0
    0

    Comment on Bonkers OCNC Thread by Auldheid.

    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.

    Auldheid Also Commented

    Bonkers OCNC Thread
    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.

     


    Bonkers OCNC Thread
    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.

     


    Bonkers OCNC Thread
    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.


    Recent Comments by Auldheid

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    For an in depth expose of the "RFC were victims of HMRC" myth I recommend

     https://fanswithoutscarves.org/2019/11/14/rangers-tax-issues/ 

    Lots of detail but informative and balanced as are the other articles by the same author on his web site.

    Parts One, Two and Three already up. Part Four on its way.
     


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    The Times article set loose this thought.

    "selling key players would have been one option open to the Ibrox management to meet the liability”

    The idea being that had the bill been smaller RFC could have settled the BTC making them more attractive to potential buyers.

    Well the core bill (£24m) was possibly manageable and had payment been made instead of player trading at £28.2m*  in August 2008 with the individual determinations of tax owed already on the desk at Ibrox from Feb to April 2008  then the blockage to sell would have been removed.

    Arguably it would have made Rangers a more attractive financial proposition with no debt and an affordable lower player wage bill to build a sustainable  future on.

    However the decision was taken by Sir David Murray  and Walter Smith  to try and trade their way out of trouble by guaranteeing access to the CL groups as title winners and the player trading money was spent instead  on players who won 3iar

    That dependency on CL money for survival started to end with the unforeseen bank crash in Oct 2008 when Lloyds took over from Halifax but finally  ended in Malmo and Maribor in 2011.

    * This angle with others  is covered by Phil Mac Giolla Bhain  at

    A thundering squirrel

    but it is just one part of a truthful narrative avoided by Scottish Main Stream Media because it exposes  the "victim" narrative for what it is – Fake News.

    The cause of Rangers downfall was SDM/WS who placed the insatiable appetite of their support ( who never gave a thought to where the money was coming from)  to be top dog in Scottish Football above the well being of not just Rangers FC, but as time is showing, of the well being  of the other Scottish football clubs.

     

     


    In Whose Interests
    It's all so obvious now looking back  so why is a sham being allowed to continue to stigmatise Scottish football?

    Whose interests is it really in to sustain  a myth at the expense of whatever future Scottish has?

     

     

    https://fanswithoutscarves.org/2019/11/07/stigma-in-scottish-football-part-2-a-lesson-from-history/amp/?__twitter_impression=true


    In Whose Interests
    Cluster One 4th November 2019 at 18:50 

     

    Auldheid 4th November 2019 at 16:56
    ………………..
    I hope when this is concluded the Res 12 guys get back every penny spent.

     

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

    It is a thought……


    In Whose Interests

    The Res12 Archive has been updated to cover Celtic’s response to the most recent Resolution to bring Res12 of 2013 AGM to a conclusion. If you are not a shareholder it explains what was proposed & why and what Celtic actually oppose. All at 25th October date.

     

    https://www.res12.uk/timeline-two-part-three-continued-after-the-trial-was-over-june-2017-to-date/