0
    0

    Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by HirsutePursuit.

    The absurdity of it all is truly astounding.

    Whilst we were told that Ian Black and Andy Little played as trialists, the remaining players had current player registrations in place with the SFA.

    But registered to which club?

    If they were still registered to Rangers, were there correctly completed loan agreements in place to allow them to play for Sevco?

    If the players were registered to Sevco, were there correctly completed transfer forms in place?

    HirsutePursuit Also Commented

    Accountability via Transparency.
    BP

    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.


    Accountability via Transparency.
    C1

    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

    Bad Money?
    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?

    https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/4521914/roger-mitchell-rangers-bust-sports-direct-ashley-celtic/


    Bad Money?
    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.

     

     


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    …or you can find it here…

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160305151928/http://www.fifa.com/world-match-centre/news/newsid/197/701/7/index.html


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    Rod McKenzie allowed the idea that registration and eligibility were wrapped together to go unchallenged.

    In fact, he may have introduced the idea to LNS.

    Why would he do that?


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com

    "Register"

    NOUN

    An official list or record of names or items.

    ‘a membership register’

     

    "Registration"

    NOUN mass noun

    The action or process of registering or of being registered.

    ‘the registration of births, marriages, and deaths’

    ………..

    The SFA keep a list of players. That list is a register. The register is maintained, largely in good faith, from the information provided by the clubs and players. The process and rules describing what and how the information must be provided are the registration procedures.

    If a player has been initially placed on the list and information later comes to light that the registration procedures have not been carried out correctly the player can be removed from the list.

    What the SFA cannot do is say that the player had never been on the list – the player's registration (place on the list) can only revoked from the point in time the defect in procedures became apparent.

    This is effectively what Bryson said – and actually, is self-evident.

    The SFA cannot change an event that has previously occurred. It can only correct it in the present time.

    …..

     

    "Eligible"

    ADJECTIVE

    often eligible for/to do something

    Having the right to do or obtain something; satisfying the appropriate conditions.

    ‘customers who are eligible for discounts’

     

    Suppose I register as unemployed and claim for any and all the benefits that would ensue. But, actually I have a little part-time job that pays cash.

    Ten years later my deceit is uncovered. I say I didn't think I needed to declare the cash payments as there was no PAYE involved. 

    Should the DWP revoke my unemployment registration retrospectively?

    Or should they remove my registration now and reassess my eligibility for the benefits I have already received?

    Or should they concede that I must have been eligible for the benefits simply because I was on the register.

    The SPL's rules covered both aspects. It doesn't matter that the conditions for registration and eligibility were the same

    Registration is an action that has already occurred. Mistakes can only be corrected in the present.

    Eligibility can (theoretically) be reassessed at any time.