Bigboab1916August 18, 2017 at 00:27‘….Inform EUFA that a crowd funding – The Scottish Football Monitor

Bigboab1916August 18, 2017 at 00:27‘….Inform EUFA that a crowd funding …

Comment on On Grounds for Judicial Review by normanbatesmumfc.

bigboab1916August 18, 2017 at 00:27‘….Inform EUFA that a crowd funding is taking place to bring a JR or a court case against the SFA and EUFA will grant a COA ‘
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
And I wonder who would be Uefa’s go to man for all things Scottish Football???

That’s right Campbell Ogilvie, second only to David Murray in hierarchy on the list of culprits involved in the whole sorry mess, creating the awful stench in our game. 

I too believe the law courts in England are the only trustworthy bodies likely to get to the bottom of this cesspit and openly declare the guilty without fear or favour.

No need for further procrastination. Our governing bodies have had umpteen opportunities and many years to do the right thing and despite the numerous opportunities to lance the boil, they choose to increase the festering within it with their lies, deflection and stubborn denial of simple truths.

A plague on them all………… 

Recent Comments by normanbatesmumfc

To Comply or not to Comply ?
PADDY MALARKEYJULY 2, 2018 at 12:15
“They cheated and lied , and then they died”.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
There’s definitely a song there?????

As we eagerly await the latest appeasement attempt or fudge from the SFA, I sincerely hope the Res.12 guys are prepared to take legal action.

Is this the last chance saloon for the SFA to come clean before being dragged kicking and screaming into court to defend their reprehensible behaviour? Will they take it? The narrowing of their enquiry remit would suggest yet another fudge is on the cards.

While I doubt it will happen, let’s hope the main protagonists end up in the pokey, for they truly are the lowest of the low.  


To Comply or not to Comply ?
At the risk of boring some posters. I notice Ryan, DBD, Slim Jim and Lawman have all posted since my post earlier today, but unsurprisingly none of them answered my question.

It is an undeniable FACT that Rangers FC PLC was a full member CLUB of the SFA on the day of the Ramdens Cup match involving Brechin City and Charles Greens 11.

So, please answer my simple question, which football club played against Brechin on this day?


To Comply or not to Comply ?
CLUSTER ONE
MAY 17, 2018 at 19:22
 
17
 
0
 
Rate This
 
Attachment 
Sevco scotland LTD has agreed to accept all conditions relating to RFC. ……………………………………………………………………………………….
I believe the initial paragraphs to this statement are where the Big Lie was born.
From what I have read of SFA licencing, only a club, (incorporated or otherwise) can be a member of the SFA. In this document the “new” concept of Conditional Membership was given to Sevco Scotland Ltd, which suggests this membership was given to a company, not a club. As this is not possible within the licencing rules, we should read Sevco Scotland FC Ltd, for them to be eligible for SFA membership. The SFA deliberately avoided putting Football Club nomenclature alongside Sevco Scotland Ltd as they did not want them to be perceived as what they were, a new club.
 
Transfer of the RFC PLC full SFA membership took place a few days later, AFTER the match with Brechin. So, either Brechin didn’t play a football club, (they played some new company instead), or Sevco Scotland (FC) Ltd and Rangers FC PLC both held memberships of the SFA at the same time. Hence the need to transfer the RFC PLC membership to the new club.
From the SPFL archive;
Ramsdens are entering their second year of sponsorship of the SFL’s knock-out competition for First, Second and Third Division clubs and the pawnbroking and financial services company are delighted with what the competition has already given them during the first season of sponsorship.
 
Notice this competition is for “Second and Third Division clubs and no mention of companies being allowed to enter the competition. The draw is also listed there and has Brechin City v Dundee as the first tie in the North East. We know Sevco and Dundee switched places later.
 
So here’s a question for the continuation disciples;
Given RFC PLC were still a full member CLUB of the SFA on 29th July 2012, who played against Brechin City in the first round of the Ramsdens Cup?
 
I know from the match reports they were masquerading as Rangers, but this could not possibly be……


To Comply or not to Comply ?
THELAWMAN2APRIL 26, 2018 at 05:11
3
26 Rate This
CLUSTER ONEAPRIL 25, 2018 at 22:12
The conditional membership was issued for 1 game as the SFA were in the process of transferring the membership to the “new owner and operator of Rangers Football Club” but the legalities of the 5WA had not been completed.  As soon as they were completed, the FULL MEMBERSHIP was transferred.  It was NOT a new membership nor a conditional one.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
I think you are confusing the SFA membership with an SPL share?

SFA memberships can only be held by clubs, so quite obviously could not be transferred to a new owner or operator. The same club would never have needed anything to be transferred…..


To Comply or not to Comply ?
DARKBEFOREDAWNAPRIL 25, 2018 at 13:16
Slimjim If HMRC say that RFC survived death then perhaps the outstanding tax shall be paid ”
Since we are not moving this off topic, the HMRC statement in full is replicated below, with my emphasis in bold.“A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start.”
So effectively HMRC do not state that “a new club can make a fresh start”. It clearly talks about the sale of the club (Rangers) not being any different whether by liquidation or by administration. I have discussed this statement on here before, but rightly or wrongly this has been one of the most important statements in terms of changing the narrative of whether liquidation would mean the end of the club.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Nor does it say the original club can make a fresh start. It says “Rangers” can make a fresh start. The club could have been sold in entirety either via a CVA, or via the Liquidator and in fact the Glib and Shameless One, mentioned the possibility of doing exactly that before the final decision on the Big Tax Case made the debt so huge it was no longer feasible. King new he had to buy the whole club and repay the debt attached in order for the Club to survive liquidation.

As HMRC state, Liquidation also enables the sale of some of the assets, (NOT THE CLUB), the football assets, which is of course what happened, without the buyer being responsible for the debt, which they would have been had they bought the club or business in its entirety. HMRC do not state the club can survive liquidation, but liquidation may provide an avenue for a team called Rangers to make a fresh start. Again, just what happened.  


SSL Certificates