What follows is a record of an exchange in October with David Conn of The Guardian in respect of an article written by him in August 2016 reporting the arrival of The Rangers FC in the top tier of the SPFL.
In that article David Conn suggests that there was no tax overdue in respect of “The Wee Tax Case” of 2011 because he was told by the SFA that agreement had been reached with HMRC to postpone payment until after the Takeover by Craig Whyte and on those grounds the SFA granted a licence.
For such an agreement to pass UEFA FFP rules muster it had to be in writing, signed by HMRC and dated 31st March 2011 or earlier. There were behind the scenes discussions on this point and attempts were made separately at the time to obtain such written unpublished documentation that complied with UEFA FFP regulations from Darryl Broadfoot the Head of SFA Communications, but in spite of promises it never arrived.
Not surprising as, had it existed, Celtic would certainly have been informed when they first wrote to the SFA in December 2011 – thereby rendering Resolution 12, placed at the 2013 Celtic AGM requesting UEFA to investigate the UEFA licensing process throughout 2011 as truly unnecessary.
The first e mail (edited with cosmetic changes to aid reading by a wider audience but no change of sense) made the following points to Mr Conn on 9th Oct 2017…..
Dear Mr Conn.
On 5th August 2016 you wrote an article about the arrival of “Rangers” into the top tier of the SPFL.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/aug/05/rangers-scottish-premiership-tax-issue
(* A relevant extract from that article – in italics – can be read separately at the end of this blog)
Given that the Craig Whyte trial in July 2017, revealed discrepancies (already known to the Celtic shareholders pursuing Res12) between what was stated at the trial and what was reported to the SFA and UEFA during 2011 in terms of the status of the wee tax case liability, then it would appear that your article:
- Does not fully reflect what took place, giving the impression over two paragraphs that a written agreement signed by HMRC to postpone payment had been reached between HMRC and RFC by 31st March 2011. Had this been so it would mean that there was no overdue tax payable at 31st March 2011 as UEFA define an overdue payable to tax authorities.
- However what was revealed in court in July 2017 was that RFC had accepted the liability before 31st March 2011 and so it was not “potential” with “discussions continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised”, as reported in RFC Interim accounts on 1st April 2011. It was for this reason the SFA have asked their Compliance Officer to investigate what took place and had there been a written agreement to postpone prior to 31st March 2011, there would have been no need to describe the liability to the SFA in the way that it was.
- Further your article does not fully reflect the reason why “Rangers” had to wait three years before playing in European competition, which was that UEFA viewed “Rangers” as a NEW club/company. This was not mentioned although the SFA, who advised you they held an unpublished HMRC letter also held a copy of a letter dated 8th June 2016 from UEFA Head of Club Licensing Andrea Traverso (copy attached) to that effect.
Consequently will you be following the SFA Compliance Officer investigation, and indeed will you be telling him the basis on which you reported the SFA’s position in your article of August 2016 without revealing sources of course?
Importantly in terms of all your other investigatory work into skulduggery, are you also aware that despite what you may have been told by the SFA, Resolution 12 was and is ultimately about making the SFA more accountable and transparent to supporters, an aim which I think you would surely support and is there any chance of you helping with that aim by considering what has caused the SFA to finally capitulate and do what Res12 asked for in 2013, albeit domestically?
A national football association using the media to try to derail a genuine investigation into their behaviour is surely of national, never mind Scottish, interest?
In some ways it matters little now if Rangers gained and retained that licence by deception as the court statement indicates, with the result the SFA Compliance Officer is conducting an investigation.
What matters more is that the SFA have used the absence of accountability to cover up their part in the licensing process, not just from March through to September 2011 but to ignore genuine enquiries from supporter/shareholders of a member club from 2014 to July 2017. During which time their positions;
- that the bill had not crystallised, or
- was subject to dispute or
- was under appeal or
- that after 31st March, monitoring was not an SFA function, as stated by SFA CEO Stewart Regan,
were exposed (in court) as self-serving myths.
The SFA and how poorly they serve the game in Scotland because they are accountable to no one is THE story of Resolution 12 and you could help bring accountability about by reporting how you were duped by the SFA in August last year and report on what the Compliance Officer finds.
As it is your August article has undermined your reputation somewhat as someone whom I understand seeks better accountability and transparency from football authorities.
PS what Celtic shareholders lawyers reported to SFA, and when, is available if you decide to engage.
Yours etc
After a couple of reminders, one copied to The Guardian Sports Editor a reply was received dated 8th November 2017 in which Mr Conn said.
Hello
Thank you for your emails and apologies for not having replied sooner; I have been very busy recently. I have seen that some questions have been raised about the piece I wrote in relation to this. I understand that this issue has been of great interest to people; however, I do not currently have plans to revisit it.
Thank you for your interest and apologies again for not replying sooner.
D Conn
As the SFA Head of Communications, Darryl Broadfoot, who departed from his post in January 2017, would most probably be the person to whom David Conn spoke. He is the same person who failed to clarify this article at:
by STV reporter Grant Russell, who also recently departed from his job at STV.
The STV article omitted certain references about UEFA treating The Rangers FC/The Rangers International FC as a NEW club/company, a piece of unsolicited information that was contained in a UEFA response to Celtic shareholders’ lawyer from Andrea Traverso, Head of UEFA Club Licensing) and which was copied to the SFA a week before STV published.
Some may also remember the strange episode where The Guardian accepted an advert from the Celtic AGM Resolution 12 requistitioners in 2016 attempting to draw the attention of Resolution 12 on a tax evasion aspect to the wider tax paying British pubic. Having accepted payment for a “Persistence Beats Res12tance” advert, The Guardian for some unexplained reason changed their mind and decided not to publish and refunded the payment.
They have been coy on answering who, what or why they changed their mind and as can be seen from the above reply from David Conn appear unwilling to pursue the UEFA 2011 Licencing issue further (at least for now). Hopefully those plans will change when the SFA investigation is complete, whatever the result.
Mr Broadfoot although no longer an SFA employee, appears to be continuing in some capacity as an SFA spokesman given his appearance on BBC Sportsound on 8th November along with Paul Goodwin of the Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA) to discuss the findings of an SFSA survey involving over 16,000 supporters that highly criticised the SFA for their governance of Scottish football. The programme segment can be heard here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sQRFX2vOWUvkaeRAEEYL3vzMqdXGFE8T/view?usp=sharing
The overriding point here though is not the credibility of main stream media outlets, which is at an all-time low, but the use of those outlets by the SFA officials using the media in an attempt to produce an outcome that suits them and a single SFA member club at the expense of the value of the shares held by shareholders in another SFA member club.
Awareness of the impact on shareholder value of member clubs by SFA decisions is yet another issue that an enquiry into SFA methods/processes should address, particularly since HMRC made the SFA aware in 2009 of their concerns about Rangers use of ebts in player contracts.
Until such an investigation takes place the SFA will be viewed as no longer fit to govern Scottish football in its present form.
Extract from Conn Article of 5th August.
Even now, an allegation persists the SFA was deficient in allowing Rangers a licence to compete in the Champions League during that season, 2011-12. The case, based on leaked documentation from the time and pressed by a group of Celtic supporters on their club to pursue as resolution 12 of the 2013 annual general meeting, was recently argued strongly in a report by the Tax Justice Network campaign.
The argument is that in breach of Uefa rules against clubs having overdue tax payable, Rangers owed £2.8m on a discounted options scheme following a successful HMRC challenge known as the “wee tax case”.
The SFA is adamant its committee which considered the licence dealt with the issue thoroughly and received the necessary evidence the tax was not overdue according to Uefa rules. One informed source involved with the issue at the time, who did not want to speak publicly owing to continuing criminal proceedings against Whyte arising out of his tenure at Rangers, said that at the initial deadline, 31 March 2011, HMRC had agreed that the £2.8m did not need to be paid until after his May 2011 takeover.
Before subsequent 30 June and 30 September deadlines, Rangers, by then owned by Whyte, are understood to have told the SFA they were in discussions with HMRC over the money owed. Uefa rules allow tax not to be treated as “overdue” where there is a written agreement with the tax authority for payment to be extended.
The SFA, although declining to disclose details of the documentation it received, citing confidentiality with its member clubs, told the Guardian via a spokesperson: “The Scottish FA has always been clear the licensing award issued to Rangers in 2011 by the licensing committee was correct. The process is audited on an annual basis by Uefa.”
Uefa, pressed on the issue again recently, said: “The licence for the 2011-12 season was granted by the SFA and there was no reason for Uefa to doubt this decision.”
Uefa has said it has no need to investigate further if the tax was in fact overdue according to its definition, because after that season, Rangers’ fate anyway equated to a sanction for breach of the rules: they could not play in European competition for the following three years. HMRC, taking a stern view of clubs defaulting on tax, declined to approve a company voluntary arrangement with creditors and Rangers went into liquidation.
Its an ugly situation for sure StevieBC and BBC in particular don’t come out of it with flying colours or indeed any colours apart from perhaps one. (for any doubters, last night’s sportsound download is a belter. Hopefully their man McLoughlin will have the sense to avoid Rugby park tomorrow (thus avoiding both the Aberdeen support and Kriss Boyd plus wherever Barry Ferguson will be planting his bankrupt wee bahookie). As you say they have never once analysed the situation as to why McInnes should go to Sevco and, given the unlikelihood of that (from the analysis) the unfair impact of the apparent uncertainty on AFC. In fact I’m struggling to think of an instance in reams and reams of BBC coverage where AFC were even mentioned other than as a hindrance to Derek’s apparent birthright.
But I’ll cut TRFC a little bit of slack in so far as they haven’t actually said anything and are now being ‘hoisted by their own petards’ wedgie fashion by the fact that they didn’t say anything and the thing they didn’t say now isn’t coming to fruition and just what the hell do they have to say about that? Em, nothing! (That’s not to say they couldn’t have come out and tempered speculation of course but the opportunity to go second tonight suggests they would have been naive to do that as well. Sporting but naive)
Interesting timing for the AGM though plus a tasty double header Wednesday and Sunday.
Purely in the interests of fairness of course for those non old firmities (if that’s not a term it should be) amongst us Pat Bonnar’s comments on the immorality and unfairness of it all of the Champions League are also worth a listen.
A full summary of all the chapters of Craig Whyte’s proposed book has appeared on the Hearts message board Jambos Kickback.
http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/173562-craig-whytes-proposed-book-on-rangers/
JJ has already provided most of the highlights in his blog, so there’s not a lot of new information.
I don’t think that there are any smoking guns, other than the claim to have met with SPL officials and lawyer about the potential for a solvent restructure “early on”.
He is also critical of MCR/D&P and claims that Charles Green shafted him fraudulently, but unless there is much more meat to be put on the bones, then I don’t think the book will upset too many people.
The solvent restructure bit intrigued me EJ. He said something like “all they needed was the other clubs’ approval.” I thought a request for a solvent restructure was made to the SFA board, approval of which “couldn’t be unnecessarily delayed” or words to that effect.
By September 2011 Whyte can see exactly the pig in a poke he’s been sold with Ally’s helpful addendum. He personally has no issue with driving them to administration proven by the simple fact that he’s retaining PAYE and VAT. Does he think they won’t notice? Of course not. He knows from experience exactly what he will prompt. Whilst not necessarily his original plan it was pretty much forced on the experienced admin operator the second he got under the bonnet. I doubt he was particularly phased by it albeit he had to keep up the public persona of being the resilient Rangers man they all dreamt of.
At this point, the meeting with Doncaster and Mackenzie in September, there’s a possibility – slim but possible – that he can argue the case that they are still solvent hence a solvent transfer is technically possible. Mackenzie appears to agree (in Whyte’s version of events).
My question then at this point is why the hell wouldn’t they perform the debt hive off they describe? The only clue I can pick up is that D&P appear to be advising Whyte (in Whyte’s version) that HMRC won’t vote in the CVA making a positive result there a possibility. But at the time RTC amongst others was screaming Yes they will. Did he not think to question this? One assumes he researched whether Ticketus’s debt would remain not least because he was on the hook for it. Surely he’d researched the other principle liability with the same diligence?
Or alternatively of course Mackenzie possibly said it wasn’t possible, period, but, given that they were clever enough to work out the alternative of a failed CVA do you really think they blocked this possible avenue out of hand. What exactly caused this last vestige of honesty?
WHAT IF ?
None of the peepil involved with the dead club farce was duped
They all knew the plan and knew what had to be done .
The plan came unstuck with they came up against the only thing they could not control.
The results of two European football ties .
With the SFA doing their bit by giving them the Euro licence the over paid gardener then went on to blow a possible £8m whole in their budget for that season .
WHAT IF?
The plan was to use the Euro money to get them to the end of that season and then do as CW had said
Thanks to the over paid gardener CW having no mugs left to loan him cash may have felt a bit peckish and fancied a sit down meal with a couple of mutual pals who told him that ,no matter how he does it, he had to get ragers 1872 to the end of the season at all costs.
WHAT IF ?
He then had to withold the NIC/PAYE to achieve just that ,alas leaving him in the position of HMRC not doing any deals with companies who indulged in such a practise .
There are so many seemingly irregular sound BUSINESS decisions in this saga that I struggle to think it was anything other than a scam from start to finish, that is only my opinion and others may well disagree but I’d like to hear an explanation as to how ,so many peepil could be so easily duped in so many circumstances in the one business deal .
Just a delicious thought on a Friday evening.
I questioned why Mackenzie would have turned down the solvent transfer route in favour of the ultimately predictably doomed CVA effort. I wonder if he was being briefed? By an insider perhaps? Someone that potentially could have influenced the success or otherwise of a CVA for instance? Someone with £20m skin in the game perhaps?
WHAT IF ?
The only way to deal with the EBT disaster was to kill the club .
if so mission accomplished .
Alas there was the small problem of the supporters who don’t do walking away .
Walking away .
operation BIG LIE and billy’s yer uncle .
My word 5yrs on and there are still peepil trying to convince us they are still the same club
SmugasNovember 24, 2017 at 14:39
…I don’t agree that there was a risk of not having a 42nd clu…dammit, team for two reasons. Firstly where exactly was the team called Rangers (and there was always going to be one) going to go? And secondly, even if they did throw the rattle oot the pram having cut their nose off with it first there were other able contendors who could easily have stepped up to the Div3 level, as indeed they have subsequently done. Clyde (and I’m not picking on them as I said before) were clearly trying to make the best out of the unprecedented situation that was being forced before them. You can’t blame them for that. …
___________________
It was the following sentence from the statement that made me think there had been a risk, however slight, of SFL ending up a team short, especially as the Hampden cabal had not made any preparations to have, say, Spartans on standby. It was going to be ‘Rangers’, actually no, at that time it was only Sevco, or no one. I don’t believe for one moment that the authorities would have moved heaven and earth to find an alternative club/team, and the whole of the SFL knew it. The closer the start of the new season got, and that first Ramsden Cup match, the more pressure there was to have a new club in the league, and Sevco was the only candidate allowed to apply.
‘We would seek to support whichever of our member clubs are invited to join the SPL to make that move, however, at the moment there is no certainty that Sevco will be entered into the SFL and the SFL should not risk leaving itself short of a team.’
Ally Jambo
In 2012 the SFL consisted of 3 Divisions with Clyde in Division 3.
What is clear and what few would argue with is that the football industry was not going to lose up to 48k supporters/customers.
However the attempt to parachute a team from Ibrox anywhere else but the bottom tier on integrity grounds was resisted by supporters of all clubs from the then SPL down through the SFL Divisions.
Clyde articulated their reasons but as a club at the bottom of the SFL 3, like all clubs in the SFL were not blind to the windfall that a team from Ibrox would provide as they climb back up the Divisions.
So for sporting integrity reasons as well as commercial ones SFL Div 3 entry was granted.
Given that the deal for the SPL fell through and SFL 3 was the last port in the storm you can see why that commercial reasons Green insisted on a transfer of SFA Membership as opposed to following the normal Registered/Associate/ Full Membership route applicable to all new clubs under the rules.
That transfer could not take place until Dundee obtained their SPL Membership from the defunct Rangers thus creating a consequential gap in SFL3 for the team from Ibrox to enter.
That did not happen until 3 Aug 2012 and to cover the gap when the team from Ibrox had to play Brechin a new category of SFA Membership “Conditional” was created. The late Paul McConville argued this was “ultra vires” but a lot of that was going on then and thereafter.
Given the club’s were desperate not to lose 48k customers and they were owed money from RFC they allowed Green to dictate the terms of entry which was discretionry xfer of SFA Membership.
The SFA have never said whether that xfer confers continuity, only Doncaster has said it in terms of history and his authority for doing so is uncertain.
If it wasn’t in the 5 Way Agreement ( as an agreement not to sanction Sevco for deeds of RFC appears to be, then it becomes a marketing ploy only.
If continuity of history was agreed in the 5 Way then that makes it legal in football terms if not in civil.
If it is just a marketing ploy then if /when the team from Ibrox win an SPFL title and it is added to previous SPL titles it could face legal challenge on a ultra vires basis.
It really was a strange “transfer” when you think about it.
The new Rangers were given a “conditional membership” of the SFA. Something that had never happened before as I understand it.
On the basis that the club being liquidated had a full membership, then I can only assume this wasn’t the same one and as such could only be a new membership.
“A conditional membership will be issued to Sevco Scotland Ltd today, allowing Sunday’s Ramsdens Cup tie against Brechin City to go ahead.”*
Ernie B really is helping bring this stuff back up again. Sometimes one falls victim to the propaganda and forgets the basics.
*Oh and as an added bonus, if it’s the company which got the membership then when the company dies the club also goes. So when Sevco Scotland (Now TRFC Ltd) goes then that’s the club away as well obviously. Totally different from RIFC PLC (The holding Company), the new version of Wavetower.
Auldheid
When Sevco Scotland was admitted to the SFL on 14th July 2012 it automatically became a member of the SFA.
There was no SFL or SFA regulation that the status of associate or full membership (of the SFA) had to be GRANTED prior to the Brechin game on the 29th July. The SFL rules simply stated that any new club must already have or must APPLY for such status within 14 days of its admittance to the league. By requesting the transfer of Rangers full membership status, Sevco Scotland had fulfilled its obligation. The SFA could have taken as long as it wished to come to a decision on that application.
The conditional membership idea is a complete squirrel. Sevco Scotland were already members of the SFL (and therefore the SFA) prior to the Brechin match. The SFA simply gave conditional approval for the transfer of the full membership status held by Rangers to Sevco Scotland. The conditions were fulfilled on 3rd August and the full membership status was duly transferred.
What the board did do prior to the Brechin game (as the SFA articles required) was give Sevco Scotland approval for the use of the name of an existing member.
Had the SFA board not sanctioned the use of the Rangers name at that time, the team playing Brechin could not have called itself Rangers. This was the only (and immeasurably important) consequence of the SFA statement.
Personally, I believe the SFA acted fully within its powers in all respects. Where it let itself down in the communication of what was actually occurring.
Which was simply:l
It allowed Sevco Scotland to use the Rangers branding.
and
The transfer of full membership status from one (old) football club to another (new) club.
HIRSUTEPURSUIT
NOVEMBER 24, 2017 at 20:12
============================
So Sevco Scotland got the conditional membership then the full membership was transferred later is that it.
Was the full membership transferred to Sevco Scotland as well.
HOMUNCULUS
No, no such membership category existed, exists or will ever exist.
The statement that a ‘conditional membership will be issued to Sevco Scotland Ltd’ was pure sophistry. How can something be that does not exist be issued to anyone?
Even if such a thing had been created specially, what difference would it have made?
I repeat, Sevco Scotland were already members of the SFA at the time.
The only additional membership category that mattered to Sevco was the full membership status held by Rangers.
The ‘conditional’ membership simply never existed.
Important you pay your bills or you could be liquidated and lose your club and history.
HIRSUTEPURSUIT
NOVEMBER 24, 2017 at 20:36
=======================================
Cheers. So basically what the SFA said was a total fabrication.
The golf club analogy has been used before.
Dear old dad is a member of St Andrews (other golf clubs are available). To make best use of the facilities new members must apply to a ‘house’ that will give access to their respective lounges and bars. After 15 years of continuous membership Mon pere was awarded the status of ‘Gold Member’.
Gold Members have their own lounge and gain a range of additional benefits.
Recently poor old dad has become poorly and suggests that l join the golf club and take over his ‘Gold Membership’.
I join the club and, with a letter of agreement from sickly pater, apply for the transfer of his ‘Gold Membership’ status.
The committee meet and decide that I can only take on the enhanced membership status if old pop dies.
I tell them that father is on his last legs and won’t last the weekend.
As an existing member I can enter the club’s Saturday medal competition. On a conditional basis, they tell me I will be eligible to use the ‘Gold Members’ facilities. They issue me with a letter to confirm this arrangement.
They will reconvene in several weeks to confirm the transfer of membership status – assuming that by then papa will be gone. If he makes a miraculous recovery I must then apply to join one of the standard houses.
HP
We covered this before and this time I never said the application had to be granted because of your prior input and finding out a bit more about the process followed.
I stated or tried to state the normal process for a new club and PMd you for comment.
There were 3 categories of SFA Membership at the time.
Registered
Associate
Full
What happened is Sevco automatically became a Registered Member of the SFA on joining the SFL on 14th July as an Associate Member of the SFL.
This is in line with the 5 Way Agreement but no mention in it of any Sevco application for Associate Membership of the SFA, which was the norm for a new club applying, although the application for Full SFA Membership is well covered.
That suggests Sevco never did apply for Associate Membership of SFA at all because they had applied for and were waiting for the SFA to xfer Full SFA Membership. That was within SFA powers but only at discretion under Article14.
That discretionary Full SFA Membership xfer was dependent on Completion of 5 Way which was dependent on the SPL consenting to the transfer of Rangers SPL Share to Dundee.
That did not happen until 3 August so Sevco did not have a Full SFA Membership until then because RFC held it until then.
That is where the conditional membership had to be invented because the Brechin game took place on 29th July before Completion on 3 Aug.
Had Sevco had a SFA Membership either Registered or Associate, then the conditional SFA Membership need not have been invented to allow the Brechin game to take place.
One can only assume therefore that neither a Registered SFA Membership nor Associate SFA Membership existed at time of Brechin game on 29th July and a logical reason is that the Registered SFA Membership had elapsed because an Application for Associate Membership had not been made with 14 days and the application for Full SFA Membership could only be completed after RFCs ‘SPL share was transferred to Dundee.
So the gap wasn’t because Sevco hadn’t applied for an Associate or Full SFA Membership, it was because the Registered Membership had elapsed and Sevco had applied for a Full SFA Membership, to be xferred from RFC but it could not be granted until SPL agreed to xfer of RFC share in SPL to Dundee, because until then RFC held their Full SFA Membership by dint of their SPL Membership.
The devil is in the detail and all the types of memberships of both SFA and then SPL doesnt help but hopefully this exchange will help Ernest’s understanding of the context and circumstance of the transfer of SFA Membership under Article 14 of SFA Articles.
What I do find amazing about the death of ragers 1872 is ,how quick the patient expired after being diagnosed .
Here was a club that had existed for 140 yrs and the owner was handing it over to CW with a belief that his legacy would be looked back on fondly .
ALL was hunky dory and ticketus boo.
Yet CW only in place for 9 months managed to lumber said club with over £100m of debt
How remiss of him
Someone had infected the club with a terminal virus and CW just happened to be the one who was at the patients bedside when they expired
I am sure I have an old picture of CW at a fancy dress party ,he was dressed as a great big squirrel IIRC
I often wondered why CG that BIG handed Yorkshire man was willing to pay £8.5m to get a CVA when it would only cost him £5.5m after liquidation
Oh that’s right ,he wanted to pay the £8.5m out of the goodness of his BIG Yorkshire heart
I am sure there was an article in the DR that said ragers assets at the time of admin were valued at £113m.
Then CG picks them up for £5.5m ,not very good at this business malarky is our CW is he
then again the value of said assets could have been inflated to make an insolvent business appear not so
who knows?
The EBster hijack continues.
Please stop feeding.
Please ignore and the lack of oxygen will make his paymasters question the efficacy of their strategy.
Please ignore even if he names you in a quasi question.
Auldheid
The 14 day application deadline was an SFL requirement – not something that the SFA had any locus in considering.
As long as Sevco was a member of the SFL it was a member of the SFA.
It would have been up to the SFL management committee to decide if the application for transfer (rather than application for a new associate membership) met its requirements. If it did not, it would have been within its powers to revoke Sevco’s league membership. It is an arguable point, but there is no suggestion, as far as I’m aware, that the SFL league management committee ever met to even discuss the matter.
Nevertheless, I think you are saying that Sevco was no longer a member of the SFL at the time of the SFA statement – therefore needed this ‘new’ SFA membership category to play Brechin.
But how would any type of membership of the SFA help if it was no longer a member of the SFL? If its membership of the league had already lapsed or been revoked, another SFL EGM would have been required to try and vote the club back in. I’m 100% sure that did not happen.
On 29th July, Sevco must still have been a member of the SFL as the Ramsden Cup was only open to members of that league.
There was simply no mechanism for the club to rejoin the league in the available time. If it did not rejoin (and I’m as certain as I can be that it did not) then it cannot ever have been removed as a member of the SFL.
And as I keep saying, as a member of the SFL, it was also a member of the SFA.
The SFA’s deceit was not in its actions – but was in its words.
Don’t forget that the SFA had to consider the use of the Rangers name. The ‘conditional’ membership squirrel has been particularly useful in covering up the SFA board’s approval for Sevco to play Brechin under the Rangers name.
That, in reality, was the big announcement on that day. The rest was sleight of hand.
Smoke and mirrors.
This was the nub of the ‘conditional membership’
The new club (Sevco) was issued with written permission to use the name of a club in full membership (Rangers).
This was necessary because both existed as SFA member clubs at the time.
I see where you’re coming from Finloch, but I find Napoleon’s advice more compelling.
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”. Or in EB’s case, hundreds of them.
For example, he earlier chastised a poster over a matter which was not (according to him) covered by the rules. This from a bloke who has spent nearly a fortnight on here telling us that the appliance of discretion was the determining factor in Rangers* continuity. He doesn’t do irony, does he?
HirsutePursuitNovember 24, 2017 at 23:07 (Edit)
By applying an invented classification to TRFC (Sevco) that would certainly have got around the rule about a Registered SFA Member was using a name sounding like Rangers in a match apart from it signalling two different clubs.
My approach was always on what would have been the normal rules applied, so I had another look taking aboard your point on applying being sufficient and here is another reason a conditional SFA membership had to be invented. I’ll repeat a bit of background from earlier:
In 2012 there were 3 classes of SFA Membership
Registered SFA Membership
Associate SFA Membership
Full SFA Membership.
(That changed in August 2013 to two classes- Registered and Full but it is the 2012 process that applies)
The process for a club obtaining SFA Membership in 2012 was:
A Registered SFA Membership was automatic on gaining an SFL Associate Membership.
To obtain a full SFA Membership under Article 6.3 of SFA Articles :-
A club or association desiring to qualify for full membership of the Scottish FA must first be admitted as an Associate Member.
Thus under normal rules Sevco were not eligible to apply for Full SFA Membership as they did not first have an Associate SFA Membership.
A club joining the SFL without an Associate or Full SFA Membership had to applied for one within 14 days of joining the SFL. Sevco had neither. The SFL Rules said:
SFL Rule16.
REGISTRATION WITH SFA A CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP
A Member or Associate Member (of SFL) who is not already a full or associate
member of the Scottish Football Association (Sevco) 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 failing which its membership of the League will lapse, and in
the event that the application is unsuccessful, its membership will lapse
upon that decision being intimated to the League.)
Under SFL 16 Sevco needed to apply for a Full or Associate SFA Membership but they didn’t apply for Associate SFA Membership which they needed in order to apply for a Full SFA Membership.
To get that they needed the Full SFA Membership of Rangers FC transferred to them under the 5 Way Agreement using the discretion allowed under Article 14 of SFA Rules.
So with no application for Associate SFA Membership made with 14 days and not being eligible to apply for Full Membership under normal rules, not having the Associate SFA Membership first, they exceptionally applied for the SFA Membership of Rangers to be transferred under SFA Discretion and on Completion of 5 Way Agreement.
Technically therefore (and this is where the SFA might have had a concern) the Registered SFA Membership elapsed on 28th July because Sevco did not apply for Associate SFA Membership and under normal SFA Rules at the time could not apply for Full Membership until they had applied for and obtained Associate Membership.
The SFA might have argued that a Registered Membership of the SFA was sufficient to allow the Brechin game to go ahead on 29th July, but that would have clearly made Sevco a team/club holding an SFA Membership at the same time as Rangers and using Rangers name or one damn like it.
Additionally of course had that Registered SFA Membership not elapsed, the rules to be followed at that time to grant a Full SFA membership meant Sevco/Rangers becoming an Associate SFA Member first and it would have been impossible then to argue or justify an argument that TRFC had been Full SFA Members ever since they first joined the SFA.
They are not any way, the invented Conditional Membership breaking the Full SFA Membership continuity with RFC myth, but to agree to such a shambles does suggests that had the SFA and SPL not found a way to give SEVCO/TRFC Full SFA Membership and voting rights, Green would have walked away.
Perhaps with hindsight everyone wishes he had.
If for reasons argued and to comply with UEFA regulations it was recognised that under football rules TRFC’s SFA Membership began in 2012 and with it any trophy count, but under same reasoning no sanctions including removal of titles could be applied to RFC, which is what Traverso said in effect , would you accept that as a reasonable price to pay to restore lost integrity?
AULDHEID,
We will have to disagree about any loss to sporting integrity.
Purely from a sporting integrity point of view there is no difference between a club shedding debt via a CVA and a liquidated club shedding debt,how a creditor loses money has nothing to do with sporting integrity and the unfair sporting advantage does not vanish just because creditors agree to losing money,it is called a non sequitur.
Another non sequitur in terms of sporting integrity is where in the accounts ledger overspending took place s long as no criminal fraud took place.
It matters not a jot if the overspending debt was directly on players because all overspending debt indirectly enables un-affordable players. So the make up of the creditor has nothing to do with sporting integrity.
What is important to sporting integrity is INSOLVENCY and the act of spending beyond ones means and in doing so gaining a sporting advantage,it is actually CHEATING.
The rules should punish all cheats equally to protect sporting integrity, so my position is simple, from a sporting integrity point of view RFC should have been punished no different to Hearts or Dunfermline because they all overspent.
It is illogical to suggest the 20 million or so owed to a bank by Hearts was not spent on un-affordable players going back years,and yet because it was written off Hearts suddenly could afford the players and are applauded for their sporting integrity lol !!
As they the old saying goes,you couldn’t make this shit up.
So to answer your question,UEFA’s interrupted membership obviously allows the new club/company to inherit the history of the old club/company and that is good enough fudge for me,nothing to with sporting integrity tbh.
=======================
Its UEFA rules not mine and what they are saying is that if there is no footballing deterrent to make clubs think twice about overspending on players at expense of creditors, then clubs will do it if, having restructured as a result of insolvency enabling them to immediately get a UEFA licence, they are allowed straight back into UEFA competitions at the expense of fellow clubs ,who did not overspend and may lose out on an UEFA competition to the over spenders as a result.
That is where the integrity protection comes in, its not fair play to clubs not overspending not to have that principle in place to protect them.
Thus if Art 12 did not exist and Rangers had remained in the SPL with the same players paid from earlier UEFA success, gained by overspending but now free of the debt caused by their wages, and those wages helped win another CL /EL place, how could that possibly be acceptable in fair play terms to the other clubs?
This is why UEFA specifically say
” Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stake holdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition”
So to deter not just that overspending behaviour with sanctions that hurt and uphold fair play principles as well as clubs indulging in insolvency as a means of facilitating its qualification or receipt of a licence, which is precisely what Rangers tried in Scotland, UEFA require a club to have three consecutive years membership of their national association in order to apply for a licence after any alteration done to facilitate the receipt of one which would include insolvency.
With regard to insolvencies at other clubs Hearts for example took their punishment of points deduction AND embarked on a program of austerity to honour a CVA, one result of which was their demotion. When RFC entered administration there was not much cutting back there as I recall and certainly no risk of demotion.
That Hearts CVA was agreed by creditors as a better means of getting paid more than liquidating Hearts and selling the assets, in the case of Rangers, creditors did not believe that they would get more back from Rangers administration than liquidation so they went for repayment of as much as they could get by that route, but as I have covered it is not the insolvency per se that governs UEFA but the motivation behind it.
Now I’m not sure if Hearts ever qualified for Europe since administration, but if they have then UEFA would not bar them for three years as their SFA membership is continuous and is recognised by UEFA as such. UEFA might have concerns with any accounts submitted for the year in question and refuse a licence on those grounds for that year but not for three years under Article 12.
However Rangers fell under Article 12 and the notion that UEFA see the three years exile as merely an interruption of their SFA membership is not supported by Traverso calling TRFC/TRIFC “new.” which can only mean not the same.
Your argument for continuity is based on Article 14 of SFA Articles, paradoxically called Prohibition of Transfer of SFA Membership where it should maybe be called Circumstances Where an SFA Membership Can Be Transferred.
I have demonstrate how that Xfer came about and how and why UEFA do not recognise TRFC’s SFA membership as continuous on integrity grounds and why to UEFA TRFC are a new club who are now eligible to apply for a UEFA licence now having three years SFA membership.
I appreciate none of this will change your mind but it might inform others of what did take place and why ignorance of the rules and events has allowed that SFA Membership Transfer to take on a meaning that no amount of reason will shake in TRFC supporters, but could be reasonably challenged as against fair play.
I reckon that this is the reason why Derek McInnes has decided to avoid the car crash at Ibroke.
https://d2cx26qpfwuhvu.cloudfront.net/aberdeen/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/24235055/AnnualAccounts_2017_web.pdf
I am astounded that sevco 2012 were given a licence to play in Europe this year as I could have swore there is a rule that the club has to have no outstanding social taxes .
Maybe someone could produce a receipt were ragers 1872 paid the
£14.3m as stated on the creditors list + the BTC total after all the BIG LIE tellers want us to believe the club never died .
Anyone who bases their argument on what the SFA did during this debacle is no more than a troll
The SFA stand accused in the dock along with the peepil
As I say their latest recruit is here for a reason .
I look forward to the new clubs insolvency event .
The late Paul’s blog on name change.
The 31st July was a busy day for Companies House, dealing with changes of name for two particular companies.
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/fun-with-forms-could-sevcos-change-of-name-to-rangers-be-invalid/
Auldheid
I am with you in most of what you say, but there are some important differences.
SFA Article 6.1 & 6.2 say:
We are in complete agreement, I think, that SFA Article 6.2 made Sevco a registered member of the SFA from the date it was accepted by the SFL – 14th July 2012.
But, and I think this is important, the nearest the SFA get to insisting that a club has associate or full SFA membership is Article 6.2 which simply says, ‘A registered member may apply at any time to become an associate member.’
Note: no timescale applies… and no consequences (from an SFA perspective) if a club chooses to not make that application.
So I think we are on common ground that Article 6.2 was applicable as far as the registered membership was concerned – and Sevco did not take the opportunity to apply for associate membership by this method.
If we then go back to what the SFL Rules actually said:
Now, if the SFL was being prescriptive about which SFA Article was to be used (to apply for full or associate membership), and that Article 6 was the only valid route, why mention full membership as an option. If ‘application’ is meant to mean only applications in terms of SFA Article 6, the only relevant option would be to apply as an associate SFA member.
No, the SFL rules are not prescriptive in the manner of that application. I think Rule 16 is clearly written to allow a transfer of associate or full membership from an existing club to a new club or entity under SFA Article 14.
In fact the only method by which this could be achieved is SFA Article 14
…which allows the board to grant an application for transfer of an existing membership on such terms as it sees fit.
Importantly, the discretion only applies to which terms and conditions to a transfer of a membership that already exists.
Having complete discretion on how or if that transfer (of full membership) took place is completely within the board’s power via Article 14.
What it doesn’t do is empower the board to create a new type of membership.
And, even if it does claim to have done so, I still don’t understand how the SFA ‘conditional’ membership would satisfy the SFL requirement for an application for associate or full membership?
Remember, this transfer application was an SFL requirement. The SFA had no interest in whether or not Sevco applied for associate or full membership.
It seems to me that the SFA and SFL approached the Sevco scenario in a similar way as they did when Inverness Caledonian were admitted (as a new club) in 1994.
Difference is ICT, the SFL, SPL and SFA all recognise that that club was founded in 1994.
As I said earlier with regard to the birth of Sevco, the deceit is not so much in what they all did, but in what they said and continue to say.
Au contraire Portbhoy.
yesterday SFA were following process and using their discretion. Today they screwed up the process. I’d say he’s doing a splendid job. Just splendid.
Smugas,
Not too sure what you mean, but I’m certainly not going to argue with any of you learned gentlemen.
Always one to champion the brand by the way. Magnificent display by the ladies curling team to win the euros just now.
(portbhoy, let’s just say today’s word is inconsistency).
Just remembered another Dave King classic from an AGM.
‘Unlike Celtic we will actually compete in the Champions League’
The above statement was reported without challenge as if King was issuing an edict as the supreme ruler.
I wonder what he will say to woo the masses and sweep the media off their feet next week!
I hear Sevco will be sending out a strong message at the AGM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR0lOtdvqyg
Not bright, but one quick question. If The Rangers were the same team due to the transfer of membership, how come they didn’t start their journey with a points deduction?
On a seperate note, my partner used to be married to a Scottish journalist. He has a very similar style in his arguments to certain posters. Maybe there is a course?
EB @ 13.01
does that not take us back to the (lack of) written agreement from a week past Tuesday?
So are we now to assume “the process” is what we mere mortals call “the rules” and you are actually arguing that they used their discretion to circumvent the rules?
HirsutePursuitNovember 25, 2017 at 10:41 (Edit)
Where I have a difficulty is if a Registered Membership of the SFA was good enough to cover the Brechin game why mention a Conditional Membership in the SFA statement at
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsID=10252 as being necessary to allow it to go ahead?
There had to be a reason contained in the Application for a Full Licence which was processed under The 5 Way Agreement which I think makes the situation unique.
The Registered Member of the SFA was Sevco not RFC and Sevco were the applicant for the transfer of SFA Membership not RFC. In the case of the Inverness Clubs they were actual football clubs playing the game, Sevco weren’t when they were allowed into the SFL in mid July and that is what makes the situation unique.
I’ve always wondered why didn’t Sevco just apply for SFA Membership as any new club would under normal rules and why didn’t the SFA direct them to do so?
The answer or a move towards it will lie in the 5 Way Agreement but that is a complicated area best left off line until some form of consensus emerges, so I’ve have PMd you with my thoughts.
The perfect storm?
Another extremely disappointing result for the bears last night – and tough games coming up.
And no sign of a new manager yet – after a month of supposedly ‘collecting CV’s’.
And the tricky matter of an AGM on Thursday to try and tell the shareholders that it’s really not all bad news.
(Will the gazebo make a reappearance?)
And the other challenge: IMO, it’s not now who TRFC wants as their new manager…but who will take the job now ?
And whoever is offered the role is in a great negotiating position to squeeze a very favourable deal from the depleted war chest!
The Blue Room residents have done a spectacular job of painting themselves into a corner.
…or mibbees they are at the endgame: no ability / cash to make a decision ?
STEVIEBCNOVEMBER 25, 2017 at 14:53 8 0 Rate This
The perfect storm?
Another extremely disappointing result for the bears last night – and tough games coming up.
—————
And one song put on the back burner for a while.
Dundee, Hamilton feck…..
Well how could they
STEVIEBCNOVEMBER 25, 2017 at 14:53
And the other challenge: IMO, it’s not now who TRFC wants as their new manager…but who will take the job now ?
===========================
There was a very interesting debate on Radio Scotland earlier, with Chick Young being the only Ibrox apologist involved. The general view is Derek McInnes is very unimpressed with Rangers ‘efforts’ to obtain his services, hence he has now publicly committed to Aberdeen. I’m guessing the implication is Rangers were trying to force down the compensation by using friendly journalists to unsettle McInnes via the media. People would undoubtedly take the Rangers job, but no-one of note. Talk of Giovanni van Bronckhorst and Frank de Boer is fanciful in my view. As are names like Alan Pardew and Sam Allardyce. An expensive appointment can pay for itself as Celtic have shown with Brendan Rodgers, but Celtic were a far more stable, adequately funded club at the time of the Rodgers appointment than Rangers are at the moment, and even though Celtic are self sufficient, they have a billionaire director and several other very wealthy individual shareholders, one who is even wealthier than Dermot Desmond. How are Rangers going to get to that point? Guys like Brian Kennedy and Jim McColl may be interested if some of the current charlatans who were involved in the previous tax dodging regimes were removed from the boardroom, but would they be willing to throw tens of millions into a black hole in order to get Rangers into a position where they can win the league and get a crack at the Champions League?
I see EB is back where he started, arguing with himself or some ethereal entity over the SFA membership transfer to Sevco. I’ve been involved with SFM since it’s inception and cannot remember much, if anything, being made of the legitimacy of the transfer, other than many posters pointing out the obvious fact that nothing is ever transferred from one entity to the same entity.
So, someone has come onto SFM, or has returned under a different guise, to argue something, repeatedly, that isn’t actually being argued against. (Even if the SFA acted outwith their authority in granting the transfer it is as nothing in comparison to the wrongs that they have perpetrated against the game itself.) Why? Why put so much effort into something so inconsequential? Is there some reason, something in the air, that makes a PR push to put the idea out there that a club is defined by it’s membership to an FA? Or is it just the case that it has taken someone five years to think this one up and they are so proud of it they can’t let it rest?
upthehoops
November 25, 2017 at 12:04
Just remembered another Dave King classic from an AGM.
‘Unlike Celtic we will actually compete in the Champions League’
they fall for it all the time UTH
Charles Green won’t leave Rangers until they reach Champions League again
Still more intrigued which detail he’s trying to keep us away from tbh. Got it narrowed down to 3 though.
Ernest Becker,
When referring to rfc, could you please let me or anyone else who may be interested know to which rfc you mean, Here is a list, I hope it helps.
1), THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB SC004276 – Incorporated on 27 May 1899 – Has been in Liquidation since 2012.
2), THE RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC SC437060 – Incorporated on 16 November 2012.
3), THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED Company number SC425159 Incorporated on 29 May 2012.
4), Previous company name: …… SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED 29 May 2012 – 31 Jul 2012.
5), GLASGOW RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED 07821463 ……. Dissolved on 9 June 2015.
6), RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB 2012 LIMITED SC418862 …… Dissolved on 25 October 2013.
Happy to let others deal with all the Ernie Becker discussions regarding rules and the like.
However, taking the Hedi Poon approach, we have footballing authorities who are such sticklers for their rules that they chuck lower level clubs out of competitions for not having duplicate signatures on player registraion documents.
Yet we are being asked to believe it was within those self same rules of these self same pedants that an, as then, unknown membership status was granted to one particular club and the whole thing is covered by a secret unseen agreement – of which two of the five parties are apparently the same club.
Argue about the technicalities all you want but it smells like shite and we all know it.!!!
Here’s a link to the HMRC guidance to business owners on its procedures for “Dealing with your limited company’s debt” which it will have followed from September 2011onwards
https://www.gov.uk/protecting-company-from-compulsory-liquidation
HMRC banking arrangements for payment of PAYE, VAT and Enquiry Settlements are separate, and are located in Cumbernauld, Liverpool and Shipley respectively.
Where there is late / unpaid monthly PAYE the company officers will have been issued with a demand for payment stating their PAYE reference.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-revenue-customs/contact/employer-paye-payment
Where there is late / unpaid quarterly VAT the company officers will have been issued with a demand for payment stating their VAT reference.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-vat
Where there is outstanding debt under an Enquiry Settlement (i.e. The Wee Tax Case) HMRC Compliance Inspectors issue a Payment Request Notice
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pay-taxes-penalties-and-enquiry-settlements
and showing the relevant Miscellaneous Payments Team reference number.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-revenue-customs/contact/miscellaneous-payments-teams
Usually payments received by HMRC’s Debt Management & Banking directorate are initially allocated against the debt with the earliest due date for payment unless specified otherwise by the company’s officers.
If the company’s officers were unhappy with the allocation of the £2.9M arrestment then they could and should have contacted HMRC to specify which debt(s) they wanted this sum to be allocated to.
The idea that HMRC would not have allocated this payment as requested by the company’s officers is just not credible and complaints about its allocation should be addressed to the company officers and not HMRC.
Why didn’t Rangers FC just sue one of the newspapers that said they and their history were dead?
Win the case in court and it’s settles it for all time, no arguing.
On another note, does my head in when Rangers fans blithely state “FIFA say we’re the same club”
Here’s what FIFA actually say, on their own website no less
FIFA :12 MOMENTS THAT DEFINED 2012
Rangers go under
14 JuneRangers’ perilous financial position had been an open secret but there was still shock when, after 140 years of history and a world record 54 league titles, the club was consigned to liquidation in mid-June. The Glasgow giants were subsequently reformed as a new company and granted entry to the Third Division, Scotland’s fourth tier, which they currently lead by nine points with a game in hand.
Sue them Ernest , sue them and settle it!
As a usual lurker who has only periodically commented and a Rangers fan, I have to say that since Ernest has joined this place has become absolutely insane! The argument of same club/new club for me seems the most pointless in history. I’m a season ticket holder and go and watch the games and for me I can’t see a single difference (quality aside) in the last ten years! And when I watch old firm games with my mixed crowd even the Celtic fans I’m with don’t notice anything changed. If it makes some folk feel better thinking this is a brand new club then by all means whatever gets you off. Trying to justify one way or the other that this is a different team truly amazes me, and I blame the Rangers fans on here like Ernest as much as the rest. Yes legally under corporate law it’s a new founded company, but can anyone honestly say they notice one single different aspect since the big L word? And hand on heart, if Rangers were to win the league, would anyone think for one minute it wouldn’t be added to the 54 titles? And I’d be willing to wager a pretty large bet that the UEFA website would reference that too. Why? Because can anyone really see UEFA getting involved in a squabble between some fans in a backwater nation they care not one jot for? They will take the SFA word for it and that will be that. To still be arguing over this 5 years down the line just amazes me.
Looking back here is something i forgot about. anyone else forgotten
DBD
It is comments like the one above that makes the truth being told important. Utterly incredible
Must have got a pass then.certain circumstances March 2012.
looking back the SFA and SPL had launched probes and investigations into almost everything ibrox related,I doubt half have ever came to fruition.
CLUSTER ONENOVEMBER 25, 2017 at 20:43
I think there is a pattern emerging
DARKBEFOREDAWNNOVEMBER 25, 2017 at 20:00
I’m a season ticket holder and go and watch the games and for me I can’t see a single difference.
———–
I can only hope you were not a season ticket holder and debenture seat holder before 2012 the difference being the angle of the pitch from your view point for starters
DBD. One difference? No
168 million differences? Yes
fan of footballNovember 25, 2017 at 20:13
Very well said, FoF.
If it doesn’t matter whether they are a new club or the old one, why all the subterfuge in the first place? And to say it doesn’t matter after an IPO that was based on it being a club with 140 years of history that led to the less well informed losing lots of money (while the man who first claimed they were the same club ran off with a nice share of the loot).
Still, a bit like waiting for a bus, after a long wait, two come along in quick succession!
CLUSTER ONENOVEMBER 25, 2017 at 20:43
seems the courts take a totally different stance on nessie fc
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 25, 2017 at 20:53
I am even more convinced that sevco 2012 will suffer an insolvency event in the very near future .
Another great chance for the SFA to use their infamous comic also known as their rule book
fan of footballNovember 25, 2017 at 20:59
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 25, 2017 at 20:53I am even more convinced that sevco 2012 will suffer an insolvency event in the very near future .Another great chance for the SFA to use their infamous comic also known as their rule book
__________________
One things for sure, if they can’t find the necessary loans, and who in their right mind would believe Dave King when he says he’ll pony up?, then administration, at the very least, is inevitable. But there’s another question, with the disastrous results just published, an AGM coming up that will be pushing for donations to keep the lights on, and a farcical ‘search’ for a manager, we have one new poster who spends some two weeks going over five year old ground, and another saying there’s no need to go over that old ground, I’d have thought the current problems at Ibrox would have been at the forefront of both their minds and a subject they’d be keen to dispel our convictions of another Ibrox insolvency looming!
Anybody else noticed, that despite there being no regular posters (no non-regular either) posting in agreement with anything they say, the two Steerpike-esque posters have been receiving a few thumbs-up rather more quickly than the thumbs-down have been arriving? As an example, when I first read DBD’s post, he had 6 thumbs up and 7 thumbs down, now he still has those initial 6 TUs, but 16 TDs. I know we tend to discount TU/TDs, but it is an unusual pattern, and may indicate a concerted visit. (Watch this, half a dozen regular posters are now going to shoot me down in flames
saying they gave the TUs 
)
DBD….Don’t you want to discover who killed your club and how?. (Because the simple fact you dismiss, is that Yes!..It did die !) Don’t you want to know who assisted them, have them exposed, and removed from office, or prosecuted if warranted?. Don’t you want rules, and governance to prevent it happening again?
No need for a glass door to see some folk coming.
DARKBEFOREDAWNNOVEMBER 25, 2017 at 20:00
I think your right. When I bought my new home the neighbours didn’t see any change either. Different guy paying the bills though
AuldheidNovember 25, 2017 at 21:09
Auldheid,
I don’t personally buy into the idea that individuals, or even football authorities, can dictate whether a liquidated club continues, or that it has died. To me what matters is what the law, common sense and basic morals tell me. However, in this case, it matters not one jot what Doncaster, the SPL rules, or even the silence from the SFA say on the matter (even the ASA, now that’s a joke), for if we are going to accept the laws of football as defining the OC/NC matter, then Andrea Traverso (and for Ernest’s sake I’ll tell him that, in Italy, what we might think of as a feminine sounding name is the norm for a number of guys’ names – Andrea Bocelli for example) speaks on what UEFA’s rules say, he trumps every word ever spoken on the subject within the confines of Scotland and Scottish football.
There is a reason why his words have never been challenged by anyone who would promote the continuation myth, and that reason is that there is no challenge.
DarkbeforedawnNovember 25, 2017 at 20:00 (Edit)
You wont believe this but I had a long argument with a Celtic supporter who would not accept Rangers were the same club and I was arguing that it didn’t matter as it would always be the same club to the vast majority of Rangers supporters!
However there are two factors at play that at least deserve recognition even if not accepted.
In principle this same club after liquidation idea introduces a moral hazard to the game if clubs can run themselves into the ground and continue as the same club. Clubs that have gone bust and carried on like Gretna accepted that whilst old Gretna in spirit with the same band of supporters, they were not the Gretna who had gone bust. Why can Rangers supporters not do the same?
Also such an attitude attracts a financial problem that hinders TRFC’s survival and that is no financial institution is prepared to offer them a line of credit. Why should they if the they think the loanee is a bad risk prepared to walk away from his debt?
That risk applies to the rest of Scottish football if the SPFL appear to back the notion of immortality and will not apply the sort of deterrent that robs such behaviour and attitude of its value, namely if you break the rules you lose the prizes won as a result.
Not the sort of issues the average match goer bothers about, but still important because of the real life effects TRFC are experiencing in borrowing terms from allowing that perception to prevail.
The other factor is an emotional one and it is bragging rights and I got that from the conversation I mentioned at the beginning.
As far as most Celtic supporters are concerned (and perhaps wider) the titles won using ebts in an unlawful manner amount to far much more than a ten year documentation registration error, which is all LNS was asked to examine.
That whole Commission is seen as a sham because documentation of dishonesty was kept from it nor was the Bryson player eligibility reasoning challenged.
LNS was flawed from the outset and it adds insult to injury when it is used to say Rangers did not obtain any sporting advantage from the irregular use of ebts and are only guilty of an administration error and that there was no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, when all are evidently not true.
That rankles with many and it always will that titles won by irregular unfair means are not being removed using a flawed process, that the SFA refuse to revisit, as justification.
Insult is then added to that injury when any new titles that the successor to Rangers might win will be added to what is seen as a tainted title/trophy count and it is worse because the footballing authorities think that is acceptable to their wider customer base.
I don’t care a single jot that it is going for Fifty Five or going for one, or its going for Fifty Five less those titles won when irregular ebts were used, but I do care about the long term damage deference to such thinking will inflict on a game that has given me so much pleasure since I first kicked a ball as an 11 year old 60 years and if the folly of bowing to such thinking is not highlighted, it will only produce more foolishness and continuing damage.
I never did quite get a hold of “Hail Hail The Celts are here, what the hell do I care now”
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 25, 2017 at 21:23
(Watch this, half a dozen regular posters are now going to shoot me down in flames saying they gave the TUs )
————–
I keep forgetting the TU/TD. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE STARS?
Anyway i did give CHRISTYBOYNOVEMBER 25, 2017 at 21:51 a TU.
Different guy paying the bills though….PMSL
I find it incredible that people can even debate whether a liquidated club/business/company still exists. Of course it doesn’t. Anyone who thinks it does is a fool so there is no point in trying to explain that to a fool because after a while the casual observer will wonder which one the fool is.
Anyone who tries to pretend to fools that a liquidated entity does exist is a crook and a con artist who knows exactly what they are doing because they have an interest in peddling that myth and anyone in a position of authority who allows a crook or a con artist to get away with it is guilty of dereliction of duty.
Dereliction of duty extends to the British media – no just the Scottish, the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the SFA, UEFA and FIFA.
It goes further still – any fool can see that the sale of assets was bent as it was clearly not in the best interest of creditors and the gratuitous alienation identified by the late Paul McConville may still come to pass through the legal system although our legal system has also been exposed as a sham in all this mess.
As for Reagan and Doncaster, who should have walked years ago, I do genuinely believe they did what they thought was best – regardless of the illegalities.
Scottish Football has been killing itself for years – and continues to do so. Here we are 5 years down the line from liquidation and still the same club/new club nonsense. This is what the authorites want because people will tire of it – eventually. We know it’s a new club and so do they.
Change the narrative to judicial review, a clear out at the SFA and the insistence on a better TV deal – frankly no deal is better than the current deal in my view – and stick to it.
And from the responses to my previous comment I can see that non Rangers fans really don’t get it when it comes to the old club new club. At the end of the day why should it matter if legally it’s a different club? It is the same feeling to us, it’s the same media coverage, it’s the same routines. Nothing has changed! So for those that say it’s a new club, do you genuinely see a difference?
AuldheidNovember 25, 2017 at 22:19
“…..Insult is then added to that injury when any new titles that the successor to Rangers might win will be added to what is seen as a tainted title/trophy count and it is worse because the footballing authorities think that is acceptable to their wider customer base….”
_______________________
I wonder, Auldheid, is there a parallel anywhere in the sporting world to what the SFA did in trying to deny the death of a club??
We know that there’s been lots of jiggery-pokery in many sports: but the jiggery-pokery has involved individuals, or individual teams,( and perhaps, on the international stage, national governments trying to win international prestige through sport).
And in those cases , the appropriate level of governing body has dealt with it- the Olympic Committee, the national governing body, the local body, the individual club, team, or whatever.
What we have had is our national body lying to the next level up- for the sake of one cheat.
Must be unparalleled in the whole history of Sport!
DarkbeforedawnNovember 25, 2017 at 23:49
‘..At the end of the day why should it matter if legally it’s a different club? ‘
___________
I cannot believe that you could seriously come out with such a fatuous remark.
It makes all the difference in the world.
It means for start that even the legitimate honours and titles won by the club that is now in Liquidation cannot be legitimately attributed to the 5 year-old- TRFC Ltd.
And the record books must reflect that fact, and acknowledge that RFC(IL) ceased to be able to add to their record of sporting achievements, by losing through insolvency their very existence as a professional football club in membership of a league and of the SFA.
You are perfectly free to transfer such emotional attachment that you had to the ‘dead’ club to Charles green’s new creation.
You can sit in the same seat in Ibrox stadium that occupies the space on the terracing that your grandfather might have stood on (or, for that matter, on which I might have stood !),
you can watch a team in blue whose legal name is “The Rangers Football Club Ltd” (to distinguish it from the club that is in Liquidation)
and you can sing and chant about ‘Rangers’ to your heart’s content.
But doing those things does not, and cannot, make the team you watch the Rangers of old.
You know it’s a sham.
And that the real Rangers are no more.
To quote a couple of Portuguese philosophers, ‘the dogs bark and the caravan moves on’.
And you know it.
And, much more importantly, so do the SFA.
And they have not a shred of excuse, unlike the fan in the street who, like you, had a deep emotional attachment to the deceased club.
Darkbeforedawn November 25, 2017 at 23:49
Erm,…..the abysmal standard of your players and their results since your zombie club was formed in 2012?
Apologies if any of these links have been posted previously. https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/11/22/two-different-worlds-on-planet-fitba/https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/11/25/when-no-plan-means-more-comedy/
….and on the topic of Heart of Midlothian Ltd Accounts & Financial Statements for the year to 30 June 2017
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/11/24/rugger-guy-looks-at-the-annual-accounts-of-hearts/
I don’t have a problem with Rangers fans or other clubs’ fans recognising the current club as a successor of the old club. If it looks like a duck …. etc.
However, I do have a couple of issues with it though. The first is that there needs to be an acknowledgement of a break in the continuity by Rangers fans, i.e. they need to accept that the old club went bust and was liquidated.
The second point relates to the SFA/SPFL rules / discretion. Again, I don’t have a problem with principle of “sporting continuity” (inheriting the history of a predecessor club), BUT, the process of how that is achieved needs to be set out within the rules, e.g. The criteria required for a new club to be deemed a successor club may include:- a requirement to to accept the debts or other liabilities of the old club, be a member of the association for a specified time, be demonstrably solvent throughout, or have an unblemished record of adhering to the rules for a period of time. I believe that the Italian FA have such a rule.
We cannot have such things left to the “discretion” of the Board of the SFA. Let’s say, for arguments sake, Roy MacGregor, chairman of Ross County, has been found to have been cheating the taxman for years across his business interest, and has been presented with a massive bill that he can’t pay. All his businesses, including Ross County, are destined to be liquidated. If there is someone interested in keeping Ross County alive, then how do they achieve that.
Nothing in the SFA’s or SPFL’s rules has changed since the RFC debacle to inform us how such situations will be managed in the future. As far as I can see, it remains down to the discretion of the members of the SFA Board at that specific time to decide, 1) whether or not a new club can be recogised as a successor to the old club, and 2) the conditions placed on 1) happening.
That situation does not provide open and transparent governance, which is all we ask. There has to be a documented process of how an RFC/TRFC type transition is achieved, so that all clubs faced with similar circumstances, can either be revived or left with a DNR notice attached.