Bonkers OCNC Thread

102
19465

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.

102 COMMENTS


  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. I've attended countless orchestral concerts, and watched too many to mention on TV.  I've never seen an orchestra so engaged in a piece like that above.  Every single section.  Strings, woodwind, brass & percussion.  All going for it.

     

    Lovely.

    View Comment

  23. Old club or new club.

     

    Frankly I no longer don't care.

     

    I can now add chucking stuff and hitting officials to the point of drawing blood (Fenian or otherwise) to my long list of all the negatives either version has brought to the Scottish game. (Oh and the song book was out again today as far as I could hear).

     

    The knuckle-draggers in their fan base are emboldened by the whole siege mentality lead by a convicted criminal and others in the club who seem to have a problem following the rules the rest of civilised society, business and football have to live by.

     

    Regardless of how they are viewed by others I doubt if they will ever be regarded as being fit for the 21st century.

     

    They have made no attempt to reform or win/regain friends on their recent journey. For that reason, as all our grannies would have said "hell mend them". 

    View Comment

  24. Old club or new club.

     

    Frankly I no longer care.

     

    I can now add chucking stuff and hitting officials to the point of drawing blood (Fenian or otherwise) to my long list of all the negatives either version has brought to the Scottish game. (Oh and the song book was out again today as far as I could hear).

     

    The knuckle-draggers in their fan base are emboldened by the whole siege mentality lead by a convicted criminal and others in the club who seem to have a problem following the rules the rest of civilised society, business and football have to live by.

     

    Regardless of how they are viewed by others I doubt if they will ever be regarded as being fit for the 21st century.

     

    They have made no attempt to reform or win/regain friends on their recent journey. For that reason, as all our grannies would have said "hell mend them". 

    View Comment

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