Bonkers OCNC Thread

95
2491

Since it appears that there are some organised campaigns on the blog designed to embroil us in this terminal nonsense again and again, we have introduced this new thread. Anyone wants to debate this as an alternative to sticking pins in ones eye, here’s the place.

Usual rules as far as TSFM-etiquette apply.

95 COMMENTS


  1. Lawman2, I'm slightly bemused because, despite gaining a Geography O-Level many years ago, I can't for the life of me fathom whereabouts in Scotland are Leeds, Luton and Rotherham. The Western Isles perhaps? I'm equally confused why you didn't select clubs from Outer Mongolia in your example, as they also are not governed by Scots Law or the rules and regulations of the Scottish football authorities.

    More importantly, and in order to make all of the above irrelevant, when are you ever going to provide incontrovertible evidence of precisely when and through what documented and verifiable process the club separated itself within the construct of an incorporated football club at some point between 1899 and 2012? For the purposes of clarity, the SFA/SPL/SFL/SPFL's word on the matter does not provide incontrovertible proof.  

    We could be forgiven for thinking no such evidence exists, because the club’s independence from the company was a necessary concoction dreamt up to support the absurd continuity myth. We can only ask you politely so many times.

    View Comment

  2. LM2 @22.18

    I cannot see the context in which your examples are valid.

    Firstly, the law on incorporation in England differs from that in Scotland in that its wording leaves some "wiggle" room that could, with extreme effort, result in a court, depending on the person the bench, deciding that there was a separation of club and company. It has never been legally tested so no precedent has been set.

    You state that

    liquidation process began

    Administrators sold club to Newco

    Newco took over the club

    but nowhere do you give documented proof that the administrators sold Rangers, the club, to Sevco.

    You state how those involved in the sport look on the new club. None of these groups are in a position to create a legal precedent. The FA, like the SFA, may have decided on financial grounds there was an advantage. We have seen many occasions where that association has dispensed with any sporting pretense to build their business. Why that has not been fought by the fans(well actually it has if you consider the Portsmouth case albeit only administration) brings us to another facet of this whole case. The complete lack of any remorse or shame by the publicly facing fans bodies and many individual fans. But then, from me, that is just supposition. All I can propose is that the sympathy that the opposition fans in the cases you quote may have had had the effect that in the fans minds enough punishment had been meted out and there was no need for them individually to revert to the law.

    Up here, not only has there be no appropriate punishment for at least a decade of cheating but the authorities have acted in a dishonest manner to ensure that no punishment can be meted out. That is the raison d'etre for this website – to hold the administrators to account.

    But it doesn't stop there. Despite having cheated the fans of all other teams not only has there been no apology or regret shown quite the opposite has happened. We have been confronted with lame justifications for the outcome of the cheating. Justifications that have been produced with aggression, vindictive accusations and violence that has been all wrapped up in a belief of self entitlement not just from the fans but the officers of the club. Throw into the mix the fact that the club, pre and post liquidation, has a record of violence towards other fans, criminal damage to the property belonging to the other clubs and a display of bigotry that has no place in modern society and the explanation why the sympathy and empathy shown by opposing fans to the clubs you give as an example becomes understandable. Every club has idiot fans but the scale at Ibrox and the involvement of the officers of the club take it to another level.

    That last section of the preceding paragraph displays why there is a need for a site like this to exist. To tackle the organisations running Scottish football whose Articles of Association arm them with power and, more importantly, the duty to tackle this unacceptable behaviour. Despite the many offensive and untruthful official club statements aimed at people and clubs in our leagues appearing on the TRFC website not one comment, never mind, piece of action has come out of Hampden.

    I hope that maybe goes some way to responding to you request for comment. It does not explain why in England as well as Scotland the authorities are left unchallenged when the choose to disregard the law of the land when making their financially appropriate decisions. It does explain though the viewpoint of many ordinary, decent fans.

    View Comment

  3. Reiver 21st August 2018 at 12:24  

     

    Firstly, the law on incorporation in England differs from that in Scotland in that its wording leaves some "wiggle" room that could, with extreme effort, result in a court, depending on the person the bench, deciding that there was a separation of club and company. It has never been legally tested so no precedent has been set.

    It has never been tested in England and likewise it has never been tested in Scotland.  You are 100% spot on that no precedent has been set.  Either way.

     

    You state that

    liquidation process began

    administrators sold club to newco

    newco took over the club

    but nowhere do you give documented proof that the administrators sold Rangers, the club, to Sevco.

     

    Duff and Phelps Report July 2012.

    https://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/duff-phelps-report-july-2012.pdf

     

    4.4 Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club.

     

    5.38 Should the CVA fail, a binding agreement to purchase the business, history and assets of the Club for £5.5m using a newly incorporated company.

     

    10.5 A successful sale of the business, history and assets of the Company was achieved by the Joint Administrators despite the large number of complexities introduced by various stakeholders in the Club.

     

    10.9 The history and spirit of the Club have been preserved by the sale which completed on 14 June 2012 and it is now the responsibility of the new owners to secure its future.

     

    You state how those involved in the sport look on the new club. None of these groups are in a position to create a legal precedent.

    Correct.  And neither are you nor I.  Nor anyone.  As there hasnt been one anywhere.

    The FA, like the SFA, may have decided on financial grounds there was an advantage. We have seen many occasions where that association has dispensed with any sporting pretense to build their business.

    I agree on that.

     

    Why that has not been fought by the fans(well actually it has if you consider the Portsmouth case albeit only administration) brings us to another facet of this whole case. The complete lack of any remorse or shame by the publicly facing fans bodies and many individual fans. But then, from me, that is just supposition. All I can propose is that the sympathy that the opposition fans in the cases you quote may have had had the effect that in the fans minds enough punishment had been meted out and there was no need for them individually to revert to the law.

    I believe that its down to the fact there simply isnt the level of hatred in England that exists in Scotland.  And thats on all sides, so absolutely no pointing of fingers in this one from me.

     

    Up here, not only has there be no appropriate punishment for at least a decade of cheating but the authorities have acted in a dishonest manner to ensure that no punishment can be meted out. That is the raison d'etre for this website – to hold the administrators to account.

    I understand thats why it exists and you are entitled to hold that opinion.  I wont be drawn in on accusations though for my own protection.

     

    Throw into the mix the fact that the club, pre and post liquidation, has a record of violence towards other fans, criminal damage to the property belonging to the other clubs and a display of bigotry that has no place in modern society and the explanation why the sympathy and empathy shown by opposing fans to the clubs you give as an example becomes understandable. Every club has idiot fans but the scale at Ibrox and the involvement of the officers of the club take it to another level.

    This bit really irks me unless you really are saying other clubs are on a par.  One club in Scotland has had 16 charges for fan behaviour in Europe in the past 14 years.  In the same period, Rangers have had 5 though i accept the 5 year gap.  The incidents in Maribo the other week have been seen in Anderlecht, Ajax and even at Maribor when other clubs have travelled there.  The fans that get involved are idiots and theres no getting away with it, but you really need to be blind to think this is a Rangers problem.  For what its worth though, i only see it as a 2 team problem.

    That last section of the preceding paragraph displays why there is a need for a site like this to exist. To tackle the organisations running Scottish football whose Articles of Association arm them with power and, more importantly, the duty to tackle this unacceptable behaviour. Despite the many offensive and untruthful official club statements aimed at people and clubs in our leagues appearing on the TRFC website not one comment, never mind, piece of action has come out of Hampden.

    Nothing to say on that to be honest.

    I hope that maybe goes some way to responding to you request for comment. It does not explain why in England as well as Scotland the authorities are left unchallenged when the choose to disregard the law of the land when making their financially appropriate decisions. It does explain though the viewpoint of many ordinary, decent fans.

    I very much appreciate your response and i hope you can look at some of the references and offer a further counter view.  We can drop all the fan issues as we in some ways agree on the relevance if not on the fairness.

    View Comment

  4. So let me get things straight.

    The SFA is a limited company incorporated in 1903.

    The SPFL is a limited company incorporated in 1997

    Most professional clubs in the Scottish game are limited companies with a handful being associated to a larger Plc or parent company. Lets refer to this set up generally as owner/operator.

    I have seen it argued in recent posts the SFA issues membership to owner/operators and this is what allowed a transfer of 'membership' from oldco to newco.

    The SPFL appears to be clear their shares are only issued to owner/operators thus the vote to not pass the share from oldco to newco.

    The owner/operators own the infrastructure used to play football unless they rent their ground and training facilities for another organisation, that is most probably a limited company, via legally binding contracts.

    The owner/operators own the badges, trademarks and other intellectual properties unless they sell them or enter into an agreement with another organisation that is most likely a limited company, via legally binding contracts.

    Players and managers/coaches sign contracts with the owner/operator, via legally binding contracts.

    Fans pay money to watch games and this is effectively a sales transaction with the owner/operator.

    Fans may choose (if they are traded on the open market) to hold shares in the owner/occupier.

    So from the above, league and association membership, infrastructure, IPs, players and coaches employment contracts and the fan generated income are all part of a legal process and contracts/agreements with the owner/occupier.

    If the club is seen as being separate from the owner/occupier limited company what exactly is 'the club'?

     

     

    View Comment

  5. wottpi 22nd August 2018 at 12:11  

     

    I have seen it argued in recent posts the SFA issues membership to owner/operators and this is what allowed a transfer of 'membership' from oldco to newco.

    The SPFL appears to be clear their shares are only issued to owner/operators thus the vote to not pass the share from oldco to newco.

    The owner/operators own the infrastructure used to play football unless they rent their ground and training facilities for another organisation, that is most probably a limited company, via legally binding contracts.

    The owner/operators own the badges, trademarks and other intellectual properties unless they sell them or enter into an agreement with another organisation that is most likely a limited company, via legally binding contracts.

    Players and managers/coaches sign contracts with the owner/operator, via legally binding contracts.

    Fans pay money to watch games and this is effectively a sales transaction with the owner/operator.

    Fans may choose (if they are traded on the open market) to hold shares in the owner/occupier.

    So from the above, league and association membership, infrastructure, IPs, players and coaches employment contracts and the fan generated income are all part of a legal process and contracts/agreements with the owner/occupier.

    If the club is seen as being separate from the owner/occupier limited company what exactly is 'the club'?

    _____________________________________________

     

    Pretty sure the Inner House described the club as being the undertaking or the business to which the owner operates and that the business (the club) is capable of being transferred from one owner to another.  

    This description correlates EXACTLY with how Duff and Phelps describe it in the above document some 5 years earlier when they stated

    5.38 Should the CVA fail, a binding agreement to purchase the business, history and assets of the Club for £5.5m using a newly incorporated company.

    My outlook on all of this is that there are far too many variables for anyone to be sure.  Whilst i argue or believe its the same club, i do so from the point of looking at the evidence which directly discusses the club.  I actually dont believe there is 100% evidence on either side on this.  This is in direct contradiction to "New Club" arguments who 99% of the time say their view is fact.

    A Celtic fan i respect on Twitter summed it up in a private message to me by saying that every part of his football being says we are a New Club but the various documents from court aligned with SFA and SPFL stance on it plus the most recent addition to the 10 year rankings tells him the opposite.

     

    Like me, he doesnt believe there is a definitive answer out there that will ever put both sides to bed on it.

    View Comment

  6. Reiver – my apologies for my spelling wink  

     

    Interesting read, and certainly the description of carrying the business (ie the club) on a going concern aligns with my views – and for that matter HMRC. However I believe you won’t get many debating it with you as it does not fit the narrative of this site. A poster yesterday pointed out he didn’t care who said we were the same club, he still wouldn’t believe it. 

    View Comment

  7. Today really displays why those calling for restricting debate are being ridiculous.

    Between when I posted at 10.12 and this evening there were two posts that were of substance and they were duplicates of the same subject. Ej and JC's report on the happenings in court today which was about whether a person should receive his expenses. It interested me but surely not you Barca, it is an issue that is not on your list. If I had posted on the OC/NC thread instead of here there would have been one other item in the previous 24 hours, where the same thing was said a number of times. There is a new PSC at Ibrox. SO? Nothing illegal is happening. No other club is being screwed by this. The SFA will not be fiddling the books to engineer its happening.

    Really it is a subject that isn't in the mission statement of the site.

    So guys do you think we will win hearts and minds with a forum comprising of day after day of dead space.

    The TUs show that we have visitors here that only want to read Rangers bashing. Is that what you want the site to turn into.

    View Comment

  8. I also find it amusing that for months anytime I made a comment about Rangers – with no intention of getting into a OC/NC debate, whatever the non related post I made was on it would be derailed by folk telling me it is a new club. When I asked if we could get back on topic I was met with “we should never stop debating it until everyone sees it as a new club”. Now suddenly when posters start putting out articles and views that don’t meet their own closed and set views on the topic it’s “let’s not debate the OC/NC”. It can’t be both ways, and I’m all for agreeing to disagree as I’ve said many times before and consign the debate to the separate forum. But we need a clear guide on whether it’s debated here or there. 

    View Comment

  9. 42.The continuation of trading operations enabled the Joint Administrators to put the CVA Proposal
    to the creditors of the Company and after the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors, the Joint
    Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the
    Company to Sevco (see Section 5 for further details).
    ………….
    4.4 Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all
    trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club. The Joint
    Administrators have completed a handover of operational matters to Sevco and are now
    undertaking an exercise to finalise all outstanding issues relating to the Administration trading
    period.
    ……………….
    Why was history mentioned in section 42, but not in section 44?
    ………As i said,just catching up.

    View Comment

  10. Before i retire to read the link.

     

    Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the

    ……….
    D & P’s assertion that they sold the history could. Until it is questioned in a court of law it has not been proven one way or another..
    …………..
    So who said D&P could sell history? Do they have a licence to sell history.If there is such a thing.If it has not been provan in a court of law that you can or can’t sell history.Why do D&P believe they have the right to do so?
    D&P Were being paid.And maybe an increase in payment if they could come up with the best proposal they could.Adding in a bit of history even if they could or could not do it,it was the best proposal they could come up with.
    ………….

    View Comment

  11. Go find the evidence CO. I have faith in you.

    The administrators sole responsibility is making sure that, if the business survives, the creditors get as much back of what they are owed as possible. The premise at the start is that the best chance of that happening is if the business survives. Selling to Sevco is not the business surviving because Sevco is owe the creditors nothing. These are the strongest points in our favour from a moral standpoint.

    View Comment

  12. 4.1 The Club continued to trade under the control of the Joint Administrators up to the date of the sale of the business and assets of the Company to Sevco on 14 June 2012. During this period, the Club was able to complete all of its remaining SPL fixtures and achieved second place in the final SPL standings for the 2011/2012 season. 4.2 The continuation of trading operations enabled the Joint Administrators to put the CVA Proposal to the creditors of the Company and after the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors, the Joint Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the Company to Sevco (see Section 5 for further details).

    4.4 Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club. ……………….. The Club continued to trade up to the date of the sale of the business and assets of the Company to Sevco on 14 June 2012. the Club was able to complete all of its remaining SPL fixtures. The continuation of trading operations enabled the Joint Administrators to put the CVA Proposal to the creditors of the Company and after the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors. Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club. …………………. From that i get The Club continued to trade. trade as in play football and complete it's fixtures and whilst this was happening D&P put a CVA Proposal to the creditors,that was rejected and the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club. ……… the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations.ie playing football.This operation now fell to sevco to see if they could get a club up and running,as D&P had done what they could and all they could. Now this is me retiringfrown

    View Comment

  13. Darkbefordawn tells us that the "business" is the "club" … (so D&P must have sold both the "club" and its "assets")

    However even LNS tells us he doesn't know what constitutes a club when he says "it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club".  However he adds that a club comprises at least "its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground". That sounds like "assets" are part of a "club" or is it a business.

    I agree it’s an argument that’s not likely to go away. If UEFA, the SPFL and HMRC came out in a joint statement to say Rangers are the same club I very much doubt that would satisfy the “new club” brigade. Likewise, if they unequivocal said the opposite I’m sure there would be some “same clubbers” who would still not be convinced. 

     

    For or what it’s worth I believe the business is the club, and the club is the badge, the history, the Rangers name, the fans etc. I think the stadium, car park, training ground etc are the assets. Rangers could move from Ibrox and still be Rangers (in much the same way as Arsenal are still Arsenal). The company can fold and as long as someone is willing to continue the “business” (aka the club) then again the club continues (in the same way as Leeds, Coventry, Rangers etc) have. Finally, if the company folds AND no one is willing to continue the “business” (aka club) or take on the assets then the club ceases to exist (in the same way Gretna or Airdrie did). 

    View Comment

  14. TheLawMan2 22nd August 2018 at 18:00

     

    You are sure what the courts says but provide no factual proof.

    The SFA CEO Regan said it was up to fans to decide the status of Rangers/ T'Rangers.

    The SPFL via Doncaster seems to have relied on the ramblings of Lord Nimmo Smith who made a stab at defining a club, but it is clear that he said – 

    “This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise. So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself.”

    So lets not forget that Uefa  defines clubs as, 

    "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 either: ………………

    I wholly agree with you the waters are well muddied so I am afraid your interpretation seems to hold no more merit that those arguing from the other side.

     

    View Comment

  15. Darkbeforedawn 22nd August 2018 at 22:35  

    For or what it’s worth I believe the business is the club, and the club is the badge, the history, the Rangers name, the fans etc. I think the stadium, car park, training ground etc are the assets. Rangers could move from Ibrox and still be Rangers (in much the same way as Arsenal are still Arsenal). The company can fold and as long as someone is willing to continue the “business” (aka the club) then again the club continues (in the same way as Leeds, Coventry, Rangers etc) have. Finally, if the company folds AND no one is willing to continue the “business” (aka club) or take on the assets then the club ceases to exist (in the same way Gretna or Airdrie did).

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

    I've no problem with that if that is what you believe. This issue for me is the lack a a documented definition of the "ethereal club" or the process by which such an ethereal club resurrects itself. That leaves me being much more comfortable with the club as a legal entity, not as some metaphysical entity that is created to suit the circumstances and the different interests of fans and football authorities. Board discretion is not the answer.

    The "ethereal club" concept also takes you into franchise territory where the future of the "club" is at the mercy of the highest bidder or vested interests among the authorities. Any new owner could then relocate the "club" to some other city or town.

    The Scottish examples you quote don't really help as I think Gretna 2008 was offered the opportunity to continue the mantle of Mileson's Gretna, but declined because of what the SFA or SFL wanted to impose on them in terms of sureties.  Airdrieonians on the other hand wanted to continue but were denied by the authorities.

    How long does a business/club have to be dead before it ceases to exist?  There are plenty examples in the Junior ranks where clubs (unincorporated) go into abeyance for a season or two but are restarted with a new committee and new funding.

     

    View Comment

  16. Cluster One 22nd August 2018 at 20:13  

    Reiver 22nd August 2018 at 20:36  

    —————

    Somewhere or other there was published an itemised list of what Charles Green got for his £5.5M with a price attached to each item, accounting for the sum total. "History" wasn't on it and neither was there an item into which it could have been subsumed.

    If a bill of sale, or anything like it, existed anywhere "History" would have been included. Trying to prove a negative is difficult, but that's as good as it gets.

    Sorry I can't provide a link, I can't think where to begin looking.

     

    View Comment

  17. Darkbeforedawn 22nd August 2018 at 22:35  

    I did what was expected and put a couple of posts on the Oldco/Newco blog but agree with EJ that it just got into the same circular argument with LM2.

     

    I would however point out (as I did on the other blog) that the Badge and the name 'Rangers' can all be classed as intellectual property that is owned and controlled by the owner/operator. Or indeed, as was the case, can be sold off to another legal entity such as Sports Direct who held ownership of various Rangers IP's for a while a few years back.

    In fact nearly everything that revolves around ‘a club’ can be linked to a legal transaction with the owner/operator.

    I have still to see a definition of a club that manages to describe and totally separate such an entity from the company- owner/operator model that applies to almost all professional football teams. (The one recognised by Uefa BTW)

    Any attempts to define a club get us back into the realms of a metaphysical construct and off we go again.

     

     

    View Comment

  18. I came across this by chance and although I'm happy to leave the Glasgow Underground OC/NC train from St Enoch's to Copeland Road to carry on its circuitious journey I thought this letter from Grant Thornton of 15 Feb 2012   would at least question if the business and assets that Duff and Phelps sold to Sevco were a going concern, as auditors G & T didn't seem to think so.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TX8m3eq-NE5cTTyf0iFWpus7E71DaU6H/view?usp=sharing

     

    Fill yer boots folks. See you at Hyndland.

    View Comment

  19. One point for the main blog really

    When exactly did Grant Thornton learn the small tax case was lost on implementation? 

    Now THAT could be crucial.

    View Comment

  20. Cluster One 22nd August 2018 at 21:19  

    So who said D&P could sell history? Do they have a licence to sell history.If there is such a thing.If it has not been provan in a court of law that you can or can’t sell history.Why do D&P believe they have the right to do so?
    D&P Were being paid.And maybe an increase in payment if they could come up with the best proposal they could.Adding in a bit of history even if they could or could not do it,it was the best proposal they could come up with.
    ………….

    D&P were getting paid, selling history or not.  Are you alleging that Green paid them more for the history ?

    View Comment

  21. wottpi 22nd August 2018 at 23:08  

    I wholly agree with you the waters are well muddied so I am afraid your interpretation seems to hold no more merit that those arguing from the other side.

    __________________________________________________________

    I genuinely dont disagree with this.  Ive always debated from a point of what i believe the specific evidence relating to the argument supports.  I cant actually say or prove we are the same club.  I dont believe the argument coming back acknowledges that because 99% of the time, they want to tell everyone it is FACT and there is no debating.  

    To his very credit, i think Reiver has been the first person to challenge that line of thought despite clearly being someone who fully believes we are a new club.

     

     

    View Comment

  22. Auldheid 23rd August 2018 at 01:27  

    Very interesting comment at Point 9.  I wonder if this was shown to the court in the Craig Whyte case ?

     

    As for selling as a Going concern ?  Selling as a going concern with no debt is different from the position at February 2012. 

     

    View Comment

  23. TheLawMan2 21st August 2018 at 20:06  

    5.38 Should the CVA fail, a binding agreement to purchase the business, history and assets of the Club for £5.5m using a newly incorporated company.

     

    Therefore any crimes committed whilst employed by the club would fall on the owner as it would be a continuation of the club and history would show were the crimes were perpetrated.
    Incorporated or unincorporated 1872 same club you would be agreeing and if we mean all history, incorporation dates will be included in the history, as would be required to be factual. For history cannot be altered.
    No circular argument here.
      

    View Comment

  24. Darkbeforedawn 22nd August 2018 at 22:35

     

    For or what it’s worth I believe the business is the club, and the club is the badge, the history, the Rangers name, the fans etc. I think the stadium, car park, training ground etc are the assets. Rangers could move from Ibrox and still be Rangers (in much the same way as Arsenal are still Arsenal). The company can fold and as long as someone is willing to continue the “business” (aka the club) then again the club continues (in the same way as Leeds, Coventry, Rangers etc) have. Finally, if the company folds AND no one is willing to continue the “business” (aka club) or take on the assets then the club ceases to exist (in the same way Gretna or Airdrie did). 

    _________________________________________________________________

     

    Not sure ive read such a succinct summary that all but matches my own thoughts DBD

     

    As an extension and given some recent debates i thought i would give a wider summary of the various pieces of "evidence" that im aware of.

    1). Despite claims about him saying something different, Stewart Regan, and by extension, the SFA have said Rangers are the same club by confirming and stating publicly Sevco were the new owners of Rangers and transferring the full membership.  This is further backed up, all be it weakly, by historical references to Rangers on their website and promotional material in the past about Rangers playing in their "first final since…." etc.

    I fully understand the argument that people think this was a carve up under the 5WA and that is fair enough but if we can lay aside our own views, surely we can at least agree that the SFA position appears to be they see Rangers as the same club.

     

    2) The SPFL have made references in their audited accounts about the return of Rangers to the top flight and again clearly show the history.  Although not officially part of the 5WA, it’s the same people who in essence agreed to it.  Again, I fully understand the carve up argument.

     

    3) There have been numerous mentions in court (Inner House Green v Rangers, Supreme Court HMRC v Murray/Rangers, The Coral case possibly, 1 other which was pre takeover) and in my opinion in each one, there is a reference to the club carrying on in existence and being able to be “bought and sold” or references to former and new owners of the club.  In each of the above instances, im not relying on anything either side of the parties QC have claimed, im referring to the court summaries in finding.  I note here that the courts were never looking at this specific question and that their findings were more of a consequence of the points being argued.  No-one has been asked to rule on new/old club.  Anytime or anywhere.

    4) In addition to the above, there is of course the Lord Nimmo Smith comments.  This was not “in court” but it was included in his findings in relation to the case.  The scope of the case and what was put to him in this instance is neither here nor there as im only referring to his view when looking at the club “ceasing to exist in the SPL” (in the SPL) should be in Bold in this case as a lot of people still use this out of context.

    5) The HMRC statement of which I have noticed John Clarks note to HMRC in relation to this.   To put this in context.  The statement was made 2 days before a crucial vote in the administration process of a huge UK Company.  There is no chance that statement would have been allowed without proper legal authority to release.  If the statement is wrong, I genuinely think Rangers shareholders could have a very strong ecase against HRMC.  It will be interesting to see the reply John gets but my betting is that they will respond by saying they cannot comment on any individual case due to confidentiality etc.  

    There are more instances than the above but for me they are the strongest points supporting the Same Club stance.

    I then think we have:

    6)  UEFA a bit in the middle.  Unlike other fellow fans, I 100% believe the Traverso letter to Resolution 12 guys is real.  I am firmly in the same camp as Reiver on the issue though in that I do not see any reason for Traveso to introduce the “/company” to the letter.  If he had ended it at “club” then this would definitely be a stronger argument for their stance on it.  Many people bring up that the UEFA rules state “only a club…..” etc so why put the /company in.  I believe he did so because there is a context behind it and I believe Reiver is correct to say his view should be challenged or clarified.

    In addition, there has been an attempt to belittle the 10 year rankings by saying it doesn’t matter and its only there to calculate revenue distribution which is a real strange stance to take because if UEFA have it wrong, then this means other clubs will be missing out on money that Rangers will get due to the incorrect calculations.  A huge part of this site is of the belief that Rangers playing in 2011 CL took money out of Celtics pocket and have spent a lot of money chasing this, yet here we have a live example of rankings potentially giving a larger slice and its been swatted aside.

    The combination of both factors above, for me, still lean to my view on the issue but I genuinely believe that the Traverso letter is the only thing in writing anywhere that is specific to this argument and talks to the “new club theory”

     

    On the flip side, the one thing that is mentioned most of all, and 20 times a day in this debate is around the incorporation and when did they split out or when did they get a certificate showing coming out of admin etc.

    My views are this.  Incorporation is tricky.  There are at least 3 cases where I have shown incorporated “football clubs” playing in England who have went through the exact same process and are still deemed to be the same club.  It is then argued there is a difference between England and Scotland and I can accept that.  B

    What I do struggle with though is that there is absolutely zero case law or previous court cases that have ruled on this whatsoever.  There is also not a singular regulatory body or court or footballing authority or company law expert had a go at explain the exact set of scenarios that have happened in the Rangers case and how it directly relates to Incorporation and if they are a new club.  I find it strange we are 6 years on from this happening and the only people who ever bring it up are fans on social media.  Surely someone somewhere would have taken the baton up and produced a blow by blow unarguable account of why it is the case, in law.  There must be a corporate layer out there that can give a qualified view on why Leeds etc incorporation dont matter but Rangers does.  Until this happens, then im afraid I just cant accept it supports the new club argument, though I fully accept this does not mean you are all wrong in the assumption and until proven otherwise we are the same club.  I hope that makes sense.

    The above is further supported with in my view an excellent statement by Reiver today,  In relation to the quotes i provided from D&P about the purchase of the club he stated…..

    “This is one step further than anyone has produced here as far as documented evidence is concerned. Our arguments, mine included, are more or less based on personal assessment and opinion.”

     

    I need to finish by saying that nothing above 100% concludes or proves Rangers are the same club.  I don’t think that has ever been my beef or my aim.  I simply believe the factual evidence supports that theory far more than the opposite and ive yet to see something concrete that speaks directly to the Rangers case that is convincing.

     

     

     

    View Comment

  25. Testing . Not that it’s anything other than the usual unadulterated psh , but my attempts to post here seem to end up somewhere in the ether , whereas the aforementioned psh is readily available on the main thread once posted . It’s an injustioce ! (Calimero).

    View Comment

  26. LM2

    As you are of a wont to misrepresent me I request that you do not hold me as an example of anything or make direct reference to me in your posts. My posts are already out there for others to read and do not need repetition.

    For instance –

    I am firmly in the same camp as Reiver on the issue though in that I do not see any reason for Traveso to introduce the “/company” to the letter

    A total misrepresentation. My belief is that there is no consistency in UEFA's handling of the continuation claims and that it should be debated on here so we can find a way to make them come out and clearly state their position.

    I may have accepted that a single point you raised should be debated to see if a clear acceptance or dismissal view could be reached. Other than that I am of the view, that most seem to share, that you are a troll.

    I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to make their case and that everyone else should deal with trolls by not engaging in the non supported, irrelevant minutiae that floods the threads.

    View Comment

  27. Reiver – Humble apologies as i did not mean it to come across that way. 

    I was taking your own words on it which i have recreated below in which i am "firmly in the same camp" 

    "Club/Company IS ambiguous unless the letter to Res12 carries a legend that defines the "/". The slash in documentation is most commonly used to mean "or", as in "him/her". You cannot take it to mean "and", in Traverso's letter, just because it is what he should mean if he is using the Articles as his guide.

    Because of this Traverso's letter is one of our weakest pieces of documented evidence on OC/NC. To correct that we need to get Traverso to define what he meant.

     

    I dont believe i misrepresented you but apologies if i did.

     

    Does that mean i need to take back the DM i sent you ? enlightened

    View Comment

  28. Lawman2 13.04

     

    6)  UEFA a bit in the middle.  Unlike other fellow fans, I 100% believe the Traverso letter to Resolution 12 guys is real.  I am firmly in the same camp as Reiver on the issue though in that I do not see any reason for Traveso to introduce the “/company” to the letter.  If he had ended it at “club” then this would definitely be a stronger argument for their stance on it.  Many people bring up that the UEFA rules state “only a club…..” etc so why put the /company in.  I believe he did so because there is a context behind it and I believe Reiver is correct to say his view should be challenged or clarified.

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

    He introduced it because he was talking about a NEW club/company in Article 12 terms which are the underlying authority.

    That was entirely accurate to cover the current applicant as being first of all a CLUB that is a legal entity taking one of the two forms under a) and b) of that article.

    The context as I have explained ad infinitum was his using the fact that TRFC were new and so not the same as RFC, as the reason why UEFA could not sanction the new club/company.

    As I have repeated ad nauseum why use the word new if it was not central to his justification? I have explained the use of the term "club/company" I await as I have done for months for you to explain the use of the word new in the context of Article 12. 

    Are you saying TRFC come under a) which is a club with membership of the SFA with no written contract with a company or a football company with a written contract with a club with a membership of the SFA that began in 2012 under Article 12?

    To help here is what a company with contract with a club must have from the relevant UEFA FFP of 2010.

    Did one exist prior to 2012 between RFC and anyone?

    If RFC were a detachable saucer like the Star Ship Enterprise then should such a contract not exist?

    If it had no written contract RFC was a club and a registered member of the SFA as a club, a club that ceased to be one as far as UEFA are concerned in 2012 ,and was replaced by a new club or, if a written contract exists a new football company with a contract with a new football club. (If it were not a new club it would not have had to satisfy the Article 12 requirement to have 3 years membership of the SFA to be eligible to apply for a UEFA Licence.)

    Article 45 – Written contract with a football company

    1 If the licence applicant is a football company as defined in Article 12(1b), it must
    provide a written contract of assignment with a registered member.

    2 The contract must stipulate the following, as a minimum:

    a) The football company must comply with the applicable statutes, regulations,
    directives and decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the UEFA member association and
    its affiliated league.

    b) The football company must not further assign its right to participate in a
    competition at national or international level.

    c) The right of this football company to participate in such a competition ceases
    to apply if the assigning club’s membership of the association ceases. 

    d) If the football company is put into bankruptcy or enters liquidation, the right to
    apply for a licence to enter an international and/or national competition
    reverts to the registered member. For the sake of clarity, should the licence
    have already been granted to the football company, then it cannot be
    transferred from the football company to the registered member; only the
    right to apply for a licence the following season reverts to the registered
    member.

    e) The UEFA member association must be reserved the right to approve the
    name under which the football company participates in the national
    competitions.

    f) The football company must, at the request of the competent national
    arbitration tribunal or CAS, provide views, information, and documents on
    matters regarding the football company’s participation in the national and/or
    international competition.

    3 The contract of assignment and any amendment to it must be approved by the
    UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league.

     

    View Comment

  29. TheLawMan2 23rd August 2018 at 09:48  

     

    0

     

    1

     

    Rate This

     

     

    Auldheid 23rd August 2018 at 01:27  

    Very interesting comment at Point 9.  I wonder if this was shown to the court in the Craig Whyte case ?

     

    As for selling as a Going concern ?  Selling as a going concern with no debt is different from the position at February 2012. 

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

    Nonsense. Sophistry again.

    Rangers were liquidated because they no longer were a going concern.

    What was sold was an opportunity for someone to make a going concern of a failed business using the assets of that failed business after the debt that prevented it being a going concern, was left with the business in liquidation, that business being that of a football club called Rangers FC, quickly renamed Rangers 2012 so as to appear different.

    More sophistry there too. I really should ignore you as the troll you are.

    Well if you ignore that the club with the going concern was going iNonsensento liquidation because it wasn't a going concern, leaving an opportunity to create a going concern in its place.

     

    View Comment

  30. Auldheid 23rd August 2018 at 15:04

    …………………… I really should ignore you as the troll you are."

    I agree mate and he knows it, there is nothing left to prove, they realised their honest mistakes too late by telling the truth and then tried to attone for the money earner they realised they would lose out on, once they realised gullibility was alive and kicking in Scotland, grown men greeting, they began retracting, burying and telling porkies. Blue Quids in nice earners for all. Corrupt Scottish Football to appease one club that had died and pretend it never, one thing that is sure about history it cannot be re written it is what it is.

     

     

    View Comment

  31. TheLawMan2 23rd August 2018 at 13:04 

    Incorporation is tricky.  It is then argued there is a difference between England and Scotland and I can accept that.

    Lawman2, many of us on here, using a variety of different ways of requesting the same thing, have politely asked you on numerous occasions for incontrovertible proof that a football club separated from the company within the context of an incorporated club, in such a manner that we would  not only know when this truly historical, ground-breaking and memorable moment occurred, but would also understand for the first time the mechanics of how it worked in practice. Given the magnitude and consequences of such disincorporation, we could reasonably expect there would be a record of such an event lest anybody in the future was sceptical about whether it actually happened in reality or was simply dreamt up to fit in with a particular narrative.

    I've been away for a few days and I hate reading and/or posting on my smartphone, so I'll admit to only speed-reading your input, but despite Reiver's assertion that you at least have a case that we should investigate further, I remain totally underwhelmed, especially if "Incorporation is tricky" and "there is a difference between England and Scotland and I can accept that" is the best you can muster with regard to incontrovertible evidence.

    I find it strange we are 6 years on from this happening and the only people who ever bring it up are fans on social media.

    We are also six years on from the sham that was the LNS Commission, with no prospect of its flawed and absurd findings being set aside and revisited and it is way beyond six years since Rangers industrial scale cheating took place, as confirmed by the Supreme Court decision on the matter, but the fact "the only people who ever bring it up are fans on social media" doesn't mean it didn't happen! 

    As somebody with an affinity to both clubs to have played out of Ibrox, you are probably oblivious to the fact that laws, rules and regulations don't seem to apply to them in the same way as they do to us mere mortals (see what I did there?) and the new club seems as immune to prosecution and sanction as its deceased predecessor.

    View Comment

  32. Request placed with Duff and Phelps to explain in what context they are able to sell the history of any company when that history includes massive debts but the company that therefor bought the debts has not repaid them.

    We may or may not get a reply. We can but hope.

    View Comment

  33. TheLawMan2 23rd August 2018 at 09:29
    D&P were getting paid, selling history or not. Are you alleging that Green paid them more for the history ?
    …………………
    No he paid less when the CVA failed

    View Comment

  34. Come on guys do you honestly believe that the football club you support is just a business number?

    Is the ethereal entity that is so mocked upon here actually related not to the assets or badge but to the teams support and interestingly their competitor's determination that they still exist.

     

    View Comment

  35. I see there’s been some debate again about the alleged sale by Duff & Phelps of the history of a football club.

    I can’t for the life of me understand why, if the current club is the original club, there is any necessity to purchase history from yourself. It’s utterly absurd, yet it’s just one more example of the many peculiarities that have peppered ‘the saga’ since Rangers entered administration in 2012, absurdities that seemed to accelerate in both number and strangeness once the Five Way Agreement became the conduit for the brainwashing of the masses from believing a club had died the death of insolvency one moment to, “sorry, massive false alarm!” the next.

    Yes, I’m well aware of the position regarding Newco and Oldco, but it wasn’t a company’s history that was supposedly being sold/purchased, it was a football club’s history. Just why would a club have to purchase something like that unless of course it didn’t belong to you in the first place, and instead it legally belonged to your deceased predecessor?

    Quite aside from the absurdity of purchasing your own history, if I decided to buy fellow jambo Sir Chris Hoy’s medals and history from him, it would not mean that I’d won six Olympic golds or any of the other major honours Hoy achieved in his cycling career. Indeed, I couldn’t cycle the length of myself without stabilisers.

    I would urge caution before believing anything reported on the Rangers saga, particularly after the Five Way Agreement, whether from the media or even official bodies, organisations and individuals who we would normally believe to be beyond reproach, such as those with legal, fiduciary and even judiciary duties, as even they have shown themselves to be capable of being duped in the events leading up to and after the death of Rangers.

    I believe that all official statements and reports which include words and phrases such as ‘Rangers’, (which is nothing more than a trading name) and ‘the club/Club’ by organisations such as HMRC, Administrators, SPFL etc, including in legal documents, repetitively use those words and phrases in a predetermined, concerted effort to have us all subscribe to the newly invented definition of a football club that they now want to use, because Rangers Football Club inconveniently died the death of liquidation under the definition of the old, jettisoned version.

    View Comment

  36. Fascino

    Is the ethereal entity that is so mocked upon here actually related not to the assets or badge but to the teams support and interestingly their competitor's determination that they still exist.

    That is exactly what we agree with, for that view to continue as part of their emotions. It is what faced Airdrie fans when their club was forced into liquidation by the actions of David Murray for the sake of c.£200K, at a time when he was taking the tax payers and the Bank of Scotland savers for hundreds of millions. The Airdrie fans continued supporting Airdrie United as if it were the original team but it wasn't. Its records were left with the liquidators and they started anew. They did manage to return the club's name after about five years when the insult to the creditors(David Murray) of creating a Phoenix club time was passed. They are still not the original club according to the records.

    Can you not see the irony in this where Rangers fans want to ignore the laws that everyone else accepts so they can keep their club? But is it that the problem is it that they want to keep  a football club or is it that they want to keep the supremacy over their rivals by keeping a history that should disappear.

    Also, keep in mind that the history of the club includes debts of in excess of £100M or do you just want the part of the history that your emotions are comfortable with.

    View Comment

  37. Is the ethereal entity that is so mocked upon….

    In addition you are showing your lack of understanding at what is being mocked. It was that, in court, the judge stated that he did not want to get involved with "metaphysics" in response to Ranger's counsel talking about the ethereal part of a club and yet the fans continue to treat the ethereal club as a point of argument in what is a real world scenario.

    All fans recognise the emotional attachments but that is not an argument that holds water against the rights of creditors not to be stiffed.

    View Comment

  38. So, UEFA have given another indication today of their view on things.

     

    https://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/news/newsid=2569819.html

     

    Matchday one: 20 September

    Steven Gerrard has taken Rangers into the #UEL©Getty Images

    • Beşiktaş welcome first-timers Sarpsborg, playing their first group stage fixture
    • 2012/13 UEFA Europa League winners Chelsea kick off at PAOK
    • Rangers returning to group stage after an eight-year absence at Villarreal
    • Arsenal enter post-Arsène Wenger European era at home to Ukraine's Vorskla
    • AC Milan visit group stage debutants Dudelange in Luxembourg
    • Fenerbahçe, Sevilla, Celtic, Marseille and Leverkusen also primed for action
    View Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.