Comment on Bonkers OCNC Thread by Highlander.
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.
Highlander Also Commented
Bonkers OCNC Thread
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.
Bonkers OCNC Thread
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.
Bonkers OCNC Thread
Darkbeforedawn 20th August 2018 at 17:12
BB really? A picture from a tabloid that universally on here no-one agrees with anything ever written apart from one front page headline that suits their narrative? Are you really expecting me to look at that image and state "well that's me told, I guess we're dead after all.
Yet it's a situation that has parallels to that adopted by you and your fellow supporters towards the Scottish football authorities, whom you claim treated your club(s) appallingly before and after 2012 and cannot be trusted on any subject whatsoever…………………except of course when it comes to the solitary matter of them treating old and new clubs as one, on which subject they are paragons of virtue whose word is law, something which conveniently suits your narrative.
Double standards or rank hypocrisy – take your pick.
Recent Comments by Highlander
In Whose Interests
What is abundantly clear from Auldheid’s Res 12 post above is that Scottish football’s administrators were, and are, so pathetically inept that they have stymied themselves into abject impotency when dealing with any club playing out of Ibrox by signing the legally binding contract that we know as the five-way agreement.
Those who have read early drafts of the five-way agreement will recall that title-stripping was rightly on the agenda from the start, but that each subsequent draft was a watered-down version of the one before, such that the final draft made no mention of title-stripping whatsoever and absolved the new club of any sins of the old club, save for the payment of football debts.
It is patently obvious that those blundering Hampden blazers who should have dictated terms to Charles Green’s consortium in order to grant authorisation for the new club to play, instead quivered in abject cowardice at the prospect of losing the blue pound and TV contracts. They blinked first despite holding all the aces, to mix my metaphors.
As a result of the ineptitude of our football authorities, for the past seven years we have had the ludicrous situation where one club isn’t subject to the same disciplinary regime as every other club – it was ever thus you might say – and basically sticks its middle finger up in the air each time there are calls for reviews or inquiries into its conduct, because it knows full well that Rod McKenzie & co has given it watertight legal immunity via the five-way agreement.
That’s why no action can be taken over EBTs for example, despite the Supreme Court ruling they were illegal. Our enterprising officials have concocted a legally binding document whereby they must treat the new club as if it was the old club for the purposes of financial expediency, hence the conferring of titles and trophies, but they can’t hold the new club responsible for the sins of the old one. That’s why ‘there’s no appetite for raking over old coals’ following legal advice.
I wish Auldheid and the Res 12 team well in their endeavours and I’m mightily embarrassed to read that my club, along with the other 40, wants no part in obtaining justice in this matter.
In Whose Interests
JC, at the acknowledged risk of raising claims of whataboutery, couldn't a similar charge be levelled against fans of Celtic who adorn themselves in Irish Republican flags and paraphernalia and who sing patriotic songs of that nation too?
In Whose Interests
I notice that the BBC are reporting that Bury FC are on the brink of liquidation and that a committee will determine in "which league any new club shall be placed and will set out requirements to be met by the new club."
I wonder how long it will take for the BBC to rectify its blatant error, perform a u-turn and report that, on reflection, only an expendable company is being liquidated.
In Whose Interests
Homunculus 6th October 2019 at 12:12
Indeed, although I don't think there's any confusion about the legal side of administration and CVAs – but as we've clearly witnessed, the law of the land does not stop our football authorities from drafting rules pertaining to the running of their own competitions which appear contrary to that law.
The most obvious example of this was our football authorities re-interpretation of what constitutes a club following the death of one of its two largest supported members. They even use a phrase now along the lines of "the meaning of a club can be different according to context", or words to that effect. How convenient!
Our football authorities have previously explained away the 'make-it-up-as-you-go-along' nature of their differing treatment between the demise of Gretna and that of Rangers by saying it was their competition and they could make and interpret whatever rules they saw fit. As I've mentioned previously, it is the equivalent of my grandson and his group of mates pretending they are Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Thor etc., as they are undoubtedly allowed to pretend, but that such a claim of being a Super Hero would obviously have no legal standing.
There is little doubt in my mind that legally, the club currently playing out of Ibrox is not the same as the club founded in 1872 and which went into liquidation in 2012, but our football authorities drafted the five-way agreement in which they became legally obligated to treat them as if they were the same thereafter. Indeed, there would've been no need for the five-way agreement otherwise.
In Whose Interests
easyJambo 6th October 2019 at 09:51
Ian Murray is saying that if Hearts newco'd then they would have to start at the bottom according to the SFA rules on clubs unable to achieve a CVA.
I've always been of the understanding that there were copious amounts of SFA rules in 2012 covering clubs entering administration, including those such as Dundee and Livingston who did so twice, but no mention whatsoever in the rules about clubs who went into liquidation, for the patently obvious fact it would have been futile drafting rules regarding clubs which no longer existed.
I know you're specifically referring to Hearts obtaining a CVA after Rangers failed to achieve one, but are you suggesting there were existing rules covering CVA failure at the time of Rangers' demise, or that they were drafted later? I know that punishments for insolvency increased in 2015 but wasn't aware of earlier changes.