Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by HirsutePursuit.
There are so many things around the 5WA that make you stop and think…
One of my favourites is,
Sevco will become, following on the transfer to it of the full membership of RFC in the SFA, on Completion (defined below) the operator of Rangers FC within the Third Division of the Scottish Football League.
"Completion" was when Rangers SPL share was transfered to Dundee – 3rd August 2012.
Of course Sevco played its first game, against Brechin, on 29th July 2012.
According to the 5WA, Sevco did not become the "owner and operator" of Rangers FC until after the Brechin game.
So, if you do accept the "owner and operator" nonsense, who played Brechin?
HirsutePursuit Also Commented
The "Old Firm" trademark is now jointly owned by Celtic & Sevco.
The liquidators transferred its interest in the IP to Sevco in Nov 18 – and backdated the effective date to 2012.
I presume Celtic must have agreed to the transfer of ownership.
I'm not sure what point you are making in relation to the TV deal.
In commerce of any type, an historic brand has a value. But a brand loses value when its provenance is broken.
What, for example, does the MG marque mean to the average UK motorist today? I suspect a lot less than if the the brand had not been bought out of administration and the original company liquidated.
The provenance of the Rangers FC brand has a direct relationship to its value.
There is no doubt that Sevco purchased the RFC brand, but that doesn't change the fact that the original club – the holder of the historic 'honours' – is no longer operating.
Just as the motor manufacturer MG Rover is no more.
It wasn't so long ago that there were two Lotus teams in F1. Both had claims to the brand. Neither, from memory had any direct link to the Lotus F1 team from the 50's through to the 90's. Each had leased slightly different versions of the brand from different sources.
It's probably no coincidence that the Lotus brand is no longer present in F1. The latest incarnations lacked true provenance and (in F1 terms, at least) are no more.
My point is that the parties to the 5WA have agreed, as a matter of contract, that they would present a single front on the matter of Rangers purported continuation. That lie has been used by two of the parties (now merged into one) to sell a product (the TV deal) at a higher value than is likely to have been achievable if the truth had been told.
Did Duff and Phelps achieve a better sale price because of the lie?
Did Charles Green sell an IPO on the back of the lie? Is Sevco still benefitting from that lie today in season ticket and merchandise sales?
Accountability via Transparency.
Jingso.Jimsie 4th June 2019 at 15:48 6 0 Rate This
'HirsutePursuit 3rd June 2019 at 22:39':
The players' registration were held by the administrators, Duff & Phelps. They issued a letter allowing the players to be used by Sevco Scotland, trading as The Rangers Football Club. You can see a copy of the letter at: http://www.thefrontofthebus.com/2014/04/when-spl-ratified-sevco-as-new-club.html
Assuming this is genuine, this is interesting on several levels:
Firstly, as the player registrations were held by the "company", the company has to be regarded as the football club.
Secondly, these players (if still registered with Rangers) could only play for Sevco by way of a temporary transfer. However, there is a problem with that:
123.2.5 The Board shall not during a season approve more than four temporary transfers to any one club at any one time. Of these, no more than one such transfer at any one time shall involve a player who has reached the age of 21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year. The maximum number of temporary transfers allowed to any club in a season shall not exceed five, of which not more than two shall involve players who have reached the age of 21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year.
Recent Comments by HirsutePursuit
Torre Andre Flo's side letter (I don't think it's possible to post it here) under the old DOS scheme – the Wee Tax Case – specifically says the Club provides indemnity.
Since TRFC claims to be the Club which provided the indemnity, will he – and the other players with the same side letters – have approached TRFC to pay those outstanding tax amounts?
If not, why not?
The big story here is not HMRC picking over the dry bones of the old Rangers, it will be how many of the old players will soon be being held to account for underpaid PAYE.
For those that believe in the continuity myth, those bills should be picked up by TRFC.
Of course, if you think that HMRC are incompetent/corrupt/biased then the question of who should pay is buried under the wails and moans of the angry mob.
The April deadline for ebt recipients was this year (2019) when the loan charge came into operation.
Sometimes the obvious things can be easily missed.
It's just occurred to me that time is running out for the ebt recipients who haven't yet agreed a repayment plan with HMRC.
Where a scheme user was not an employee, or their employer was offshore or no longer exists, the individual user will need to pay any outstanding loan charge liability or agree a payment plan by 31 January 2020. All individuals who have outstanding disguised remuneration loan balances, and have not reached a settlement, must provide information on their loans to HMRC by 30 September 2019. They will also need to file a tax return for the year 2018 to 2019 by 31 January 2020.
There must be a few ex-players around right now who are relieved that the Ibrox Club indemnified them against such circumstances.
They will, of course, be currently in discussion with the Club.
They and their advisors will have noted the numerous proclamations over the past seven years and feel so lucky that the Club was able to survive liquidation in 2012…
Ex Ludo 25th July 2019 at 13:23 5 0 Rate This https://twitter.com/saglalbachiara/status/1154328172340682752?s=21 Something to read whilst you’re taking refuge in the shade.
Interesting piece by Roger Mitchell – erstwhile (founding) SPL CEO.
His premise, that Roma should be not be thought of as a football club – more a 'state of mind', has relevance in Scotland too.
It's easy to see how a 'state of mind' can survive all sorts of issues that a football club would find fatal.
An interesting perspective from Mr Mitchell – who can clearly appreciate the ethereal quality of a sporting institution.
I wonder if he had that I'm mind when he started his recent Twitter exchange?
There is some discussion on whether or not the £1m cap on damages still applies. For what it's worth, I see nothing in the judgement that has removed it. As I read it, the reference to the cap was in part of the justification for injunctive relief.
That is not to say that the cap will not be lifted; but at this point, I think it's still in play.
However, I thought it was significant that Mr Persey felt moved to say:
Mr Friar was somewhat defensive in his evidence and appeared reluctant to answer some quite straightforward questions, simply saying that he did not remember. I found some of his answers to be unconvincing. He was, for example, reluctant to accept that Elite appreciated that there was a risk that SDIR would make a claim against Elite if it entered into an agreement with Rangers. The documents showed that Elite was aware that there was such a risk.
Presumably the risk involved SDIR claiming damages from Elite beyond the amount they are able to achieve – because of the contractual cap – directly from Rangers (sic).
There is no cap on any damages SDIR could claim from Elite. As I understand it Rangers (sic) have indemnified Elite against any damages claims arising from their contract.
It would be interesting to know if the contract between Rangers (sic) and Elite also has a damages cap.