0
    0

    Comment on Bonkers OCNC Thread by TheLawMan2.

    I had a similar issue Paddy and admin sorted it in the background.  Im sure they will spot it and fix.

    TheLawMan2 Also Commented

    Bonkers OCNC Thread
    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

    Bonkers OCNC Thread
    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


    Bonkers OCNC Thread
    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.

     

     

     


    Recent Comments by TheLawMan2

    Stevie G – The Real Deal?
    easyJambo 25th October 2018 at 00:57

    If you look at the transcript of the hearing, then you will see that Justice Teare intervened much more often during Mr Holmayer's submission than that of Mr Hussain. That suggested to me that he was having much more difficulty in understanding exactly the arguments being put forward and sought clarification on several occasions.

    I took that as him being more comfortable with SD's submissions, rather than Rangers.

    _____________________________________________

    A very fair and alternative view that comes across from experience EJ and one which clearly makes sense.

     


    Stevie G – The Real Deal?
    Barcabhoy.  Can we just clarify.

    Does the following statement "For the avoidance of doubt, im not saying we have won or anything like that, im only stating what our case/argument is" translate in your opinion to me concluding "no case to answer , SD would be sent packing , tail between legs . "

    That is your claim.  Which i hope you are fair enough to admit you got completely wrong.

    I made no such conclusion whatsoever.


    Stevie G – The Real Deal?
    Barcabhoy 24th October 2018 at 21:11

     

    And yes , he was the guy on twitter who had read all of the case releases and concluded no case to answer , SD would be sent packing , tail between legs . 

     

     

    Its unlikely this will see the light of day but i hope out of fairness, you allow the right to reply.

    I said nothing of the sort about SDI been sent packing.

    I simply stated what Rangers defence was against SDI and that it appeared from the judges answering that he understood the argument followed by “which of course, means nada until he rests.”

    I also stated elsewhere the following:

     

    "That happens in court cases.  1 side argues black and the other side argue white.  The judge then decides who is right.  

    For the avoidance of doubt, im not saying we have won or anything like that, im only stating what our case/argument is and i do believe the judges responses to RFC were more positive and understanding than the responses to SDI. 

    Still a coin flip."

     

    Not a fair picture being painted here.


    Fantastic Voyage ..
    This proof of pro Rangers bias. Does it involve sending off a player 10 minutes into a difficult away tie then refusing to send of an Aberdeen player for denying a clear goal.scoring opportunity? 

     

    Does it also involve sending off a player at Ibrox after 30 minutes for a tackle which could have resulted in a yellow due to ball direction? 

     

    Also, Jimbo, who are these referees that talk of rangers bias at dinner speeches. I hope your not falling for the lies of a John James here. Tut tut. 


    Fantastic Voyage ..
    First we had Allyboy inferring i was dim, Barcabhoy acting as the Grammar Police and now John trying to dictate what people can and cannot write about. 

     

    The Chairman of the SPFL will be under investigation through his links to a company "owned" by Celtics shareholders and its deemed not worthy of discussion.  LOL.  You really couldnt make this up.