-think-old-club-opinion/
I doubt any flat-earthers pop in an attempt to convert anyone to their faith.. Rather it tends to occur to distract from exploration of current events.
From everyone involved in the Gerrard signing, there is a noticeable consensus that there are still conditions to be met, that haven’t yet been fulfilled.
Barry Scott and Paul Murray (RRM), have upped and gone
A CO report is awaited, and it may condemn directors of Rangers(I.L.)
There is zero profit to be had “investing” in Sevco. On that basis, we are being asked to believe there will be “investors” happy to extract less than deposited. ..Why would anyone choose to do that?
The only manager who appears to have disappeared showing any sign of satisfaction, is Caixinho, after completing several overseas transfers of not insignificant sums.
TOP have had DCK in court quite a lot recently.
The status of Sevco’s Euro license application is as yet unknown.
The SFA are still in their bunker
What share issue?
Sporting integrity has not yet been achieved. There really is a lot more to be getting on with.
Red herrings do not eat nuts, but squirrels do…. Don’t let them eat your nut.
This weekends version of the NC/OC discussion has reminded me that the Scottish FA and SPL as it was really have had a nightmare since 2012. Association Football originators along with The FA. What a privilege in the history of the beautiful game. And what a mess they have made of their governing duties recently.
NC/OC is minor to me. Almost meaningless except for banter type fun.
Q. Are the new Rangers new?
Answer 1a. Of course they are. Naismith, Whittaker and Aluko leaving as free agents in the summer of 2012 while still within their OC contract period makes it un-arguable in football terms that the old Rangers were gone.
Answer 1b. Of course they are not? How do I know this? Because when they lose to Celtic, my club, I am as delighted as I always was. And when they lose to anyone else I am as delighted as I always was. When Hibernian made it 3-2 in the 2016 cup final I jumped out of my chair with joy.
For anyone still reading, here is my point. I don’t want to or need to argue with anyone about NC/OC. It is, for me, miles away from what matters. Which, in my simple head, is the Lord Nimmo Smith guilty verdict on player registration offences.
Players have to be registered correctly in any form of amateur or professional football to be on the park legitimately. Of course they do. Did Rangers FC break the player registration rules in the EBT years? Of course they did. LNS said so.
Therefore have Rangers only legitimately won 49 league titles up to now, same as Celtic? Of course they have.
If only the SFA had done their duty on this critical point in 2013 when LNS delivered his guilty verdict. But they didn’t and in failing to do so, have lined up a huge problem coming.
All of us know fine what was what in the EBT years but when title 1/50/55 comes, and it will sometime, the NC/OC discussion will be debating handbags in comparison. Rangers will strut and stare like always. The rest of us will rage at the machine like always.
I just hope that someone in authority can finally find a way to say that the football rules matter and that due to player registration offences the league championship wins of 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010 and 2011, the Scottish Cup wins of 2002, 2003, 2008 and 2009 and the Scottish League Cup wins of 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2011 will not be awarded.
Tomorrow’s press conference should be interesting, but probably another deflection from the people who gushed about a secured term loan as an overdraft facility.
How complicit of the media to hold any questions until tomorrow. Of course they may not have been given the questions yet.
There may be some new information tomorrow but I expect another Smoke and mirrors production.
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
MAY 6, 2018 at 12:04
========================================
Two directors leave, one of them seen by all and sundry in the support as one of the realest of real rangers men. The other got on the board when he and a few others provided much needed loans to the PLC, £5.4m.
Other related party loans – Shareholders and new investors
George Taylor, George Letham, Andrew Ross, Barry Scott, Scott Murdoch
A few days later a player with little or no experience as a manager is announced as the new manager.
There is no way these events are not linked.
Dave King is to hold a press conference on Monday, presumably some big announcement to be made.
Shortly thereafter the new club debate is resurrected on here and people are distracted.
Quelle surprise.
HOMUNCULUSMAY 6, 2018 at 13:11
SLIMJIMMAY 5, 2018 at 23:25 During the close season Rangers went into liquidation and a decision was later taken to compel the re-formed Rangers to play in the third division of the SFL.
From the link you provided -no mention of holding company or other fictions .
Birth certificate (extract)
“We the several persons whose names and addresses are subscribed, are desireous of being formed into a Company in pursuance of this Memeorandum of Association,and we respectively agree to take the number of shares in the capital of the Company set opposite to our respective names.”
27th May ‘99
Family tree.
RFC 2012 P.L.C. formerly The Rangers Football Club P.L.C.
SC004276
D.O.B Incorporated on 27 May 1899
Parent The Rangers Football Club P.L.C.
The Rangers Football Club Limited
SC425159
D.O. B. Incorporated on 29 May 2012
Parent Sevco Scotland Limited
Rangers International Football Club PLC
SC437060
D.O.B. Incorporated on 16 November 2012
Parent Rangers Football Plc
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/
When Dave King tells the fans that 10 in a row has to be stopped, what fans of other clubs, in particular Celtic, take from this, this board who screwed their own fans and closed down their club and have put in place an illussion is basically blackmailing the supporters of their new creation to take responsibilty by ponying up or forever have the finger of guilt pointed at them.Very cool and emotional manipulation.
Tommorows meeting should be fun, bank holiday and all eyes on the game.
The Set-Up. The Hook. The Wire. The Shut-Out. The Sting.
If I may, TRFC is both the old club and a new club. The old via the fans but in an exaggerated way (that is a very bad thing) and in financial chaos(again a very bad thing) The new by shedding its debts (a third very bad thing) and as the eastern sage said your club’ deid mate (the fourth very bad thing for those who would deny it)
One of the apologists with a penchant for claiming that his opinions actions and knowledge are unknown to those here called folk here unqualified How does he know?
There is evidence of folk here knowing more than the unqualified over many topics I would claim such knowledge over the theology of post 1962 John Coltrane music – that is useful stuff to know for a limited set of people who might regard George Ezra as a one trick pony of evanescent appeal.
BFBPUZZLED
MAY 6, 2018 at 15:08
===================================
Bloke phoned radio Clyde one night, discussing the situation with regards EBTs.
Keevin’s predictable and sarky reply “Oh here we go another tax expert” to which the caller replied “Well yes, I’m a lawyer and tax law is my specialism”.
The above is a true story, in essence if not in exact detail.
There is an arrogance in the media, and an assumption that people posting on internet forums are making stuff up as they go along. That may be true of some people. However it is not the universal truth some would have you believe. There are people who are more qualified to opine on subjects than those who would disparage them simply because of the forum they use.
The above is the opinion of an internet bampot.
I am going to stick my neck out here and say that the only thing that makes sense to me over this whole Gerrard/Murray/Scott mini saga within a mega saga is that tomorrow, at statement o’clock, King/RIFC/TRFC will announce new (Chinese?) owners. I can honestly see no other possible scenario.
I suspect King will be going, the new owners won’t want him around, and Murray and Scott needed to go with/before him, while the new owners will want some connection with the support to remain, and would obviously prefer the people they might be able to trust. The resignations may well be seen by foreign (oriental?) businessmen as a sign of good faith, and confirmation that the door is open for them. This could explain why there’s been no reasons for the resignations given, with King and the new owners wanting a grandstand announcement of the new regime. I see Gerrard as the kind of marquee manager that non-traditional football people, brought to football by EPL TV coverage, would see as ideal for the ‘face’ of their club.
I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if King has managed to convince such people that one day soon ‘Rangers’, and Celtic, will join the EPL.
On King’s TOP problems, I doubt it matters to him, or any new owners, if the sale of the club gets him off the hook, or not. If King can walk away from this with more money in his pocket than he would by sticking around, he’d sell the club to his granny, although she is most likely to be his ‘The Granny’ by now.
At some point King has to go, leaving TRFC in rich men’s hands, or he will watch the club disappear along with his money (or his ‘other peoples money’). It matters not one jot to him how it comes about, or whether it’s right and proper.
Re the rumoured donation to Rangers which may be announced tomorrow. I really don’t think we are talking about overly massive sums otherwise Gerrard would almost certainly not have been their first choice. Why would anyone risk giving a rookie Manager £50-60m to spend? I also believe if it was sums of that amount a favoured media outlet would already have been given the exclusive on it.
Famous last words!
My opinion is that Spoutpish thinks his name is James and he’s been on a diet.It is also my opinion that The Lawman2 is the same person as The Lawman.And Ernest Becker.And Niall Walker.And some wind and wee-wee water about East Berwick or somewhere far far away from Jabbaesque non sequiturs.Surely the First Rule of Troll Club is that the trolling is not bleedingly obvious?
SLIMJIM MAY 6, 2018 at 00:23
” https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=c72b2da7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 Read 14, 20 & 21″
Nice try SJ, but I hope you’re not trying to mislead us into believing that Lord Bannatyne made a decision with legal standing on the matters you’ve highlighted regarding the betting case, as these are merely matters which the pursuer and defender didn’t disagree on, just as they didn’t disagree that the moon is made of cheese, nor did Lord Bannatyne rule on that!
I notice that Phil is quoted at para 10. “[10] The amount at issue in the appeal to the First‑tier Tribunal (tax) referred to above was reported by Phil Mac Giolla Bhain in a blog dated 27 January 2011 as a core amount of £24 million plus interest of £12 million.” Following your logic, that means that the judge made a decision with legal standing on the merits of Phil’s blog? I would have been less surprised if you thought that Phil’s involvement makes the whole report null and void in your eyes!
I see you still haven’t managed to find documentary evidence of that glorious and momentous occasion when club and company split asunder within the incorporated club, thereafter potentially leaving office-bearers individually liable for unknown future events such as the Ibrox disaster? Isn’t it funny how you can’t tell us precisely when such an important event happened, but that nonetheless you know it definitely did. How convenient.
In case I haven’t made myself abundantly clear, I know that our corrupt football authorities are treating the club currently playing out of Ibrox as if it was the club that became defunct in 2012, but there is a world of difference between actually being the same club and merely being treated as if it was. It is the word of those duplicitous liars and cheats which has informed all the organisations you listed earlier from the AA to the YMCA.
Finally, if you’re not prepared to take the word of every media organisation and insolvency expert who advised us unambiguously of the death of Rangers Football Club in 2012, surely you cannot ignore a packed stadium full of fellow fans at Ibrox who held up red cards in a mass ‘No To Liquidation’ campaign. After all, why would they be the least bit concerned about the liquidation of a meaningless, expendable company if the immortal, metaphysical club could simply attach itself to any number of passing Sevcos thereafter?
Tris – I posted this morning. The post was deleted. I was also advised i was not allowed to post on the Old/New club issue by admin via email.
I have never started the topic, only responded in kind. I would really appreciate the chance of posting without moderation.
IMO, we have all missed a significant sign of social progress down Govan way.
Dave King is forcing the club to be more socially inclusive.
(Stay with me here…)
When Minty was trying to offload Rangers – for several years – he claimed that he would not entertain offers from Russian ‘businessmen’ – as they wouldn’t pass his “sniff test”.
A magnanimous gesture, if rather discriminatory.
Now, there is talk of foreign investment for TRFC.
However, it seems that a sniff test is not required by King.
He is now actually quoted as stating that he doesn’t care about source of funds.
What a guy!
Single-handedly dragging the Ibrox club/company into the 21st Century…
before he scarpers…
For the avoidance of any doubt folks, my sources, who speculated on the beginning of the King exit strategy tomorrow, did not speculate that any ‘additional investment or donation’ was forthcoming. It is a straightforward takeover.
One opined that there would be the acquisition of a controlling interest in RIFC, the other that the club would be purchased from RIFC.
Quite how that might be achieved, given the paperless and ethereal nature of the club etc, might be worth a watch.
And if the sale of the club is effected, how can it be proved?
“Ah boat Rangers”; “Naw, ye didny!”; “Ah did, look here, I’ve got the paperwo …. oh wait ….”
Hope i can slip this in as i forgot to ask it this morning?
Mr King said that:– He believes Rangers will not emerge from administration and liquidation is inevitable
Was Mr king telling the truth here.
Yes or No?
TRISIDIUMMAY 6, 2018 at 18:10
For the avoidance of any doubt folks, my sources, who speculated on the beginning of the King exit strategy tomorrow, did not speculate that any ‘additional investment or donation’ was forthcoming. It is a straightforward takeover.
———-
If It is a straightforward takeover. will they pass the SFA’s strict Fit and proper regulations
And if they don’t and are stuck outside with Mr AJ. What then?
If you lot don’t stop arguing I’m going to stay on my forum. Shania Twain is currently popular. And James Forrest, Gary Mackay Stevens etc.
Could the king statement tomorrow be no more than
This is the new shirt so buy,buy,buy.
Buy one for a friend buy your granny one.Buy two incase the first one gets dirty.just buy that is your investment
TRISIDIUM
MAY 6, 2018 at 18:10
One opined that there would be the acquisition of a controlling interest in RIFC, the other that the club would be purchased from RIFC.
=================================
The purchase of TRFC from RIFC would be reasonable straightforward, RIFC is the only shareholder, however there would then be several issues.
TRFC Ltd would be in substantial debt to RIFC. Buy the shares you buy the company, buy the company you buy the debt.
RIFC would be in substantial debt to various people, who would then obviously want repaid in cash, rather than shares in a PLC with no trading arm.
Everyone with existing shares in RIFC would then have nothing to do with Rangers, they would just have shares in a PLC which didn’t actually own or do anything.
Taking over the PLC would make more sense but if they bought 30% of the shares …
Trisidium May 6, 2018 at 18:10
For the avoidance of any doubt folks, my sources, who speculated on the beginning of the King exit strategy tomorrow, did not speculate that any ‘additional investment or donation’ was forthcoming. It is a straightforward takeover.
One opined that there would be the acquisition of a controlling interest in RIFC, the other that the club would be purchased from RIFC.
Quite how that might be achieved, given the paperless and ethereal nature of the club etc, might be worth a watch.
And if the sale of the club is effected, how can it be proved?
“Ah boat Rangers”; “Naw, ye didny!”; “Ah did, look here, I’ve got the paperwo …. oh wait ….”
==============================
Tris – There are several scenarios that could play out, as you allude to in your post.
1 – “Acquisition of a controlling interest in RIFC”
a) – There are approx 81.5m shares in RIFC, so a prospective purchaser would want 50% plus, but King only owns 14.57% of them. I would doubt that King holds sway with enough of the current shareholders to be able to deliver 50%, so a simple share sale/takeover seems unlikely.
b) – The Board however has the authority to issue up to 108m new shares (up to a 133% increase), basically to anyone, and at any price. The issue of 81.5m new shares would be enough to provide the would be purchaser with control and 50% of the shares. They purchaser would also be obliged, under the rules of the takeover code to make an offer to the holders of the current 81.5m shares, including King’s at the price paid for the new shares (I seem to have heard that one before). Let’s say the share issue is at 20p a share. That would raise c. £16m. The £16m could be used to invest in the club or to pay off all/some of the loans. Once new ownership is in place then the owner would be able to block or facilitate future Debt for Equity swaps as they choose, although any of the lenders might want their money back PDQ (all are currently due for repayment in July or December). The change in the Board dynamics with the resignation of Murray and Scott, may actually help King force such a sale through (perhaps could even be the reason for their resignations)
2 – “The club would be purchased from RIFC”
There are 33.4m shares in TRFC, all held by RIFC. Again, King’s control of the board could allow such a sale to happen. If the “club” (TRFC) was sold in such a way, then the purchase price would be a cash asset of RIFC, with the new owner of TRFC wholly liable for the running costs and future funding of the club. If the purchase price for TRFC was say £25m, then RIFC would be in the position to pay off its liabilities (shareholder loans of c. £16m) leaving the remaining £9m as a dividend to current shareholders, before RIFC is wound up. (It would have no purpose as the owner of no assets). Close’s loan would continue as a liability of TRFC, with the new owners deciding whether or not to repay or seek to continue it. The big downside for such a sale of the “club” would be that the existing shareholders (without loans) would be shafted, including Club1872, who would be left owning 10.7% of a shell company, and similarly the 10% or so held by individual fans. For that reason, I don’t believe that TRFC will be sold off in its entirety.
My money would be on option 1b, with any “takeover” being facilitated through the issue of new shares. How many new shares would be issued, the price of those shares, and what percentage RIFC would ultimately be in the hands of a new investor remain moot points.
The above doesn’t take account of the current TOP rulings. I don’t know how the sale (through a share issue) of a significant percentage of RIFC would affect TOP’s action against King, but I suspect that he could probably get away with using the impending takeover of RIFC as the reason for his non compliance. He could plausibly argue that he couldn’t comply because of the risks of the negotiations with a third party breaking down if details were leaked beforehand. He could then add that the new owner would comply with the takeover code by making an offer for the all the current 81.5m shares.
TRISIDIUM
MAY 6, 2018 at 18:10
For the avoidance of any doubt folks, my sources, who speculated on the beginning of the King exit strategy tomorrow, did not speculate that any ‘additional investment or donation’ was forthcoming. It is a straightforward takeover.
One opined that there would be the acquisition of a controlling interest in RIFC, the other that the club would be purchased from RIFC.
Quite how that might be achieved, given the paperless and ethereal nature of the club etc, might be worth a watch.
And if the sale of the club is effected, how can it be proved?
“Ah boat Rangers”; “Naw, ye didny!”; “Ah did, look here, I’ve got the paperwo …. oh wait ….”
————————————————-
It’s fairly simple to buy TRFC from RIFC.
It exists as a separate, subsidiary company of TRFC & it operates a football club in membership of the SFA. It also owns the stadium (probably!).
The price for such a jewel may be difficult to put a figure on, given the level of debt to RIFC & the indebtedness of RIFC to certain shareholders.
If such a thing were to be mooted, whither the shareholders in RIFC? I think they’d have to get a vote to authorise the sale, at least until DCK ponies up for what could be up to a further 70% of the current shares, then he could do what he likes.
I’d suggest that if TRFC were to be sold, it would be a precursor to a reverse takeover of the holding company, RIFC.
Intriguingly, some sort of maneuvering re ownership, with a load of shareholders including Club1872 and the supporter shareholders losing everything may explain Paul Murray and Barry Scott walking away before it happened.
I don’t see it but it is an interesting notion.
EASYJAMBO
MAY 6, 2018 at 19:31
The above doesn’t take account of the current TOP rulings. I don’t know how the sale (through a share issue) of a significant percentage of RIFC would affect TOP’s action against King, but I suspect that he could probably get away with using the impending takeover of RIFC as the reason for his non compliance. He could plausibly argue that he couldn’t comply because of the risks of the negotiations with a third party breaking down if details were leaked beforehand.
———————————————
I fail to see how that would fly.
There’s a timeline here. No matter how adept at scrambling DCK is, he can’t turn back the clock & alter the dates of cases where he’s been found in breach of regulations & ordered to comply to play the ace up his sleeve of, ‘Ah but, confidential takeover. Bet ye didnae see that coming! Ha, ha!’
EASYJAMBOMAY 6, 2018 at 19:31
My money would be on option 1b, with any “takeover” being facilitated through the issue of new shares. How many new shares would be issued, the price of those shares, and what percentage RIFC would ultimately be in the hands of a new investor remain moot points.
———–
Any idea of a timescale for all this to be completed on option 1b?
HOMUNCULUSMAY 6, 2018 at 19:43
Intriguingly, some sort of maneuvering re ownership, with a load of shareholders including Club1872 and the supporter shareholders losing everything may explain Paul Murray and Barry Scott walking away before it happened.
============================
I noted a number of journalists on Twitter, including Tom English and Graham Spiers, expressing their disappointment that Paul Murray has gone. They seemed to think he is a good guy. Firstly I think they need to consider he was part of a previous Ibrox board which stiffed HMRC for a huge amount in unpaid tax. He has never expressed any regret or shown any contrition for that, and has happily indulged in the tiresome victim culture like so many others. However the bottom line is many journalists seem to like him, so it’s odds on some of them will already know why he left. It is doubtful if any Editor would allow such a story while the Gerrard feelgood factor is probably having a positive impact on sales and website hits. Would any hack want to run with it anyway. Anyone who uses Twitter can see the tsunami heading towards people like the aforementioned English and Spiers just for saying they think Rangers are taking a risk over Gerrard. Just imagine they handed column inches to Paul Murray to say he also thinks it is a risk, and one they simply can’t afford!
On who can Speak with Authority on Footballing Issues…..
The idea that HMRC or ASA or ECA can be used as an authoritative source to back an argument on fundamental footballing issues is absurd.
Top of the authority tree is FIFA, followed by UEFA followed by national associations whose obedience to both is included in the national association hand books. The SFA one says.
THE SCOTTISH FA AND ITS MEMBERSHIP (from SFA Handbook 2014/15)
3. The Scottish FA
The Scottish FA is a member of FIFA and UEFA. Accordingly, it is itself obliged to:-
(a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance
with the principles of fair play;
(b) comply with the statutes, regulations, directives, codes and decisions and the
International Match Calendar of FIFA, UEFA and the Court of Arbitration for
Sport, and the Laws of the Game;
(c) recognise and submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport
as specified in the relevant provisions of the FIFA Statutes and the UEFA
Statutes;
(d) use its best endeavours, to the extent legally permissible, to procure that
in the final instance any dispute arising under these Articles (and which is
referred to it) is determined by arbitration pursuant to Article 99; and
(e) use its best endeavours to ensure that the leagues, clubs, players, officials,
matches and Players’ Agents under its jurisdiction (through their statutes,
licences, regulations or any other written document) acknowledge and
accept all the above mentioned obligations and agree to be bound by and
observe these Articles.
The SPFL Rules have an
Agreement on compliance with applicable rules, statutes and regulations
A7.1.1 Membership of the League shall constitute an agreement between the Company and each Club, and between each of the Clubs, to be bound by and to comply with:
(a) these Rules and the Articles of Association;
(b) the SFA Articles and the statutes and regulations of UEFA and FIFA;
(c) the Laws of the Game; and
(d) the terms of the Settlement Agreement insofar as such terms apply to the members of the League for that Season.
A pretty simple to follow hierarchy of authority.
So in terms of regulations UEFA see TRFC/RIFC as a NEW club/company, new meaning not the same and impossible to interpret as anything else (which cannot be said for a “/” ).
As I’ve posted before: asking anyone for their opinion and/or using that opinion which does not come from a football regulating authority is like asking Griegs to comment on the efficacy of the Hadron Collider as a an oven. Absurd.
Thus when the Head of UEFA Club Licensing Andrea Traverso explains how UEFA view TRFC/RIFC as a club applying for a UEFA Licence as a new (that word again) club/company (a description that applied post 2012 but not pre 2012) then there is no need for lists. When Traverso goes further and explains UEFA could not sanction RFC for any licence breaches in 2011 because they no longer are a club under UEFA rules, having altered their structure (as in ended it) in order to facilitate qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition, then that authority has to be given precedence and authority over all other opinions.
The SFA received a copy of the Traverso letter yet a week later STV published its key contents but without reference to the NEW club/company.
The then Head of Communications at the SFA Darryl Broadfoot, failed to correct and has since left SFA direct employment.
Thus the SFA lost the perfect opportunity to clarify the position for all and has left the debate open amongst supporters because the UEFA official position is a fact that winnae ding.
The reason why there has been no written statement of clarification from SFA lies in the principle expressed by ” to the detriment of the integrity of a competition ”
The Scottish football authorities abandoned protecting the integrity of their competitions when they signed the 5 Way Agreement with Charles Green, arguably made under duress.
Until that is dealt with the game in Scotland cannot claim to be honest.
I’m posting here because whilst it mentions the OC/NC issue the real issue is the damage the football authorities have caused our game by their stance with no attempt to recognise it and correct.
One opined that there would be the acquisition of a controlling interest in RIFC, the other that the club would be purchased from RIFC.
———–
Who applied for a european licence? RIFC or TRFC?……Just thinking aloud here.
AULDHEID
MAY 6, 2018 at 20:19
=================================
However in the matter of what is a club, what is a company etc then surely the civil Courts are the authority we should listen to.
The highest of which in this country is the Court of Session. The only body which can say they are wrong in any matter over which they rule is the Supreme Court.
Cluster One May 6, 2018 at 20:05
EASYJAMBOMAY 6, 2018 at 19:31 My money would be on option 1b, with any “takeover” being facilitated through the issue of new shares. How many new shares would be issued, the price of those shares, and what percentage RIFC would ultimately be in the hands of a new investor remain moot points.
———–
Any idea of a timescale for all this to be completed on option 1b?
============================
Lots of takeovers “happen” overnight, normally because the controlling shareholder sells his/her stake to a buyer. Although negotiations had gone on for six months, Murray’s sale to Whyte happened within days of the details being finalised.
However, this involves a different ownership structure and methodology, so its not that simple. I would still expect that it could be achieved within weeks rather than months as the necessary permissions are already in place for a share issue.
The TOP situation is still a “known unknown” in how it will play out, so could still be an influencing or a delaying factor. If/when King does make an offer, then that will take four weeks to complete.
EASYJAMBOMAY 6, 2018 at 20:34
————
Thanks for reply
Since it’s clearly not going away. Auldheid – Traverso’s letter (which I don’t believe has been seen by anyone other than Celtic shareholders?) mentions club/company. Regardless of how you say that means nothing, the / symbol is a reference that I and/or. Depending on what word you put there gives a completely different meaning. And if Uefa were so certain that Rangers were a new club why are we shown with the points of previous Rangers and the point for the EC added to ours? If this was an error, why hasn’t it been corrected considering so many of you wrote to them on the back of it being published over a month ago?
In terms of HMRC they were the ones who gave us all hope after liquidation by stating that Rangers could move on, effectively starting the narrative that a club could come our country of liquidation. This nonsense that anyone who doesn’t fully comply with the New Club narrative beggars belief. What team is it I go and watch every week that play out for Ibrox in the same badge and colours and advertise as “going for 55”? Surely if it was a completely new club we wouldn’t be allowed to use the same badge and name and trade as such?
Are we honestly supposed to believe this is a conspiracy that everyone in Scotland and England are behind? Surely at least one of the newspapers south of the border would have pointed out Gerrard was joining a new team? The SMSM can’t have a hold on them?
To be told on here by those that do not know me from Adam that I ‘know’ my team is not the same and I am only trolling is downright offensive
In closing, if it was as many on here state, an open and shut case, surely the debate wouldn’t even be raging on and every media outlet would state so. All those official bodies would correct their websites. The advertising agencies would stop allowing Rangers to use the same badge and claiming ownership to the titles. The fact 6 years on we are even debating it shows it’s not a straight forward case.
Since we all love a link here, I’ll copy a few below. Now I would love nothing more than for all this to be moved to a forum dedicated to OC/NC debate and any chat on the matter here directed to that forum.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/fifa-insist-rangers-same-football-5752723
http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/revenue/index.html
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/the-rangers-football-club-ltd-a13-224406.html
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/13215104.FIFA_step_into_new_row_over_Rangers__old_or_new_club__status/
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/spfl-rangers-are-the-same-club-post-liquidation-1-3649453
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/rumour-mill-rangers-are-same-club-says-lennon-souness-regrets-not-returning-to-rangers-logan-on-dream-debut-1-4102579
https://www.footballinsider247.com/rangers-celtic-uefa-meltdown/
https://talksport.com/football/rangers-return-time-get-over-nonsense-about-gers-no-longer-existing-they-can-improve-celtic
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-chief-dermot-desmond-wants-1359461
HomunculusMay 6, 2018 at 20:31 (Edit)
7
0 i
Rate This
AULDHEID MAY 6, 2018 at 20:19 =================================
However in the matter of what is a club, what is a company etc then surely the civil Courts are the authority we should listen to.
The highest of which in this country is the Court of Session. The only body which can say they are wrong in any matter over which they rule is the Supreme Court.
====================
Civil Courts would rule on civil law and as I understand it on that basis and under those laws Rangers no longer exist as a football playing business with same company number as current football playing business based at Ibrox.
In football law matters FIFA rule then UEFA and UEFA have made their position quite clear in Article 12 of UEFA FFP.
Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant
1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible
for a football team participating in national and international competitions (which can take two forms – my edit)
either:
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated
league (hereinafter: registered member); or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football
company).
a) refers to a freestanding club with no written contract with a company to operate it under Terms of Article 43 of UEFA FFP
and
b) refers to a football company with a written contract with a) who are the club on whose behalf the company is the applicant.
This distinction is necessary because applicants for a UEFA licence in Europe come in both forms.
So whether its a) or b) the club who are the legal entity applying for a UEFA licence based at Ibrox are NEW.
Traverso used the reasoning in Article 12 to explain why no action was taken against TRFC/RIFC – they were new regardless of whether an application is made by a) or b).
The underlying purpose of Article 12 is to act as a deterrent to clubs running up debt to win trophies then trying to change shape to get a licence and carry on as before. This is what was attempted by the SFA in 2012 and only a supporter revolt preserved the integrity of our game that the 5 Way Agreement subsequently has undermined.
If anyone requires confirmation that The Ranger Football Club plc (company number SC004276) was an association football club, the original SPL articles of association (yes honestly!) might provide some help.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC175364/filing-history/MDA4MDI1NjA2OGFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf
Back in 1998, the SPL was absolutely explicit that it would only allow football clubs to be members of the company. Each football club became a member of the company (the SPL) via ownership of a share.
The football clubs who owned shares in the SPL at that time are listed here:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC175364/filing-history/MDA5OTcxOTQ4NWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf
Worth noting also that each member (football club) is reminded of its responsibilities as a full member of the SFA.
So, in 1998, Rangers FC (the Scottish Premier League Club) WAS The Rangers Football Club plc (the company).
What I find particularly interesting is that in the interpretation section, there is no listing for “club”/”football club”.
It was, back then (as it is now still), completely self-evident that football clubs are companies or unincorporated associations.
HirsutePursuit May 6, 2018 at 23:58 “it was, back then (as it is now still), completely self-evident that football clubs are companies or unincorporated associations.”
And been incorporated, as was Rangers, in the case below they were liable to be sued as a entity with legal status.
And while an array of unfortunate circumstances had conspired to cause the tragedy, Sheriff James Irvine Smith who presided over civil proceedings taken by Margaret Dougan – wife of Charles Dougan from Clydebank who died on stairway 13 – was far more ready to castigate Rangers for their part in failing to prevent the demise of Dougan and the other victims, especially given the previous deaths and injuries sustained on that stairway during the previous decade. The club did not dispute the Sheriff’s findings but did baulk at the amounts of compensation they were ordered to pay to the families of 61 of the deceased.
For Rangers, the 1971 disaster was a watershed moment; finally they had to take proper responsibility for the safety of their blatantly dangerous home ground.
(Cases similar to the findings that were won on appeal)
Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 Case Summary
The Court of Appeal, declaring the company to be a myth, reasoned that Salomon had incorporated the company contrary to the true intent of the then Companies Act, 1862, and that the latter had conducted the business as an agent of Salomon, who should, therefore, be responsible for the debt incurred in the course of such agency.
The House of Lords, however, upon appeal, reversed the above ruling, and unanimously held that, as the company was duly incorporated, it is an independent person with its rights and liabilities appropriate to itself, and that “the motives of those who took part in the promotion of the company are absolutely irrelevant in discussing what those rights and liabilities are”.3 Thus, the legal fiction of “corporate veil” between the company and its owners/controllers4 was firmly created by the Salomon case.
From Bloomberg – August 2017
“China’s invasion of European soccer appears to be over.
The State Council, China’s cabinet, on Friday formally put sport clubs on its list of industries that local companies are restricted from investing in overseas. The move builds on a state campaign that began late last year to curb capital outflows, including scrutiny of what the government called “irrational investments,” to protect the yuan from depreciating further.”
“If we don’t take some measures, foreigners will take us as ‘dumb people with a lot of money,’” Fosun Chairman Guo Guangchang wrote this past month. “The recent scrutiny on overseas investments and financial irregularities are necessary, timely and can eradicate a lot of irrational investments.”
Dreams of Chinese millions may just be a case of chasing the dragon.
However, there are rumours of wealthy Nigerian oil billionaires ready to invest million and millions.
If you would just give them your bank details. Now there’s the rub.
According to Keith Jackson only a ‘selection’ of journalists will be at King’s Press Conference today. That will rule out any difficult questions for a start. Let me take a guess at who they some of them will be. Richard Wilson, Andy Devlin, Gary Ralston, Chris Jack to name but four. Four guys who already do King’s PR for him for free, no matter how many times he fails to deliver on his promises. We’ll need to wait and see, but if Gerrard’s advisers think they have concrete assurances to get cash they might want to pay full attention today just to double check.
Would anyone be surprised if Mr Souness and his ‘financial backers’ were mentioned at todays presser? I wouldn’t.
DARKBEFOREDAWNMAY 6, 2018 at 21:16
Its all very well posting these bits and pieces but similarly I could post countless that said Rangers were dead as soon as the CVA failed in 2012 and they had to follow follow the path to liquidation.
A certain James Traynor was one of the band leaders is saying Rangers, as a club, were dead.
However today he bangs a different drum but I have yet to hear a coherent explanation why he and many others have changed there tune or indeed willing to have a serious debate about the issue.
As discussed many times if Rangers were the same club and this was easily proven anyone of the cowboys in charge since 2012 could have taken the footballing authorities and others to court to seek damages.
There would have been no need for SPL votes, no need for SFA membership transfers, no need for a Five Way agreement.
To deny the reality of corporate law and argue against the logic of the actions that were needed to keep football being played at Ibrox is simply based on the heart and emotion.
You have previously talked about the emotional side of things in arguing the oldco/newco being the same club.
As a fellow football fan that is understandable because we all can do daft things to help support our clubs. However what finally did from Rangers was nothing other than corporate cheating and organising the club on a basis that was outwith the spirit and rules of the game.
What we are talking here is stiffing the tax man and her majesty for millions and keeping details from both tax and footballing authorities and fellow clubs on a grand scale.
2012 gave everyone a chance for a fresh start but like some people who seem to go from one abusive relationship to another, many have fallen back into the old routine.
Hell, they have even welcomed in a controlling and conniving convicted criminal into the family and now await his every word later today. Add to that the constant threats to others through, marches, boycotts, direct threats by fans to individuals, club statements, the bigotry , the Billy Boys etc etc.
Even if you argue for the entity at Ibrox being the same club, it has a history of sectarianism and discrimination, it is a club that showed poor regard for the safety of its own fans and even when competing at their best in European Finals both occasions were marred by ‘the club’s’ mindless fans.
These days a Steven Gerrard type appointment or a decent result against Celtic is nothing more than an occasional bunch of flowers from the garage forecourt from a long term abuser, who everyone else on the outside is wondering why the hell do you stay so loyal and those inside ‘the family’ seem too frightened to speak up to put a stop to it all.
With respect DBD, that description of yours could easily have described Gretna FC, apart for the “going for 55” part. Their fans now watch Gretna 2008 play in the same colours at Raydale Park and their football club was also a company, because in common with all modern professional football clubs, Gretna FC was a business – a business that failed and ultimately died the death of liquidation, just like Rangers. The only significant difference between your former club and Gretna FC is that the latter was not perceived by the football authorities as too important to die. Whether that misguided perception was based on TV and other contracts alone, or a degree of partiality that sought to safeguard a so-called institution is a debate for another day.
The rest of your post rather misses the point. The entire reason why the football authorities let your new club use the paraphernalia and sporting record of the deceased club, the entire reason why the English press don’t report Steven Gerrard as going to manage a new club, and the entire reason behind the host of other points you brought up is because the Scottish football authorities are treating the new club as if it was the old one when it categorically isn’t and our complicit media are only too happy to help them out. They very much want us all to do what you yourself want us to do – move on so that their scam is complete with as little fuss as possible.
You might want to sit down before you read this. It’s by Michael Gannon in the DR. Something must be up.
Steven Gerrard is here and he is a big deal but it’s time we started to really analyse it as the facts just don’t back it up.
If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it – and you will even come to believe it yourself.
That might be a winning strategy for the likes of Donald Trump but there are certain slogans in this neck of the woods that really need to be stamped out because too many folk take it as gospel.
Alex McLeish fell into the trap last week with the line that has most of the nation rolling its eyes like the missus when you say you’re only popping out for a couple of pints.
Scottish football needs a strong Rangers. Ah, that old chestnut
It has been heard so many times punters at the likes of Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts don’t even get riled up any more. They just sigh in disappointment at the tired cliche.
Let’s get one thing straight. Rangers need a strong Rangers. The long-suffering supporters at Ibrox have had it so tight in recent seasons the slightest chink of light feels like they are coming out from a bunker in the aftermath of a nuclear winter.
The sun’s out and the air doesn’t taste funny yet they are still a tad concerned there might be radiationA Rangers at full tilt again is good for them and, who knows, Steven Gerrard might be the man to lead them to a new dawn.Either way, for goodness sake let’s not peddle the need for Scottish football again. Look where that got us last time.
Top brass like Stewart Regan and Neil Doncaster came away with this patter when the bomb went off in Govan and they nearly Gerald Ratner-ed us down the gargler.
But Scottish football survived while Gers went on their wandering journey. Some will say it did pretty darn well. By the time we get to the late 2030s there’s going to be some cracking 25th-anniversary gatherings in Paisley, Inverness, Dingwall and Perth.
Back in the present day, Tynecastle and Easter Road are rammed every week, Aberdeen are packing out Pittodrie, while the likes of Motherwell and Kilmarnock have been so good this year they’ve laid trails of breadcrumbs for fans to follow to Fir Park and Rugby Park.The Dons could finish runners up for four years on the spin for the first time in their history, Hibees could be celebrating their best top-flight finish in decades, likewise Killie.We know the Old Firm is the big draw but there’s so much more to Scottish football. Yes, the television deal is up for renegotiation in the next few months and the marketing guys will pitch it as Brendan Rodgers v Stevie G. There’s a heck of a lot more on offer than just those two though.
A strong Rangers is good for Scottish football – but so is a strong Aberdeen, Hibs, Hearts, Dundee United or whoever else.
There are plenty of youngsters who only know a league won by either half of the Glasgow divide.
But those of us who grew up in the Seventies and Eighties didn’t just think a Playstation was the box you kept your yo-yo in.
We also watched a different Scottish football. Kids in Glasgow playgrounds used to pretend to be John Hewitt, Paul Sturrock or Gary Mackay.
We’re not going to get back to the days when the Dons were beating Real Madrid in European finals as the UEFA fat cats have the game sewn up.
But don’t think we’re alone in that boat as there are plenty of former great football nations who have been stomped over by the big boys in the last couple of decades
There’s a lot to like about our madcap game right now though, rough edges and all. This week alone there’s been wee boys getting stung by jaggy nettles at Firhill while Partick Thistle and Ross County scrap out a nerve-shredding cracker and a Dundee United goalkeeper doing cartwheels to celebrate a goal and ending up on a stretcher in the process.Don’t tell me that stuff’s not box office. Everywhere we look there’s great goals, massive barneys and some moments of utter lunacy.
Scottish football isn’t just about Celtic and Rangers in a shoot-out for the title – by Eck, they are just part of the whole bonkers package.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/needing-strong-rangers-scottish-football-12488917#ampshare=https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/needing-strong-rangers-scottish-football-12488917
What will today’s DCK presser on TRFC finances reveal?
A) Vague promises of investment, bluster, deflection and blame
B) An offer document compliant with the TOP requirements and concrete, credible plans for clearing debts and funding the enterprise for the foreseeable future
C) An out of the blue wild card – a sugar daddy/overseas purchaser willing to buy everyone out, clear debts and fund the enterprise going forward
Place your bets now.
UPTHEHOOPS
MAY 7, 2018 at 07:04
=============================
Assuming that is a fact, and it is Jackson so you can never tell, it is the one in a load of obsequious nonsense. A lot of fanciful assumption, published as an opinion piece, read by the gullible as a story.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/steven-gerrard-assurances-dave-king-12493000
TINCKSMAY 7, 2018 at 10:39
My bet’s on C), I’m afraid, Tincks, for it is the only one that makes sense of the known knowns of the past week. On the other hand, we know that King is a devious and conniving b’stard, and it may well be either of the other two, or both, or an announcement that the Earth really is flat.
It will, almost certainly, be, outwardly, good news for TRFC, but whatever it is, it won’t be the whole truth.
AllyJ,
Do you think there is any truth that you kept the grass longish at Tynecastle? That would be desperate if true.
Unbefitting to both clubs.
@Tincks
D) A pre-pack insolvency event screwing existing creditors and shareholders selling assets to a David Murray fronted consortium of investors, and daring SFA to abide by their rules and stop it or even sanction them, given the massive pressure exerted by the Gerrard announcement. This would explain the delay.
Darkbefordawn 21.16
And if Uefa were so certain that Rangers were a new club why are we shown with the points of previous Rangers and the point for the EC added to ours? If this was an error, why hasn’t it been corrected considering so many of you wrote to them on the back of it being published over a month ago?
==========
A good question that will be answered in due course.
I appear to have answered your other point re “/” in my reply to Homunculus quoting Article 12 of FFP. New is not the same.
Whilst the definition of a club from a football authority whose rules the SFA must abide by is important (and in transferring RFC’s SFA Membership to TRFC/RIFC using the discretionary power under SFA Article 14 that prohibits it, the question is did SFA comply with UEFA regulations or at very least recognise why Art12 of UEFA FFP existed) because the important part of Art12 is “to the detriment of the integrity of the competition” with emphasis on integrity.
The real issue here is that a number of titles and trophies “won” by RFC were won by a means not open to other clubs. That means required breaking registration rules, but LNS said there was nothing dishonest in RFC’s motivation.
No football supporter accepted that at the time and events since 2013 show what the motivation was and that key information in terms of honesty was not presented to LNS.
I think the heat would go from the ongoing discussion if Rangers supporters would recognise those titles were dishonestly earned and surrender them.
Failing that the SFA SPFL should revisit LNS and state what anyone who does investigate the LNS Commissioning concludes, ie dishonesty was at play (aka as cheating) and asterisked the titles, then I suspect most folk would move on.
Its not the claim to be the same club that rankles, it is the refusal to accept the seriousness of the wrongdoing since 2000 for what it is. An era of rule breaking of such a degree that removal of titles is an act of kindness as opposed to being banished from the game entirely.
Finally what keeps the matter bubbling away is the suspicion that if “Rangers” and it’s supporters are okay with hanging on to ill gotten gains, what is to deter them from continuing with the same attitude and behaviour?
Of course Rangers supporters want to be the same club with the same history, but the failure to be totally honest about that history is just wanting your cake and eating it.
That really rankles and I bet if the shoe was on the other foot you would feel the same.
Auldheid, Post of the year.
The truth just hits you on the face.
Much as I love the bears on here, they will never be able to argue with that.
It’s the truth.
HIGHLANDERMAY 7, 2018 at 09:42
“Scottish football authorities are treating the new club as if it was the old one when it categorically isn’t and our complicit media are only too happy to help them out.”
———————————————————————————————————
That is true Highlander, but it cannot be forgotten, that the corruption in Scottish fitba goes Higher up the tree than Rangers(I.L.).
500 million fans demanding answers about wtf happened to their club, terrified them. Lets be honest, angry pretendygers on the march terrify everyone. A kiddy-on club, not only erased that possibility, but is a convenient shield to hide behind, as Pretendygers defend their new club.
The facts are that cheating and corruption under the Minty regime killed their club, and SFA officials were party to it……Party to it for a long long time.
Most pretendygers are peripherally aware of what went on, but faced with coming to terms with it, or backing a kiddy-on club, they chose the latter.
Having something to shout, is important to them, but it doesn’t have to be anything true. “World’s most successful club”, “9 in a row”, “WATP”, and “#Goingfor55”, immediately spring to mind.
Every season brings a new slogan to rally behind. A new battle cry. A new war horse.
They are truly gullible, thinking they were so huge, when all they were was a tiny wee cog of corruption, in a much bigger, £1B missing from the bank, machine.
Powerful people now have that £1B……..It didn’t just vanish.!
And were employed by Jim traynor
upthehoops
May 7, 2018 at 07:04
According to Keith Jackson only a ‘selection’ of journalists will be at King’s Press Conference today. That will rule out any difficult questions for a start. Let me take a guess at who they some of them will be. Richard Wilson, Andy Devlin, Gary Ralston, Chris Jack to name but four.
Four guys who already do King’s PR for him for free, no matter how many times he fails to deliver on his promises.
The football authorities didn’t treat them as the same club in their competitions.
JIMBOMAY 7, 2018 at 10:54
AllyJ,
Do you think there is any truth that you kept the grass longish at Tynecastle? That would be desperate if true.
Unbefitting to both clubs.
_________
Do you think it’s true that everyone should bow down to the mighty Celtic and not try to gain an advantage from playing at home? Or, should, perhaps, Brendan Rodgers not have complained so much about the pitch after Celtic’s last visit to Tynecastle, letting Hearts know that Celtic don’t play at their best when everything isn’t set up to their liking?
Isn’t it great when a manager can win the league at a canter, and yet still find the time to help improve Scottish football by deriding another club’s pitch! Kind of reminds me of TRFC’s journey through the lower leagues when they, too, found the pitches not always to their liking, and complained.
Did you, or Rodgers, give thought to the fact that Hearts might have thought that longer grass could help Hearts win a game?
Seven titles in a row, and complaining about the length of the grass! Must be a nightmare having that huge financial advantage, if only it translated into a huge sporting advantage on the pitch, it might help overcome long grass.
Did you notice that the long grass had a pretty good game played on it yesterday? Still, that’s not what Scottish football needs, is it?
Scottish football needs a strong lawn mower!