The Rangers debate… replying to a real fan
When I posted my ‘How are they affording Sandaza’ article last week, I half expected some of the vitrol that was forthcoming from RangersMedia and FollowFollow (so much so that I placed a block on any incoming traffic from those websites – now removed!)
However, I was also hoping to appeal to the ‘Good Bears’ – those whose voices have not been heard over the ‘We are the Peepil’ brigade. So it was really refreshing last night to get an email with a new post in moderation from a poster called ‘Garys’. It was a well thought out reply, well written and well researched. It was so good I felt it deserved a blog post of its own. The below is Garys post, with my replies underneath in blue.
It was reading this that hit home with me, what we (the internet bampots and the #notonewco campaigners) and the Rangers fans see as fact are two entirely different things. I hope this blog post will address some of those issues and allow a factual and reasoned debate. I encourage everyone to post their views – what I will be doing this time however is immediately deleting anything that tries to steer the discussion off track, make threats or anything that doesn’t contribute positively to the post. Rangers fans are more than welcome – just please follow the rules.
Gary said:
After reading your blog and comments I have a few comments/questions I put to you and hope you answer them all honestly and to the best factual basis (like I’m sure you’ve done already). I will also used “oldco” and “newco” to differentiate between the old company and new company (same club though as discussed below).
1)You state that newco rangers aren’t entitled to 800K for Davis, that this will go to Rangers IA (oldco). This is incorrect as the oldco sold the players registrations to newco (see point 12). The reason the 800k went to SFA and not directly to newco is at that point in time the newco didn’t have an SFA licence. Please see article
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile/sport/sfa-poised-to-freeze-rangers-cash-for-steven-davis.18249886
Firstly, I think there is two factors in this one.
Factor one is that TUPE laws allow an Employee (in this case a player) to decide on whether to accept the transfer to the Newco. In the case of Davis he clearly rejected the transfer of his employment to the new company. This was widely reported in the media. This would mean he no longer has a contract with Rangers (IA) or the newco. He would be a free agent.
Now, in your scenario you are assuming the Newco held the right to the ‘registration’. However, it is my opinion, and I believe one that the whole ‘Bosman’ case hinged on, that freedom of movement of an employee is a human right. Therefore, it follows, that if Davis had no contract with either Rangers IA or the Newco then he was free to choose whatever club he wanted, and therefore his ‘registration’ had no value whatsoever. In fact, the SFA withholding the transfer could be construed as restricting his free movement. I cannot see any legal right of the SFA or a Newco to hold a registration for a player who has clearly rejected the contract, in the same way that an out of contract player can move to another club without the permission of their former club.
To allow Newco to claim the rights to the Oldco’s players would be going back to Pre Bosman days.
The second factor is that Southampton have never released details of the fee. In fact, the 800k fee has come from one source – the Daily Record ‘understands’. Now, forgive me for being skeptical, but the Daily Record is not the best source of news. Southampton themselves have only confirmed a ‘minimal’ fee was paid to the English FA to speed up the process. I have no fact on this, but my understanding having talked to Southampton fans is that the fee lodged with the English FA was a deposit in case of a tribunal ensuing which they later lost.
2)You also state that when the players rejected the Tupe that they instantly became free agents. If that was the case then why did Southampton pay 800k? And that the other clubs are being taken to court/tribunal for a fee? Why were these players only granted temporary licences by FIFA.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/111866-four-former-rangers-players-given-provisional-playing-clearance/
per your point – I don’t know any employment lawyers however I believe you should look at Southampton’s.
Only temporary licences are issued as it has to go before an investigative board. They will then check everything and issue the full licence. To issue a full licence without checking all the facts would put FIFA on par with the Daily Record. From everything I have read, the full licence is just a case of crossing the T’s and dotting the I’s.
3)You include 2.5millton catering/food and beverage in expenses, but there is no corresponding income. Are you trying to suggest rangers make a loss of 2.5million on catering every year? I find this impossible to believe.
The corresponding income was in the ‘Hospitality’ line.
4)Where did you get your PAYE/NIC figure from? It is ridiculously high, 50% of players salary? Rangers will pay the employers NI contribution of its employee’s salaries. Using the link below, enter 5K per week salary and you will see the NI contributions. This is the PAYE/NIC that rangers will pay.
On the link the tax due is personal tax that the individual will pay (just like you and I our tax is deducted every month from our gross wages.)
http://listentotaxman.com/index.php
I mentioned elsewhere in the comments that the PAYE/NIC figure I used wasn’t entirely for just that. I used a figure that a lot of business use to calculate the cost to the employer of the employee. This can en compose not only PAYE and NIC, but also staff meals, company cars, accommodation, travel, bonus’ and the like. It is a rough guess and I concede may be on the high side.
5)You correctly pointed out that any debt of oldco is not owed by newco, including any result of FTT (big tax case). (ignoring the sanctions with regards to SFA licence) This was confirmed by HMRC when they voted against CVA proposal.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2158089/Rangers-liquidation-danger-CVA-deal-rejected.html#ixzz24MWwRnFk
Quote:
According to a statement from HMRC, ‘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’.
HMRC also stressed their decision did not undermine the sale of the club but would allow Rangers a ‘fresh start’.
I think this is the one thing that both Rangers and non Rangers fans agree on! The newco cannot, and should not be held responsible for any of the oldco’s debts.
However, the flip side of this is that the Newco cannot pretend to be the Oldco, without accepting the Oldco’s debts, regardless of agreements made with D&P for the sale of the assets. There is laws in place to try and prevent this, especially when there has been common directors. Remember, Charles Green is listed as a director of the Old Co, before he bought the assets. This brings him dangerously close to falling foul of the Phoenix rules.
6)With regards to ticketus, this was taken to court of session. Here Lord Hodge declared the deal could be breached if it was in the interest of the creditors. This is what happened and ticketus became a creditor of oldco. They also confirmed they are not involved with Green.
http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/99709-ticketus-say-no-future-involvement-after-greens-rangers-bid-accepted/
Quote:
“Ticketus is now a creditor in a CVA and it is not involved in the future of the club in any way.”
The one thing we have seen throughout this saga is that the people involved are great with words. To you that phrase ‘Ticketus are not involved” means they are out of the picture altogether. The way I read it however is highlighting the last bit, which states “of the club in any way”.
Now, neither of us were there when the question was asked to the Ticketus representative. But, as the story was pre newco, it is a given they were being asked about their involvement in the Oldco. In this respect, it is entirely accurate. They no longer have any involvement in what goes on.
However, they have not said they are not involved in a Newco.
The evidence is mounting day by day of strong links between Brian Stockdale, Zeus Capital, and Octopus Investments, who, of course, own Ticketus. In the absence of any progress in Ticketus suing D&P, as Lord Hodge noted would be a certainty if D&P cancelled the contract, I find it difficult to believe there is not some involvement somewhere. Transparency of ownership would clear this up. Something John Brown demanded, but was never forthcoming.
The full text from Lord Hodge can be found here.
One of the interesting points to note is that the contract between Rangers and Ticketus was entered into under English law, however the asset resides in Scotland. There is subtle differences in the laws. In England Ticketus would undoubtedly have legal claim to any future income at Ibrox, irrelevant of owner. In Scotland this falls more towards a contractual right, which, can be broken. This is further complicated by the fact security was held by Rangers Group Ltd, owned by Craig Whyte. Further, they had passed on a floating charge, held over Rangers PLC to Liberty Capital… an offshore company, which is where the trail goes cold.
In the absence therefore of a legal case, my only conclusion can be that Ticketus must still be involved somewhere. That Green has still not released details of who exactly is behind the club makes the suspicions even stronger.
7)Ticket prices do vary from £260 – £600 (bar 72) for adult season tickets. I accept that it is very difficult to get an average figure without knowing the amount of kids/concessions so although I believe you average figure is low, I will accept it as it is a guess the same as mine would only be a guess.
When tickets went on public sale most prices seemed to be around the 280 – 300 mark. If I therefore take 80% of the season books being sold at 300gbp, 10% at 150GBP (concessions) and 10% at 70GBP(kids), I get an average of 262GBP a ticket. I therefore don’t believe my guess is far off. Even increasing the average by 10gbp will only contribute another 350,000 to the topline, which is fairly insignificant in regards the other sums mentioned.
8)At the time of writing the article you estimated 25K season ticket sales and I know you said you will update the article at a later date. The most recent quoted figure was 33k by charles green 5 days ago. This will undoubtedly have risen since although there is no official figure to date. This will significantly increase revenue.
I agree. However, I also would need to reduce the number of ‘match day tickets’ sold, as I fail to see how you will get 45,000 fans every game. If you do, in the depths of winter, then fair play to Charles Green and all Rangers fans. Another reason I want to wait a while before doing the figures again to get a more accurate idea of how attendances will fair.
9)In you income figures you only include 18 games (home) per season. This is wrong as you are completely ignoring cup games. Already there will be at least 3 home games for rangers (east fife, falkirk and QOS), and this could be rise depending on cup runs.(I know 50% of sales go to away team after expenditure but this will still be a significant amount of money per game). We will also be entitled to 50% of away games in cup.
Correct. I purposely left these out as budgeting for cup runs (Champions League last year and Maribor anyone?) is a recipe for disaster!
10)We were entitled to 3million per year from JJB after initial 18million upfront. This has been reported numerous times in the media throughout the years and confirmed by David Murray at the time. Yesterday this deal was ended, as we are a newco and we have reached an agreement with sports direct (JV). Although we don’t know how much money rangers will make Green quoted he hoped to bring in 5 – 10million. (I know he can say any figure!). Even mild assumptions you much surely see we will make more than 800k considering you think celtic made 8million (If I read your comment correctly)?
This is another question that is worth a whole post. The JJB deal was with Oldco, however, it was interesting the JJB didn’t claim to be a major creditor, seeing as there must be circa 9million outstanding in lost revenue. The fact that it was discussed with Newco seems to suggest that this was transferred in some way. Whether it was a pay off, or something else we will probably not know until Newco release audited accounts (not due until April 2014!!).
Now, re: the JV with Sports Direct. Apart from a statement from Green saying its a joint venture, there is nothing to indicate this is the case. The company, ‘Rangers Retail’, is 100% owned by Sports Direct. Has Green just mortgaged off the shirt sales for immediate income? Why is he claiming its a joint venture, when it clearly, legally at least, isn’t?
The 8million from Celtic includes the kit deal, kits sponsorship as well as merchandise sales. I do not know if they mange this themselves, or through a JV. I also should note Celtic are a much much bigger global brand than Rangers. I have been based in Asia for the past 10 years, and I can tell you the clubs people know are Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool and Celtic. You can argue this all you like, but that is what I have observed from Tokyo, to Shanghai, to HK, to Bangkok to Manila. They are the (pirated) shirts that are sold and worn for British clubs (the only other shirts you see belong to Real Madrid or Barcelona).
Reading between the lines I think the Sports Direct deal will bring an immediate cash benefit to Rangers, however, it remains to be seen whether this will stunt future revenue. Given the actions of others over the past 5 years, if I was a Rangers fan, I would be demanding to see how this deal has been constructed.
11)With the oldco vs newco argument I would like to make a few points.
Oldco company name was “The rangers football club plc”. This was recently (July I think) changed to “RFC 2012 plc”.
The newco company name was “Sevco Scotland ltd” and has since been changed to “The rangers football club limited”.
The club (not company) has always and will always be rangers not “the rangers”. The clubs name is the same as it always has been despite the wrong propaganda by many media and fans of other clubs. This is the same as celtics company name is “The celtic football and athletic company ltd”(Of which there are 2 companies that own celtic). Why do you not (or any others in media or other fans) refer to celtic as “the celtic”. There are numerous examples I could use of teams in scotland and abroad. The company and the club are separate.
This is one argument where I think the blue tinted specs are clouding your judgement. There can be no difference between a club and the company. Legally they are one and the same.
An incorporated company is the legal mechanism by which the club operates. It is therefore the same as the company. Any contract the club enters into is entered in a legal contract formed by the legal mechanism, which is the company.
Take for example when you buy your season ticket. Who do you pay for it? The club, or the company? If the club, who pays the VAT? If the company, how does the club get the money? The answer is in all cases the company, as they are one and the same. There is no legal club.
Rangers FC did have a holding company – this was formerly called Wavetower and changed their name in May 2011 to Rangers FC Group Ltd. That was a separate company that owned the club, Rangers FC PLC. If Sevco Scotland ‘bought the club’, then they also, unfortunately, bought the liabilities and debts of that ‘club’.
Another question to ask is re: share issues. Many Rangers fans bought shares in ‘their club’. Now, these shares were for the company. So did they just buy company shares, or did they buy the club? The answer is of course they bought club shares, as the company and club is again, one and the same.
Further, Charles Green has said he will offer a share issue in the newco. Are you just going to buy shares in the company, or are you buying shares in the club. If only the company, who owns the club? Show me the paperwork that says the club are a seperate legal entity.
Now, I know you can’t do that. I also know what the answer is – the answer is that the ‘club’ is what is in the hearts of the Rangers fans. Note how I always refer to Rangers fans as just that – Rangers fans. I may refer to the club as Newco, or Sevco, or TRFC, but I also refer to the fans as Rangers fans. I do believe that the club exists within your fan base. A good example would be Wimbledon.
Wimbledon were bought and moved to Milton Keynes. The club that plays as MK Dons has the history of Wimbledon, as that is the club they bought.
However, the fans reformed a new club, called Wimbledon AFC. They may not have the history of Wimbledon, and they do not claim it – they accept themselves as a new club. But that is where the spirit of Wimbledon exists, not up the road in Milton Keynes. This example can also be seen in Scotland with Airdrie Utd. They may have the spirit of Airdrie FC, but not the history. They are not one and the same.
Re: Celtic I am not going to get into this, as I don’t know the real answer. I do believe it is structured similar to the Rangers PLC/Rangers Group scenario. Maybe a Celtic fan can post in the comments the answer to this one? Or maybe I will add to the list of research items to do.
12)Leading on with regards to rangers history I wish you to look at the below document/report provided by D & P. This clearly shows the newco has all history (amongst other things including trademarks etc.)(and player registrations). This proves we have the full history of titles etc of the oldco and that the “club” has never stopped and if we win any trophy at the end of this season it will get added to the collection we already have won throughout our history.
see sections 4.2, 4.6, 5.38, 10.5, 10.9
http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/rangers-fc-plc-interim-report-by-duff-phelps-10-july.pdf
Here is a hypothetical argument. I change my name to Usain Bolt. I then approach Usain Bolt (the gold medal winner) and buy all his ‘rights’. I become the owner of his house, his car, even his gold medals.
Am I now the multi Olympic Gold medal sprinter? Is it my name in the record books?
No, of course not. History is just that – history – it has already happened. You cannot sell it, as there is nothing to sell! If history was trade-able, then St.Johnstone would have already ‘bought’ a trophy off someone, and we would not have gone 100 years without winning any meaningful silverware. Could we buy Celtic’s European trophy? Would the record books then reflect ‘St.Johnstone’ as the European champions? No, of course not – that would be silly right?
The same applies to Rangers FC, and The Rangers FC. They are separate clubs – you cannot transfer the history over. You can transfer the assets, even the physical trophies – but TRFC didn’t win those – Rangers FC did.
This is the ONE point that leads me to believe Green is leading you down a bad path. I, and I’m sure most other Scottish Football fans would welcome a strong Rangers back in Scottish Football. But as long as they maintain they are the same ‘club’, I, and others, will maintain that they should be responsible for the actions and the debts of that ‘club’. The minute they accept its a new start, and a fresh beginning I will welcome them into the Scottish football leagues as a respected and vital member of Scotland’s Football future.
I accept this is a long post but would appreciate any feedback and will do my best to respond in a factual and unbiased way.
I also look forward to your updated prediction to rangers finances for the next year.
I will do so probably next month, once more details are available. In the meantime you might like to read this spreadsheet done by @Auldheid. If anyone has Rangers financial accounts for 2010 I would love to see them!
Go on guys – discuss away!
One final point why in the title and throughout the article do you call rangers “Sevco” and not the correct company name “the rangers football club limited” or the club name that you use when you refer to any other football club in the world ie. “rangers”?
Sevco is easier to type, is shorter, and I’m a lazy *******. Not good enough? Damn…
Seriously though, my views above should be a good enough answer to this question. The club and the company are one and the same.
Steve, really excellent bit of Q and A here. One thing that I did wonder about were these quotes taken from some of your answers in the latter part of the Q and A:
“Wimbledon were bought and moved to Milton Keynes. The club that plays as MK Dons has the history of Wimbledon, as that is the club they bought.”
“History is just that – history – it has already happened. You cannot sell it, as there is nothing to sell! If history was trade-able, then St.Johnstone would have already ‘bought’ a trophy off someone, and we would not have gone 100 years without winning any meaningful silverware. Could we buy Celtic’s European trophy? Would the record books then reflect ‘St.Johnstone’ as the European champions? No, of course not – that would be silly right?”
“The same applies to Rangers FC, and The Rangers FC. They are separate clubs – you cannot transfer the history over. You can transfer the assets, even the physical trophies – but TRFC didn’t win those – Rangers FC did.”
——–
Am I reading a bit of contradiction here? If the current MK Dons bought the history of Wimbledon, along with the club, then history can be ‘bought and sold’. Or did you mean that since the Wimbledon club was bought (and then changed its name) it’s actually still the true, legal Wimbledon, historically-speaking, and inherited everything from the original Wimbledon – trophies and also any outstanding debts? Basically in the same way any club can be bought and sold?
So what did Charles Green actually buy? I take it that it could not have been the original Rangers (not a Wimbledon-type purchase) since he’d be lumbered with a potential £100m plus debt. Did Sevco Scotland merely acquire some of the physical assets (for what seemed like a ‘I-give-you-special-price’ deal) and then change his Sevco Scotland company name to a name that just sounds remarkably like the old club now facing liquidation?
I think I can now see what the Blue Knights meant when they said that it was the CVA route or nothing. They seem to have understood that without a CVA Rangers were facing oblivion, and that any new club will be handed a blank sheet of paper to start recording club history on.
Be interesting to see how much of the financial jiggery pokery that’s gone on the liquidators will accept.
Or did you mean that since the Wimbledon club was bought (and then changed its name) it’s actually still the true, legal Wimbledon, historically-speaking, and inherited everything from the original Wimbledon – trophies and also any outstanding debts? Basically in the same way any club can be bought and sold?
—
That is exactly what I meant 🙂
Until someone with some “clout” comes out and states on national tv that “old rangers” are dead and gone, and that “new rangers” have no history whatsoever then this will just rage on and on and “new rangers” will never be accepted for what has gone by. They will be fast tracked back to SPL football just because of who they are and for money only reasons and the whole sham will continue.
Donald Findlay, one of the most sought after criminal advocate in Scotland has a fair bit of clout. In his profession, he has defended the indefensible.
But even he is nowhere to be seen to declare that the club is the same as before.
Maybe someone should ask him.
I think your article is spot on apart from one part:
“Remember, Charles Green is listed as a director of the Old Co, before he bought the assets. This brings him dangerously close to falling foul of the Phoenix rules.”
I don’t think he was. Can you verify? Cheers.
So I checked and I may not be 100% correct on this.
Charles Green is listed as 100% owner of a company called Rangers 2012 Ltd, which, is very close to Rangers 2012 PLC (IA), the old Rangers FC. There is also this article which suggest Green bought the shares from Craig Whyte for 2quid, and would therefore be the majority shareholder, although, not necessarily a director.
However, there would be enough evidence there that Charles Green was acting as a shadow director, and that is good/bad enough…
Just one question. If Rangers newco is completely seperate and shares no history with the oldco, then why did/does the newco have to pay oldco debts to other scottish clubs, and why did the newco have to accept (unlawful) sanctions placed on the oldco before being accepted into Scottish football? I could be wrong, but I don’t recall Annan Athletic being compelled to settle Gretna’s debts before being accepted into the SFL. If the newco is entirely unconnected, as everyone loves to point out, then they must start debt free and sanction free. Sorry for the cliche, but you cannot have your cake and eat it!
Sevco were not eligible to get SFA membership as they did not have 3 years accounts. That’s why they cannot play in Europe for a minimum of 3 years. However Charles Green and the SFA struck a compromise deal to allow them to gain entry into the leagues ahead of the likes of Spartans who are waiting to get in.
But remember this SFA membership came FROM Rangers and it went TO Sevco (Scotland). A membership is a right to play in the league, it is not an identity card in which one entity morphs into another.
As for the unlawful sanctions, why did Rangers* go to court to object to the sanctions and then accept them? Why aren’t they going to court now?
The cake and eat it cliche can work both ways – you can’t pretend to be the old club but not carry its debt.
Newco did not have to accept the transfer ban and the football debts. They could have said no.
If they had said No, the SFA would have rejected the transfer of the licence and told them to apply for a new one. They would then have rejected them for not having 3 years of accounts.
I fully agree however they should start sanction free. They are not the same club. In their rush to try and fudge rangers into the league, the SFA threw away the rule book and tried to make it up. it was both wrong and unlawful, but was the only way they could get a rangers back into the Scottish League. If they had tried to follow the rules Rangers would be 3 years of junior football away from meeting the requirements for SFA membership.
the way I read it is that newco took on responsibility for oldco football debts and sanctions placed on oldco as it was transferring oldco’s membership to newco. This was the price it paid to do so. If it didn’t have a membership it could not join the SFA. ( we will leave aside the need for 3 years of accounts ) I will be interested in your thoughts on this.
just read the above reply, which I think backs up my point
I think many people are misled by the word ‘club’, not only in the name of Rangers FC, but in all ‘Football Club’ names. At the time of their incorporation as a limited company, Rangers, as with all other football clubs, became a business and not a club. That business was Rangers FC Ltd, a profit making business. It went from being a club, whose members were all liable for all debts, to a business, whose shareholders were only liable for their own investment. In effect, Rangers Football CLUB didn’t die in 2012, it died, or ceased to exist, at the time of incorporation.
Maybe all Rangers supporters should ask themselves this question; if Rangers Football Club was indeed separate from Rangers FC plc (or Rangers FC Ltd), where is the documentary evidence for this? For we can rest assured, if this existed, it would have been published by every succulent lamb hack as one of the very few ‘verifiable’ pieces of reporting they have printed throughout this whole saga.
Mr G, I think that David Murray and Walter Smith have publicly made reference to the ‘new club’. The former is pretty well placed to make such a distinction.
There you go… Even Charles Green has said a newco would mean no history…
Love the summation, love the fact that reasoned discourse can be had on the subject….who sez internet bampots are all bad! 😉
In the interests of disclosure, I’m a Celtic fan, season ticket holder and shareholder. I have followed this story since the beginning of the RTC blog and have indeed been a keen reader of Scottish football financial matters for years, ever since over 10 years ago, a Rangers fan of the ‘camel coat’ variety (a cliche, I know) took me to task over giving Murray his due for stepping up and putting down £12 million for Flo, with the prophetic words ‘Don’t believe the hype….Murray hasn’t put a penny into Rangers and never will. It’s all debt’
I agree with two critical points you have made…..TicketUs are still in the mix (where did Green get the money?) and ‘New Club’ aren’t ‘Old Club’. I made an impassioned plea in work one day that, strangely, got me accused of being a closet Rangers fan. It’s precis was that I couldn’t understand why, given how little was needed to secure the ‘bricks and mortar’ of the club, £5.5 million (which has been loaded back onto the club as debt, repayable in 2020 at 8% interest…do we never learn?), why no-one ‘Rangers’ would have stepped up and made the plea to the fans ‘Let’s leave the old toxic mess behind and start anew….come with us and in 5, 10, 20, 40 years time, you’ll be able to look your children and grandchildren in the eye and say ‘I was there at the REbirth of our club….I stepped up and didn’t walk away.’
David Murray killed Rangers….the body was lying in the street, waiting to be found by the authorities….to stretch an analogy, Craig Whyte was a the equivalent of a passer-by, who saw the opportunity to rifle the pockets and steal the shoes……just as Plod walked round the corner! This charade being played out about Rangers ‘holding company’ going bust is simply smoke and mirrors, the business equivalent of Weekend At Bernie’s is being played out with Green and the press playing along…..but they are damaging the investigation by failing to acknowledge the murder of the club. It allows the true criminals to slink away….at least until BDO get their pens out! Prosecuting a murder is almost impossible if there is no ‘body’ and I predict some uncomfotable moments for Rangers fans in future when legal proceedings start to talk about the liquidation of ‘the club’, as legally D&P have already acknowledged the failure of the CVA and that The Rangers Football Club PLC (“The Club” and “The Company”) will proceed into liquidation, which will of course be jumped upon by the internet bams.
I could talk for hours on this, but I’m conscious of blog hijacking, but I’ll add one other thing. Green and newco will never receive a penny for any players that left prior to the issuing of a temporary licence by the SFA. RFC(IA) cannot legally sell any player registrations to any body not in possession of a licence. RFC(IA) held these registrations and as Green failed to instruct his advisors to begin TUPE proceedings when he entered into the 4 week CVA period (just a hunch, but he couldn’t afford to TUPE the first team, maybe?), when the CVA failed and the club went into liquidation, the registrations revert to the SFA as RFC(IA) couldn’t fulfil their proposed fixtures the following season. That is why Rangers couldn’t even play a behind closed door game against ANY other club in pre-season. No licence, no play…..on a global scale. That’s why the money would have went to the SFA…..that’s why rangers couldn’t sell a single season book til the licence was bodged together by the SFA and SFL. The SFA were advised that they would face a court challenge if they gave newco a new licence….no associate membership, no three years accounts….so this hybrid transfer was invented.
Seeing otherwise intelligent people blather about ‘holding clubs’ and ‘transferring history’ makes me angry as I watched people leave Ibrox after that CVA meeting in tears, genuinely upset at the death of their club….people who’ve put a share certificate on the wall proudly displaying that they own a part of the club, it’s part of their own personal makeup. Now we’re told by guys in suits ‘Nah, that was just the holding company…..roll up, roll up, buy yer season books….buy yer t-shirts….oh and next year, buy yer shares in the club and secure its future……no, no, it’s the real club this time, not the holding company….honest.’ Pitiful…..
An interesting read. I’d like to make a few points if I may.
1) With regards to the Davis ‘sale’ to Southampton, I’d like to highlight that their agreement to pay 800k was with the Newco. As you are aware Charles Green was challenging his right to exit his contract and this was in dispute. Southampton clearly felt that it was better to pay a small fee and avoid the hassle of going through Uefa/Fifa hearings and such likes. Essentially, this looks like retrospectively Davis dropped his move to cancel his contract and was then sold to Southampton immediately. Of course it isn’t clear how employment law would view this but what is clear is that the deal was with the newco.
2) Green/Phoenix regulations – HMRC were satisfied with the sale of the ‘business and assets’ to Sevco Scotland Ltd (as it was then called) and would have been fully aware of the proposal involving Green. This is extremely unlikely to be challenged. He only became a director of the oldco, if indeed that is the case, to allow him to assist in keeping the company running, which of course was beneficial to creditors I would suggest.
3) Ticketus – with some uncertainty over the ownership of Rangers, it may well be that Ticketus are still involved in one way or another. It cannot be denied for certan unless we have all the relevant information. The previous agreement with Ticketus however was included within the CVA proposal and they became an unsecured creditor, which they agreed to and were satisfied with. Any involvement now would be as a shareholder, entitling them to dividends or to sell their shares for a profit. I would find it very unlikely that any deal would involve a loan / asset purchase as was previously the case.
4) SportsDirect deal – you mention that Rangers Retail is 100% owned by SportsDirect. This doesnt seem to be the case. Here is an official quote from Rangers:
“Rangers Retail, a subsidiary company of The Rangers Football Club Ltd, has been formed with SportsDirect.com which enables the Club to utilise the huge buying power and resources of SportsDirect.com while maintaining the majority stake-holding in the JV.”
So it would appear Rangers hold the majority stake-holding in the partnership with SportsDirect, giving them power to control their merchandise production/retailing etc.
5) New Club – I believe you are making the mistake of assuming that the Club & Company are one and the same entity. They are not. This was confirmed by the Court of Session which specifially identified them as two entities when ruling on the SFA Judicial Tribunal sanctions.
Further evidence exists in the fact that the Club existed 17 years before the Company. Normally when a business incorporates it begins a new legal timeline, starting form its date of incorporation. This would mean Rangers being founded in 1899 and not 1872. Of course 1872 is still recognised as the year of foundation by Rangers, the Scottish Football Authorities and Uefa (although the incorrectly have it listed as 1873). This is because the Club and the Company are not the same entity.
Remember it is the Club which competes in the Scottish Football League, and previously the SPL, not the Company.
Secondly I would like to point you in the direction of Leeds Utd. As you are probably aware, Leeds entered financial dififculties previously. The key points are as follows:
– entered admin (like Rangers)
– did not complete a CVA (like Rangers)
– ‘business and assets’ were sold to a Newco (like Rangers)
– club appied and was granted entry to the league, received 15 pt penalty for doing so
– Leeds oldco is ‘in liquidation’ , which is confirmed at Companies House
Crucially Leeds Utd are viewed by Uefa and the English football authorities as being the same club, despite being sold to a newco. They have retained all their history and titles and would continue to add to that with any further achievements.
Hope this has helped to clarify a few matters or at least raise a few discussion points.
5) Not quite true. 75.02% of creditors accepted the CVA proposed, with HMRC rejecting it. During the 28 day cooling off period, HMRC appealed it on day 27 which stopped the administration dead. When it eventually made it to court, HMRC accepted the proposals. The FA transfered the share as the CVA had been agreed by other creditors (75%) and to make sure the league season wasn’t thrown into disarray by waiting on a case to go to court which they were confident would go the way of Leeds anyway. It is nothing like the Rangers case where the CVA was overwhelmingly rejected.
Please please please post a link to show that a club and company are a different entity. Really, please?
4) I’m aware Rangers called it a JV. Just, that is not what is reflected in the legal documentation. Read this article here
This is exactly what Whyte did when asked about season tickets – he denied it despite the paper trail saying otherwise.
2+3 are reasonable comments and you could well be right on 3. My feeling however is that ticketus need the money back short term, as they are a fund which is due to mature in 2014 and hence a shareholding isn’t much good, unless they are banking on making that back in a share issue (of the club, or the company?)
Re: 1) you may well be correct – but once again, The Daily record understands, is not the same as Southampton actually paying 800k, which their intheknow supporters do not agree with.
Hi Andy,
Can I have right of rebuttal, even though it’s not my blog or my comments you’re commenting on? 🙂
On point 1, it was illegal in football law for Green to demand money for the transfer of registration of Davis on behalf of newco as newco wasn’t a licenced body at the time. What I would like clarified is whether, at that point, Green was acting for oldco as, at the key point in time, oldco were in administration, still in possession of a licence and the players were employees of oldco. Timing is everything in these matters……the major players all knew that. What ‘smells’ to me is that, given the truly massive liabilities of oldco, how Green thinks newco is entitled to anything…..surely the oldco, WHICH IS STILL IN ADMINISTRATION, and their creditors should benefit? How can Green buy assets listed on the administrators report as being worth x, y and z in transfer fees come the summer window be sold for nothing, which is what D&P confirmed they did in the administrators interim report. The reason could be, as their liability (wages cost over term of contract remaining) exceeded agreed realisable transfer fees come the summer, they were deemed, in a business sense,worthless (please….non-Rangers fans, resist the troll urges….) I would theorise however that the issue was around the holding of registrations / SFA licence issue….D&P couldn’t charge for something that legally they couldn’t sell so it was given a ‘zero value’ to prevent legal challenge. Why do you think Rangers was sold for a pound to Whyte? Because the transfer of financial remuneration legitimises the contract in the eyes of the law.
I agree on 2, despite the howls of ‘phoenixism’ from the masses, Green was just there to get his feet under the table but it does raise the question I have attempted to deal with above….newco, oldco, who was he speaking for in June / July? A legally valid query?
3…..too murky for my liking, I heartily commend any scepticism form Rangers and non-Rangers fans over TicketUs…..remember, nexco is currently a private limited company, which means the owners have limited liability and the owners can do what they like. Anyone investing now will own a specific portion of the club but it looks like Green is valuing his newco at £10 million to attract investors…..remember, the purchase price has been loaded onto the newco as debt….£11 million approx will be due come May 2020. The fact remains that Green’s backers sold a 10% stake for a million…..that was when it was looking likely that Rangers were going to be shoehorned into SFL1…..now they’re in SFL3, the investment may be less attractive but fast forward to the IPO and it’s value. It’s complex but if I own 90% of aprivate company that’s going to an IPO, moving from Private to public, I can choose to sell as much or as little as I like. The market then decides on the value by the level of subscription and subsequent trading of shares. Green’s tactic just now is to raise capital to get the newco to a healthy position and go public……he can say to private investors ‘Invest a million for 10% and our projections say we’ll go IPO at a value of £30 million, making your investment worth £3 million….but if it all goes pear-shaped, the million is gone. Similarly, Green may go back to his backers and say we need an extra £10 million in capital so if you don’t pony up your share, your share in the private company is diluted. Come IPO time, you’ve got 7%, 5%, 2% of a £30 million company……see the Facebook machinations for details… 😉
Point 4…..Rangers Retail has, as it’s two directors, two of Ashley’s IP guys, who specialise in obtaining intellectual property for Ashley to exploit (and Imean that in a business sense, not some kind of Machiavellian plot!) and they own the 100 £1 shares….there is no reason to believe that Green is a business numpty and has ‘sold the jerseys’ as if he’s planning to go IPO in the next couple of years, he will have to disclose full details to the market and it would severely weaken the brand and by extension, it’s value, if he had handed over RFC’s trademarks to Ashley for buttons….I suspect that it’s value is less than £3 million a year or it would have been trumpeted as a coup but, let’s be honest, given the situation newco is in, SFL3, no Europe for years, limited TV exposure, getting anything at all is good going. It’s a joint venture, but Rangers are definitely junior and happy to get a decent sum….it’s just not as much as they used to get.
Point 5…..I’m not going to go all ‘bampot’ on this, but Rangers the club were ‘incorporated’ into the plc in 1899, that’s why the documents from D&P were all headed “Rangers Football Club Plc (“The Club” and “The Company”). That’s what legal incorporation is…it protects the members of the club from unlimited liability and offers them the same protection as shareholders…..your financial exposure is limited to the equity you put into the club, if the club loses money and slips into insolvency, creditors can’t knock on your door and ask for ‘your share’ as you’ve already given that over to the company. Read the stuff David Conndid on Leeds Utd, brilliant journalism, but in Leeds case I think you’ll find that Leeds Utd were sold ‘complete’ as part of a pre-pack arranged by Ken Bates, leaving behind the old company…..Leeds were punished by the Football League not for going into liquidation but for not following procedure in their administration, HMRC initially blocked the transfer legally but capitulated at the last minute, but only after securing an increase to 17p in the pound for creditors and guarantees from Bates…..the critical thing here is the transfer to Bates was a CVA as it was voted through by 75% of the creditors. That the old Leeds Utd was liquidated was a condition of HMRC’s, as just like Rangers, they wanted to investigate what had went on…..it was this insistance that led to the increase from less than 1p to over 17p in the pound….why do you think HMRC want BDO to go into oldco with fresh batteries in the calculators and fresh ink in the red pens.
Sorry for the length, Stevensanph…..it runs away from me…. 😉
no, by all means, carry on! great comment! Christ – I’m learning here!
Point 1) Green did not demand money. He was disputing the player’s right to exit his contract and SOuthampton essentially offered to pay £800k (or whatever the actual fee was) if Rangers dropped their challenge.
Point 4) Again Rangers confirmed they have the majority shareholding in the new JV with SportsDirect.
Point 5) It seems that you basically confirm that Leeds were transferred to a newco and yet still retained their history which has continued despite a complete change in legal entities. This is what has happened at Rangers – new company now operates the club.
Here is the Court of Session link: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html
First few paragraphs clearly differentiate between the Club and Company, as is required.
You are correct with Leeds having initially agreed a CVA but it was never completed. The League were satisfied that creditors had agreed and therefore allowed them back into their current league with only a 15 pt penalty for failing to exit admin via a CVA.
Crucially however this makes no difference to the view that the Company and the Club are the same. Leeds, regardless of initial acceptance, still transferred to a Newco and had to apply to enter the league. Their oldco no longer operates the club and is no longer a member of the league. If what you are saying is correct, the current Club would be a new one which started when the newco appied to enter the league. This is exactly what happened to Rangers. The only difference is that Leeds punishment was minimal due to League viewing that creditors were satisfied. Again though, this is irrelevent when it comes to pointing out that Club and Company are not one and the same entity.
If I understand you correctly your argument is centered on the basis that the SFA membership is in fact the club, and the holder of the licence is the company?
Do I understand you correctly?
The immediate question that would arise from that is when buying shares in the ‘club’ do you buy part of the SFA membership, or part of the ‘company’? Secondly, I would ask why Clydebank fans do not currently support Airdrie Utd. In your scenario Airdrie Utd are the current owners of the Clydebank ‘club’ licence. Therefore the club is Clydebank and the company is Airdrie Utd FC Ltd.
Would that also make Livingston Ferranti Thistle?!
Not even sure SFA membership is relevent to be perfectly honest. Say for example Rangers and Celtic moved and played in the English Premier League. BEcause their SFA membership ceased would that mean they were both new clubs? Of course not.
In the case of Airdrie, they bought over another club and renamed it. This of course does not mean they are the same club as before and I don’t think they claim to be.
Apologies, I’m not too familiar with Livingston scenario. I will have to look it up.
Thing is, people could argue all day about what is and what isn’t. The Rangers fans will desperately tell you that the club is the same as before and I can understand why – perhaps I would be in denial if it was my club because let’s face it – what has happened is catastrophic.
Inevitably, the argument turns to some other situation like Leeds or Fiorentina, as if their situations are similar to Rangers*, but of course they are not.
But words are cheap, actions speak louder than words, so let’s analyse a few actions.
1) Why are Rangers* not currently playing in the SPL?
A common mistake made by many is that Rangers* were voted out of the SPL. They were not.
Liquidation forced them out of the SPL. Charles Green’s Sevco applied to join the SPL but was refused entry. So ask yourself, what happened to this club that brought about such circumstances that they were applying to join?
2) Why are Rangers* not participating in Europe? I am sure the SFA would’ve loved to give Charles Green the go ahead to play in the Champions League, so why were Motherwell awarded the place?
Because no new club can play in Europe for a minimum of 3 years.
Now just think for a moment and ask yourself just how much money this could bring to the club – and Charles Green is a shrewd man, every penny counts and all that. So ask yourself why he is not demanding to be playing in the SPL and / or UEFA Champions League?
I think these facts speak louder, far louder than any amount of words could.
Charles Green knows the situation – he said so himself prior to the CVA being rejected! But newco wasn’t selling season tickets so out came the propaganda and the spin and well, you can see that people are just dying to fall for it because it is something they want to believe.
Just a quick glance through the SFA website, I found this:
8.0.1 Club Statutes
The club shall provide a copy of the current approved club statutes (memorandum and articles).
8.0.7
Employers Liability Insurance
The club shall ensure that it has Employers Liability Insurance
8.0.8
Public Liability Insurance
The club shall ensure that it has Public Liability Insurance
8.1.1
Annual Financial Statements
Each club shall be required to provide a copy of its audited annual financial statements prepared according to the Companies Act 1985 and relevant accounting standards
These are not related to the Rangers* situation but what is evident from all this?
The SFA issue regulations to clubs. Not companies. Clubs. It is the “club” that must provide Public Liability Insurance, it is the “club that must show accounts, it is the “club” that must provide Employers Liability Insurance, etc. etc.
The SFA recognise one entity and one entity alone. And Rangers* SFA membership was taken from them and given to Sevco (Scotland). And then they changed the name to The Rangers.
Murray International Holdings owned Rangers.
Wavetower owned Rangers.
Sevco didn’t own Rangers, they bought a stadium and a training ground at nothing more than a fire sale.
The creation of the myth that company and club are separate is nothing more than a scandal in itself in order to try and wipe away debt but keep the club running. I am sure if it was any other club in the world, our esteemed Bears would recognise this.
So, to draw to a conclusion, if the club that is currently playing in Division 3 REALLY IS the club that was born in 1872, why aren’t they playing in the SPL or the UEFA Champions League?
Actions speak louder than words.
Hi Andy,
Legally, there is a distinction between club and company….why? Because, if they were one and the same, one company, say Wigan Athletic, could take another company, say Man Utd, to court for anti-competitive practices by winning the league every year and buying all the best players. It would be a spurious lawsuit, just look at the damage being done to intellectual Property law by Apple and Samsung’s battles just now, but the Articles of Association in Football prevent this. Clubs are members of associations not companies, associations make their own rules, companies by legal definition must adhere to company law…..and if one of those rules say the clubs are not bound by the laws of the land then so be it…until a Bosman moment come along, of course.
But ‘clubs’ have to also operate in the world of business, so they need a legal presence, a ‘company’. Technically, a club doesn’t need to be a company, hundreds if not thousands, of clubs across Europe are not private or public limited companies…..dozens of them play in the qualifying rounds of the Scottish Football Association Cup each year….occasionally there’s an upset and they make it into the first round proper.
BUT by extension of your logic, Rangers Football Club is an asset that can be sold by a company to another company…..this is company law. So, what did my mates buy a share in all those years ago? What did I spend £30 on one Christmas to get a Rangers-supporting mate a share in? A lovely picture to put on his wall with his name printed on it? A part of a holding company? What will Green offer to the fans in a year’s time? A share in the club or a share in the company?
This is the critical part of the reasoning. Rangers the company ran up debts…..they used diverted social taxes to pay players who played in Association Football competitions….the punishment? A fine from the SFA? The company’s punishment? A demand from HMRC, insolvency and liquidation. But this is the crux of the matter….is Rangers a club or a company? Rangers the club NEED to be the same as Rangers the company or Rangers the club would have been kicked out years ago because third party payments from Rangers the company would have been made to Rangers the club players, breaching the articles of association and making the EBT payments seem paltry in comparison. Look at what happened to Southampton…..their parent company went into administration, legally a separate entity, but they were deducted 10 points as the FA said they were intrinsically linked. If two legally seperate companies are deemed to be the same for football’s purposes because of financial transactions, how can one single company be legally defined as two? Under your logic, it would have been possible for Whyte to have avoided this whole sorry mess by selling the club for a pound to another company, debt-free, and collapsed the original company under a morass of toxic debt. This is possible legally, but is called gratuitous alienation and the administrators/liquidators/creditors would reverse the transaction.
Read some of the stuff on Financial Fair Play to understand the reasoning why a club and company MUST be regarded as the same…..I’m not saying it’s riveting, but it’s important and if you’re that way inclined, look into the reasoning why EBT’s could NEVER be legal in the football world…..it’s just a pity that nobody listened to Hugh Adam a decade ago. A footballer isn’t allowed to receive any non-contractual payments for football activities EVER. Partly as a result of a UEFA/FIFA crackdown on betting scandals, footballers can be ‘audited’ by their registered association at FIFA or UEFA’s request, or that of another association, if there is any suspicion of ‘brown envelopes’…..have a look at what happened to Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink when he said in his autobiography that Abramovich came into the changing room and offered £50k a man to win a CL match….he was charged by UEFA and the FA, Chelsea strenuously denied it and when he retracted it, he was fined for bringing the game into disrepute.
Oh, and Stevensanph, I’m under the impression that the Airdrie Utd / Clydebank situation can never be repeated due to SFL rule changes but there were serious rumours that Whyte was trying to do the same to St Mirren……SPL doesn’t preclude it…..
Thanks for the reply.
Interesting point you raised about Whyte being able to sell the club to another company for £1 etc to another company. Of course this would have caused legal problems with regards to moving the assets out of the reach of creditors and the likes. Ignoring that however yes this would have been possible.
Why hasn’t it been done? Well the football authorities have rules in place to prevent or deter clubs from such things. Rangers, after forming a newco, then had to apply to enter the league and ended up in SFL3. Of course there is then the isse with players’ contracts. This is why it isnt an attractive move for clubs.
It is however perfectly possible and can allow the football club to continue under the operation of another company. Again I refer to the Leeds United situation. Club is operated by a new company but still recognised as the same club. .
Back from the school run….. 😉
The problem about ‘selling’ the club all goes back to the timings issue. For avoidance of doubt, I am firmly behind the ‘keep the history’ side…..the history belongs to the fans as they are the ‘keepers of the flame . Tthe problem with keeping the history is that you ‘keep’ other things too….like wrongdoing, rulebreaking and liability. But legally, howcan you accept liability without accepting debt? Can’t happen. Unless you’re an association and are making it up as you go along……
That is the justification behind the ‘transfer’ of the membership. That is why the SFA required Green take on the liability…..but legally, they’ve made a complete HASH of it and I’ll happily give my services for free when the court cases arrive over the EBT punishment. Let me give you no reason to doubt that the ONLY punishment available for the EBT issue is suspension or expulsion. The CLUB operated the scheme, the CLUB benefitted from the scheme, the CLUB won trophies in part from the financial advantage, the CLUB will be liable for it’s wrongdoing. Paying off the football debts in preferrence to other creditors is illegal….what is actually happening legally is Green is paying a fee to the SFA to get his membership. That money will then be disbursed to football creditors to keep UEFA and FIFA out of this mess. Otherwise, BDO will be knocking on the SFA’s doors to answer charges of aiding and abetting.
The idea that Green chose to forego the 2nd place SPL prize money…..poppycock, it goes to oldco as it’s due to creditors…..the idea that he gave up over £2 million…..it’s not HIS!!! Timings!!!! Critically, Rangers the company needed to stay in administration. The membership would have passed BACK to the SFA and the SFA would have used their extraordinary powers to ‘transfer’ the membership to Sevco Scotland. As it was oldco was and is still in administration, so legally they had to release the share to SFA as there was no statement from the SFA saying that Rangers were expelled. If you expel someone, you cancel their membership…..you create a vacancy for a NEW membership. That’s why we had the shenanighans over the summer. The transfer was critical legally but it’s now too messy to work out where it will end up.
If the membership had simply been transferred to Green and newco, the options were new club, new history……full investigation into the oldco’s ‘issues’ withno taint on newco. Now we have a situation where a newco, desperately trying to get itself back on it’s feet, has effectively the threat of a death sentence hanging over it because make no mistake, what has went on at Rangers could EASILY justify the revokation of membership.
So tell me this…..does ANYONE think it fair that the sins of the father should be visited on the son? So where, legally, is there any justification for revoking or suspending the membership of Rangers Football Club Ltd. as a result of the actions of Rangers Football Club Plc.? Explain to me the difference between Airdrie Utd and Rangers? Ballantyne bought the stadium, fixtures and fittings…..why wasn’t he allowed to transfer his membership to Airdrie Utd? Why isn’t the club called Airdrieonians Ltd instead of Airdrieonians Plc. ? Because, we were told, it’s illegal…..
Oh, and timings play a part in Leeds…..Leeds Utd were put into voluntary liquidation by Bates once the transfer of the club had been ratified, probably to stop any further hassle……as I said before, I believe it is possible to transfer a club to a new company but it can only be done ‘clean’ with the approval of all the relevant bodies. Ask yourself this question…..did UEFA make a statement that Leeds Utd are banned from applying for a Euro licence for 3 years? No? Maybe because they weren’t a newco and met the criteria? That’s what I hated about the whole charade around sevco newco Rangers. They are, in the laws and eyes of the sport, a new club…..but have eschewed the opportunity to make a fresh start and eventually RECLAIM their heritage to chase a toxic legacy.
Let’s renew the conversation when the EBT investigation concludes….and the next investigation begins. Trust me, there’s more to come…..and no, I’m not trolling.
Andy, you mention Leeds so often, I am wondering if you have lost track of the situation.
Actions speak louder than words. We could all go and find websites to prove this or prove that. Charles Green could stand in the centre circle at Ibrox and tell you what you want to hear. But his actions speak a lot louder. Why?
Well first, ask yourself why you are not in the SPL?
There is a misconception that the club was voted out. Wrong.
The vote that took place was to allow a “new club to join”. It was liquidation that kicked you out. The vote was to allow a new club to join.
Next ask yourself why you are not in the UEFA Champions League?
It’s because the club does not have 3 years accounts and until it does, it is not eligible for a European licence.
This has nothing to do with any company having accounts, this is about the club. For example the previous owners of Rangers FC* were Wavetower. They were incorporated in 2010 therefore they didn’t have 3 years accounts when they took over Rangers but the club was still eligible for Europe wasn’t it? This is because UEFA look at the club and the club alone, not a company that owns the club.
Wavetower actually bought & owned Rangers Football Club PLC*
Sevco bought the assets after a CVA was rejected meaning they did not own Rangers Football Club PLC*, they owned a stadium and a training ground. But not the club; as it still stands the club is still in administration and is still being presided over by Duff & Phelps.
Two entirely different scenarios and absolutely nothing to do with Leeds.
I do not know what goes on inside Charles Green’s mind, but I would put my mortgage on the fact that if he knew he was entitled to cash from somewhere, he would be after it. I am sure we agree on that.
And if his club was in the SPL and the UEFA Champions League, that would raise a few million quid would it not?
Therefore the question has to be asked – if this club is the same as it was before, why is he not taking the SPL and / or UEFA to court to demand his rightful place in these competitions?
Answer: He knows the truth, UEFA know the truth, the SPL know the truth. Maybe even you do but won’t admit it.
The bottom line is this – you can draw comparisons with Leeds all day, but any argument you put up cannot discount for the fact that your club is not in the SPL or the UEFA Champions League simply because The Rangers, formerly Sevco (Scotland) are a new club that was formed in 2012 and applied to “join” the SPL but was refused entry. They didn’t even bother applying to get a European licence – Michel Platini isn’t as easy to convince as Stewert Regan or Neil Doncaster.
We are not in the SPL because, following liquidation, the new company had to apply for entry as it is the company which owns the member share in the league. This was rejected by the SPL members.
As for Europe, Uefa rules state we must have 3 years accounts, which obviously The Rangers Football Club Ltd does not have. The SFA however allowed previous accounts to be used as part of our membership transfer and so there may be an argument that this would be allowable by Uefa.
For the record Rangers did apply for a European licence before the deadline last season but were denied by the SFA, who are required to approve, because we were still in administration.
With regards to your Wavetower argument, yes it is the company which operates the club who must have 3 years accounts. Wavetower, which was renamed, owned shares in the company which operated the club.
No, that is where yo are wrong: The club applied for entry into the SPL – not a company.
Companies don’t apply for licences in football, only clubs do. The applicant is seen as the club, not as a business entity acting on behalf of a club.
The SFA website states:
Section 3 – The Club and the Licence Award
3.1 Definition of the Club
The club is a full member and/or an associate member of the Association and the expression “membership” shall be construed accordingly.
Now regarding your argument about a company “owning” a member share in the league; if that was the case, why didn’t Charles Green buy it from Duff & Phelps at the same time he bought the stadium? Surely if he owned the share then your club would be in the SPL.
My Wavetower argument actually says the opposite of what you suggest.
No, it is not the company that must have 3 years accounts, it is the club. That is the point I was making: When Wavetower took over Rangers, Wavetower did not have 3 years accounts but Rangers were still eligible to play in Europe. Why? Because UEFA look at the club, not a company that owns a club.
Fast forward to today, if the club is still the same why is it not competing in Europe?
Andy,
Just a quick one,honest, but Rangers are still in administration,not liquidation. Remember the 5 way agreement…….SFA, SPL, SFL, Sevco and Rangers……it’s legal confirmation that Rangers and Sevco are legally distinct entities. The talks became so messy that a temporary membership had to be issued to Sevco on Friday so they could play on Saturday. RFC(IA) didn’t relinquish the membership til the following week. This means that, in the eyes of the association football world, RFC(IA) and Rangers were both members of the SFA seperately at the same time…..this is the timing that I was talking about.
Any attempt at continuity of Rangers as a club, handing over the torch, so to speak, to Green is legally negated as the SFA have, by issuing a temporary licence to Green whilst Rangers were still in administration and in possession of their licence, acknowledged they are different entities not only as companis but also as clubs…..one club doesn’t require two licences, does it? Timings…..if the fans hadn’t revolted, this would all have been sorted and Green would have accepted the liabilities in exchange for a fast track to the SPL. However, the risk/reward matrix shifts markedly to the worse given the entry into SFL3. I wonder what other guarantees Green was or has now been given…..
There is no argument as to whether or not the legal entities of the oldco and newco are independent of one another, they clearly are different. Thus one would expect, in a legal sense, that the “history” would remain with the oldco, although the physical trappings of that history, the trophies, medals, flags, pennants etc., have already been acquired by the newco.
The “history” of the oldco, as previously pointed out, is and always will be just that and cannot be altered. Technically, it’s not really the “history” that is at issue here, it is the claim by the newco to the “honours” won by the oldco that gets people so exercised.
The way I view it is that the “honours” do not exist in any physical sense and are only a recognition by the footballing authorities as to which team won their competitions in any particular year. Hence it remains within the power of those organaisations to award, withdraw or reassign that recognition as they see fit.
The question that needs to be answered is whether those footballing authorities view the newco as a continuation of the oldco’s football franchise. I use the word franchise deliberately, as that is the essence of how the newco has been allowed to apply for membership of the SFA, the SPL, then the SFL, without satisfying the rules and conditions placed on a prospective new member.
The bottom line is that it is the SFA, SPL and SFL who will determine whether or not to differentiate between the honours won by the oldco and any future honours won by the newco. The SFL website seems to suggest that the “franchise” has continued unbroken, so I suspect (regrettably) that the SFA and SPL will follow suit.
Lovethe use of ‘franchise’, EasyJambo…..something I avoid due to it’s Americanised connotation but a perfect example to use. My question would be ‘Why was the Airdrieonians franchise killed off and not given the opportunity to transfer but Rangers franchise was?’
I still have difficulty in the actual legal differences between oldco and newco. Probably because I am not particularly legal-savvy, but principally because of evidence. I am an oldco shareholder and as such was invited to meetings pertaining to the newco. How does that work if they are unconnected? Secondly, the farce of newco having to accept unlawful sanctions on behalf of the oldco, yet the newco cannot receive monies due to the oldco from scottish football authorities. Similarly, why does the money due to dundee utd which was apparently held back but never paid to utd
that is interesting! Has Green offered any information towards you guys on who owns the Newco? Has he indicated whether you still own shares in the ‘club’ or whether the shares are now worthless?
I agree with you completely re: the legal differences the SFA have created. It should of been either one or other. Your either the same or you aren’t. If you are its full sanctions debts etc. If your not there shouldn’t be any, at all, period.
The SFA have messed up royally and I fear it will come back to bite them in the near future.
Sorry! Hit the post comment button early. How can the monies due to oldco be legally withheld from newco, but oldco debts be due from newco? Bullying the newco into accepting unlawful sanctions does not reflect well on scottish football. It would have been pointless for newco to go back to court to prove them unlawful yet again. The newco and oldco are either connected or they are not. The current debacle cannot continue
Any debts that the newco owe came about as a result of a condition imposed by the SFA.
Sevco were not entitled to get SFA membership. They did not have 3 years accounts. Technically, the new Rangers should’ve been playing junior football for 3 years until they met the criteria.
The SFA not only wanted The Rangers in the league right away, but they wanted them in the top flight. That is evident with all the bullying that went on. Had it not been for the fans, then I am sure The Rangers would’ve been playing football in the SPL right now.
However under the SFA rules (no laughing now) Sevco (as they were known at that time) were not eligible for membership and if they were given one ahead of other clubs like Spartans, the SFA could have a legal challenge on its hands.
So, a compromise was drawn up. The Rangers FC* share was transferred to Sevco (Scotland) but in return for that, Charles Green had to agree to paying off football debts incurred by the previous club.
This was not legally binding in terms of an instruction from the court; this was merely an agreement between Charles Green & the SFA in order allow the new Rangers to play in the SFL, otherwise they would’ve had to wait 3 years.
The suggestion that The Rangers were bullied into sanctions is laughable – because if the rules were applied properly, then the club would be playing junior football right now.
Came across this blog, has quotes and links to why Rangers ceased to be in 2012 from amongst other Charles Greene, Richard Gough, Companies House, Duff and Phelps, maybe anyone denying this could direct me to a blog website which contradicts this assumption?
http://liqudated2012.blogspot.co.uk/
Steven,
Will attempt to reply to your blog without too much text (I will probably fail), don’t want to post another blog length comment!
1)I understand tupe conditions, however in your original blog/comments you stated that money (800k) from davis sale would go to the oldco. This is not the case and per the evidence in the public domain the money went to the SFA as at that point rangers did not have a SFA licence.
You say that the money was lodged with english FA as a deposit in case they lost the case, where is your evidence for this?
2)With regards to the other players they have temp licences till fifa/sfa rule on outcome. We will have to wait to see the what the final result is however the media, and indeed yourself, seem to assume that rangers will lose this case and be due no money. There are conditions within tupe that the media will not no if they have been adhered to (ie. timing of notification of rejecting transfer etc) and I believe it is not as straight forward as it is made out (per southampton paying reported 800k for davis).Without wanting to go off on a tangent too much, it is much like the FTT that the media have always reported as though we will lose. There have been 3 separate sittings where evidence has been presented and we have now been waiting 7 months for a verdict. If it was as clear cut as the media makes out why so long? I therefore don’t accept that with fifa it is just a case of crossing the t’s as you suggest(for note I am also not saying rangers will win the FTT)
3)Again trying not to just repeat myself but it doesn’t make sense how rangers would lose £1.5million on catering. If they outsourced it alone they would generate a profit? Also if the loss was due to some contract/mortgage from last regime(like ticketus), this would now be void so I would 100% expect rangers to generate a profit from catering
4)Apologies didn’t read all the comments on last blog. Accept likely to be over stated.
5)But the newco aren’t pretending to be the oldco, only that they’ve bought the assets (including history and SFA membership). Please refer to D & P document this states all assets (both tangible and intangible sold to newco – point 12).
Also I have never seen that charles green was a director of oldco and only evidence contrary to this (Again see D & P document that show directors of oldco)
Quote:
“the directors Andrew Ellis, Craig Whyte and David King”
It also lists a timeline of previous directors when they left in document page 23
Can you please provide your evidence?
6)I feel your response contradicts most of your original blog where you now speculate/guess without any real foundation such as “they have not said they are not involved in newco”
There are links as you said to zeus capital etc. However if they are an investor I have no problem with this. Just because they are an investor (means they must have invested capital into the consortium?) this does not entitle them to any money from rangers any more than any other investor. Ticketus were a creditor to the oldco and will be paid a pence in the pound from them. Any investment in newco is completely separate.
I will not comment on John Brown too much who was in my opinion an embarrassment and attempted to divide the support for his own gain. He asked who the investors were in greens consortium yet refused to name his own investors (who the media reported two of them were celtic supporters).
I accept green has not named all the investors, mainly blue pitch holdings and I don’t know the reason for this. A reason could be (it may sound weak to sceptics – I am only saying a possibility not the reason) is them not wanting to be in the public domain. They’re other interests/companies could be boycotted by other fans, the reason shirt sponsors typically sponsor both rangers and celtic so not to be boycotted from the other.
7, 8, 9)Time will tell and not going to discuss further
10)Where/what would be the claim for lost revenue of 9million? Surely if the sports direct deal was not worth more than 3million per year rangers would just stick with JJB?
-with regards to JV I have not seen any evidence that Rangers Retail is 100% owned by sports direct, only that it is owned by sportsdirect.com retail ltd, which is a new company (not sportsdirect.com) who the owners are not to date known?(could be both rangers and sportsdirect who own shares) This information could however be out of date/incorrect so am happy to be corrected
I accept that celtic are a bigger brand in Asia, however how much more money does that generate? As you yourself state with pirated shirts will make up a large amount. I have tried to get research information into merchandise sales for rangers vs celtic etc however am unable to find any. I still can’t understand how you can estimate celtics at 8million and rangers at 800k. Do celtic sell 10times the amount as rangers?
11)The point I was making about celtics companies, which is a completely different debate/blog was that the company name is “the celtic football and athletic club ltd”. No-one, (correctly) refers to celtic as “the celtic” yet now people refer to rangers as “the rangers” based on the company name.
Please reread my comment again about the difference between the club and company name. Please show me evidence that there is a club called “the rangers FC” compared to the old club called “rangers FC”. this is just made up propoganda! Where did “the rangers FC” come from?
12)The club and the company are separate with evidence from Andys comment. I really can’t be bothered researching again to provide evidence, if people want to look they will find the evidence easily enough.
Please refer to the D & P report that shows exactly what assets were purchased and amounts
page 25
ie. Player Contracts & Registrations £2,749,990
and the intangible assets such as goodwill.
The club was sold as a going concern (please look up) as can be seen in evidence page 9 section 4.2.
The history is intact despite people who state otherwise but provide no evidence. The SFL website also show all rangers (the team now in the 3rd division) history.
Click to access rangers-fc-plc-interim-report-by-duff-phelps-10-july.pdf
http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers/
Why is green leading us down a bad path? We maintain our history (per evidence), and continue from the 3rd Division in scotland per the sanctions applied by SFA for our transfer of SFA membership. What is wrong with that?
As for rangers 2010 accounts I have a paper copy in the house however you should be able to access them from:
http://www.rangerspedia.org/index.php/Rangers_Accounts
Gary – will answer again tomorrow as getting late here and your making far too much sense! Sure others will be along shortly to give some replies though. Apologies to those whose posts are going into moderation – there is a number of IP addresses blocked after various comments before from FF/RM and I believe you may be on the same IP addresses!
Gary I think you’ll find that what is wrong with rangers newco maintaining the history of the oldco is that it is morally contemptible. Simply ditching £100m plus of debt, much of which is much needed tax and NI, in a liquidation event and then saying you are the same club is morally destitute and angers ordinary people. It reeks of arrogance and a huge sense of entitlement. This is what drives fans to dislike the newco, not bigotry as claimed by Green. A team of kids and 2nd division players pushing its way up the divisions would have gained the (grudging) respect of fans in Scotland even Celtic fans. But no Green has chosen a different path and if The Rangers end up back in administration then hell mend them. Lessons have not been learned it seems.
This separate Rangers Football ‘Club’, separate, that is, from Rangers Football Club plc, where is it? Is it a club in the true sense, with members, a committee, articles of association, meetings, minutes of those meetings? I’m sure it had all these things, and more, right up to the point it became a limited company, but have they continued, year on year? Is it something that The Rangers FC plc own, and as such, does it appear as an asset on the annual (well occassional) balance sheets? For something to exist there has to be some evidence of it, or is it something that exists in the hearts and minds of all Rangers fans? If it is something that exists in their hearts and minds, then I hope that it is real and will be recognised as such, for in my heart and mind, I played for Scotland in the 1974 World Cup Finals, and I’ll write to the SFA to ask if they have my cap that I have never been able to find!
My apologies if this post seems a bit flippant, but my main point is that if this separate entity exists, there will be evidence of such, easily produced, and not just the belief that it must be, because somehow a club is different from a company!
Have a look at the SFA website. Here are some rules & regulations:
8.0.1 Club Statutes
The club shall provide a copy of the current approved club statutes (memorandum and articles).
8.0.7
Employers Liability Insurance
The club shall ensure that it has Employers Liability Insurance
8.0.8
Public Liability Insurance
The club shall ensure that it has Public Liability Insurance
8.1.1
Annual Financial Statements
Each club shall be required to provide a copy of its audited annual financial statements prepared according to the Companies Act 1985 and relevant accounting standards.
None of this has anything to do with the Rangers situation but what stands out in all of this?
It is the club that has to abide by all the rules, it is the club that has to provide Employers Liability Insurance, it is the club that has to provide Public Liability Insurance, it is the club that has to provide accounts.
A definition of the club is the entity that is responsible for the registration of players, payment of players, providing accounts etc.
We can’t just create the myth that the club is exempt from all responsibilities (and debts) and that a company was responsible.
If Rangers Football Club PLC was responsible for complying with SFA rules in relation to submitting accounts and insurance etc. then it is that same entity that owed money to HMRC, Ticketus and a whole lot of other creditors.
Meaning it is that entity that is heading for liquidation.
Note that the SFA membership was transferred FROM Rangers FC* TO Sevco (Scotland)
They then changed name.
The Rangers were born in 2012.
That was the kind of evidence I suggested those who wish us to believe that there is a difference between club and company produce. Unfortunately for them, it proves the exact opposite. Well done, Stephen.
One last comment about the ‘transfer’…..given Rangers are still in administration until BDO take over, given that any transactions can be reversed if it is deemed that it is in the best interests, can I turn up tomorrow and offer to pay off all of Rangers debts and keep them alive? If the answer is yes then what happens to newco if oldco is still alive? Can they buy back their history from Green?
I’m being a bit oblique but the issue here is that if we accept the buying and selling clubs as distinct to companies, we accept the American model of franchises is legal in football and FIFA / UEFA have explicit blocked this….otherwise, what’s to stop Paris St German buying a place in the EPL, Inter moving to Spain and so on. Company law allows me to take a UK registered company and move it to Spain…..fitba law stops me doing the same with Celtic. 😉
“otherwise, what’s to stop Paris St German buying a place in the EPL”
A good point but you have just given a perfect example of why the club is different to the company. If the owners of Paris St Germain (whatever they are called, “The Paris St Germain Football Club Ltd” for example) decided to pay a gazillion pounds to buy, say, Man Utd, they would take control. However, the football club that is registered to play in the EPL would still be…Man Utd. “Yer Maw plc” could buy them and they would still be the same club. A candid example, but I fear it is the only way to get a very simple point across. The only other way I could back this up is to draw your attention to the SFL website that clearly states there is a “Rangers FC” with 54 titles playing in the 3rd division.
“If the owners of Paris St Germain (whatever they are called, “The Paris St Germain Football Club Ltd” for example) decided to pay a gazillion pounds to buy, say, Man Utd, they would take control. However, the football club that is registered to play in the EPL would still be…Man Utd”
Correct.
However this scenario would only apply if any owner, for example when the Glazers bought Manchester Utd in the same way Wavetower bought Rangers.
Here we have a clear example of a company owning a club.
In these scenarios, Manchester UTD and Rangers FC* are clubs that are members of their respective organisations and that hasn’t changed.
The licence to play in Scotland and England would’ve been issued to Rangers* & Manchester Utd respectively, the licence wouldn’t be issued to Wavetower or the Glazers would it?
But that isn’t the case with Charles Green & The Rangers. The SFA membership was given to Sevco (Scotland) who then changed its name to The Rangers. And remember, the membership was taken FROM Rangers FC* and transferred TO Sevco (Scotland)
Sevco did not buy Rangers. He bought a stadium & a training ground after a CVA failed. If he bought the club before it went into administration, he would’ve been liable for the debt. But he waited until after the result of the CVA before making his move.
Murray International Holdings owned Rangers. They sold the club to Wavetower.
Wavetower owned Rangers but the club went into liquidation and then went bust.
Duff & Phelps as administrators sold the assets to the first buyer.
If a CVA was accepted, then Rangers FC* would still be intact, history unbroken and playing in the SPL.
But since the CVA was rejected, Rangers FC* timeline in Scottish Football came to an end and proof of that can be found in the fact they are not playing in the SPL.
Companies can and do own football clubs. The Glazers own Manchester UTD and MIH & Wavetower owned Rangers. That is a clear case of separate entities.
However when the “club itself” racks up millions of pounds of debt then heads towards liquidation, you can’t just pretend the debt belonged to someone else.
The Rangers FC are not eligible to play in Europe for 3 years because they are a new club and don’t have 3 years accounts.
The creation of the lie that somehow Rangers “the company” was responsible but Rangers “the club” is not is on a part with propaganda you would expect to find in North Korea. Charles Green said himself several times prior to the CVA being rejected that a newco would be a new start, history gone. Of course he’s changed his tune now and we can see who is all falling for it.
As I have mentioned many times, if the club really was the same, it would be participating in the SPL and European competition. Why is Charles Green not banging down the door demanding to play – it would be worth millions to the club wouldn’t it?
The proof is there for those who want to see it but there are none so blind as those who wont see.
“One last comment about the ‘transfer’…..given Rangers are still in administration until BDO take over, given that any transactions can be reversed if it is deemed that it is in the best interests, can I turn up tomorrow and offer to pay off all of Rangers debts and keep them alive? If the answer is yes then what happens to newco if oldco is still alive? Can they buy back their history from Green?”
The opportunity to pay off Rangers’ debts has come and gone I think. But you never know, you could keep the club alive I suppose.
But what do you mean can you buy back the history from Charles Green?
For a start, he doesn’t have the history – how on God’s earth can he lay claim to history of a completely different entity?
Did Charles Green’s Sevco win the ECWC in 1972?
Did Charles Green’s Sevco win 9 in a row?
Of course not!
That history stays with Rangers FC and it will die with Rangers FC when it is liquidated unless you turn up tomorrow and pay off all the debts.
You can’t buy history. You can’t buy the past – whatever entity creates the history, it belongs to them.
Sevco was formed in 2012 and changed its name to The Rangers in the same year.
So if Rangers’ investors realise their investment through a floatation and sell the Club to fans, who will run the Club and does that mean that Rangers will, finally, have to live within their means?
Again I come here as a thicko bluenose with my four “o” grades from a scottish state education system. So stephen, the notion that newco rangers were bullied into accepting unlawful sanctions is laughable, is it? Why else would the newco agree to these sanctions unless they had no other options? Clearly it wasnt a compromise, it was a case of newco being compelled to accept the oldco sanctions. The sanctions were declared unlawful in a scottish court. A compromise would have constituted the sanctions being amended to make them lawful and the newco accepting them. Now, all the legal debate regarding the hair-splitting of club versus company has largely zoomed right over my head, and I have no idea who is right and who isnt. What I asked hours ago was, if there is no connection between oldco and newco, then why does a minority shareholder like me get an invite to formally change the name from sevco to rangers? I also stand to be corrected, but isnt the £100m debt still only a presumed debt? I believe that the ebt case has still to be heard in court. What happens to oldco if hmrc lose the case? Interestingly, neither the premiership nor the english football league appear to be getting in such a froth about ebt’s as their scottish counterparts. By all accounts it would be carnage in english football if ebt’s are declared illegal. As an aside on the history aspect, any attempt to strip rangers of titles would merely smack of pettiness. Way back at the start of the demise, an anonymous smart-arse from the sfa made the attention-seeking comment that “rangers could only have made it worse if they had fixed matches” It was never suggested that they had attempted such. However, history shows Olympique Marseilles did indeed fix matches when they won the champions league in 1992/93 season. Their president, bernard tapie ended up in jail for it. Marseilles are still listed on uefas website as winners in 92/93. Therefore if it is considered a lesser crime that rangers committed then there is no justification for stripping the club of victories. Where would it end? Would someone scratch the name off the trophies? Who would be declared the winners? The runners-up? St Johnstone could then have a league cup win. Would they have a belated open-top bus tour round Perth? It is absurd to suggest that Rangers could not have paid for the players they signed without ebt’s. They signed big name players before ebt’s were an option. Ultimately it was the undoing of the club obviously, but to suggest they wouldnt have been there is nonsense.
Grant, why did your Club go bust? Let me help you answer that; because it owed more than it could ever pay back, because it had spent more than it brought in for years. What did it spend this money on? Players, players it ultimately couldn’t afford. EBTs were like steroids, they were used to allow Rangers to buy and pay players no-one else could afford, to artificially improve the calibre of player, in order to defeat the opposition and to chase glory.
The problem Rangers fans have is the EBT case that’s been heard is actually less of a problem than the dual payments or undeclared payments to players. That is against the rules in Scotland and always has been. Whether the scheme was legal or illegal as far as HMRC are concerned is irrelevant now, Rangers were guilty of not telling the SFA about these payments and that’s despite having the game’s finest administrator at the helm. Sadly for you the consequence of this will be the loss of these results.
Personally I don’t think they should be awarded to anyone, the record books should say removed or not awarded as a reminder to everyone that the rules are there for everyone and are applied without fear or favour. You may not be aware that a few years ago Spartans failed to sign the second copy of a registration document. They were thrown out of the Scottish Cup as a result. For not signing the second copy. Your own Gordon Smith the Chief Exec of the SFA then said that the integrity of the competition was the most important thing and that the rules had to be applied.
Finally you weren’t bullied into accepting sanctions, you were allowed to leap frog other candidates to get your new Club into the SFL. Previously Rangers administrators had taken the SFA to Court something that’s not allowed by FIFA, as it against their rules, rules Rangers had signed up to, like every other team.
There’s a pattern here Grant. One team in Scotland doesn’t think that rules apply to them, tax rules, registration rules, FIFA rules.
“Why else would the newco agree to these sanctions unless they had no other options?”
To be honest I don’t think newco should have got sanctions. New club, so why pay debts for a different club? However this newco should not have been given a SFA membership at all because they did not have 3 years accounts. So, take your pick – entry into the SFL with sanctions or 3 years out altogether, probably playing junior football.
What would you choose?
“The sanctions were declared unlawful in a scottish court”
So why did Charles Green accept them? If you remember correctly, these sanctions were another compromise from the SFA because the punishment could have been expulsion from the league. A compromise offer was put on the table and your club went to court to fight it.
Would you rather have been expelled?
“What I asked hours ago was, if there is no connection between oldco and newco, then why does a minority shareholder like me get an invite to formally change the name from sevco to rangers?”
To be honest with you, I have no idea. But you might want to look at this:
I would’ve thought that a Rangers FC* shareholder would have been asked to vote on the name change from Rangers Football Club PLC to RFC 2012 PLC (which also happened on the same day) in order to allow Sevco to become The Rangers. Why Charles Green asked you to vote on a name change for Sevco is beyond me. Are you a Sevco shareholder?
“I also stand to be corrected, but isnt the £100m debt still only a presumed debt?”
I think the £95m debt to HMRC is a presumed debt, but let me ask you, if it is a presumed debt, why did Duff & Phelps include it all in a CVA? You need to ask them why.
“Interestingly, neither the premiership nor the english football league appear to be getting in such a froth about ebt’s as their scottish counterparts”
As has been mentioned many times, EBTs are not illegal but it would appear the way Rangers used them was illegal. EBTs are in effect “loans” but no person who received an EBT at Rangers was ever asked to pay this loan back. Plus when you include an EBT scheme as part of a contractual salary, that is when the problem starts. I think these things are meant to be one-off deals, not part of your salary.
“As an aside on the history aspect, any attempt to strip rangers of titles would merely smack of pettiness.”
Pettiness? You really believe that? Let’s examine this then.
First of all, no-one is out to “strip titles”. That is a phrase that has been used in the media.
However if a player at any club goes on to the park whilst not registered properly, then the rule states that the result of that game should be awarded 3-0 to the opposing team.
Every club has to declare all players “entire” salary to the SFA. If for example David Murray declared that Lorenzo Amoruso was earning £5,000 a week but he was actually paying him £10,000 a week, then that players registration becomes null & void. He shouldn’t be on the park and if he goes on the park, the game gets awarded to the opposing team 3-0 as mentioned before.
Now take every player that wasn’t registered properly over a 10 year period and how many games would get overturned?
So stripping of titles is not quite accurate – the correct term would be to award the opposing team the 3 points but in doing so that would mean that all points won by Rangers would be massively reduced therefore any title won would automatically be lost as a consequence of this.
I don’t know enough about Bernard Tapie or Marseilles to comment on that, nor do I care what it says on the UEFA website. All I do know is that comparing wrongdoing with other scenarios doesn’t make Rangers situation right.
If David Murray / Rangers FC did not declare full salaries of all players to the SFA over 10 years, then quite frankly you don’t seem to understand the sheer scale of this scandal.
As for Bernard Tapie ending up in jail, well who knows what will happen next. I read a tweet the other day which said:
“A member of Strathclyde’s finest has proferred that 9 former RFC* Chairmen/Directors & 5 former managers will shortly be assisting enquiries”
Let’s wait and see what happens.
“I think the £95m debt to HMRC is a presumed debt, but let me ask you, if it is a presumed debt, why did Duff & Phelps include it all in a CVA? You need to ask them why.”
HMRC have a claim to that money, therefore it was included in the CVA but with a footnote to explain that it is not yet confirmed.
It is quite frankly laughable that the Scottish football community assumes Rangers are responsible for £100m+ debt when a court case is still to be completed. If it was as cut and dry as people say, this would have been over months ago.
If that is the case, if you think Duff & Phelps believed that they could win this case, why did they send the club heading towards liquidation?
They could’ve remained in administration or even came out of it if they cut costs back and then make a decision once the tax case was resolved.
You need to ask questions of Duff & Phelps and what their reasoning was.
Imagine the tax case came out in favour of Rangers FC* – does that mean they liquidated for nothing? Surely if the overall debt owed was greatly reduced, that means the CVA would’ve had greater chances of being approved?
However, if that happened – the club would not have been liquidated. But the downside of that meant that if Charles Green bought the club, he was also buying any potential debts and he didn’t want that.
No way was Charles Green taking on this debt. He was either buying Rangers FC with a CVA being accepted (that included all the potential debt) or he was buying a stadium and a training ground in order to start a new club.
The latter is what happened.
Very impressed with the standard of debate on this site. I urge all fans of the team that plays at Ibrox ( I chose those words carefully ) to continue with this discussion.
Gary, Andymckellar etc, we need a continued dialogue otherwise positions become further polarized.
I personally think we should move on from the alive / dead discussion. It is a subject that is intractable
To paraphrase Bill Hicks
““Today a young man in Scotland realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.”
Now ‘ title stripping ‘ , now there is something to talk about
Open question to all ‘ RFC ‘ fans…….do you think SFA rules should be followed or not
A simple yes or no answer will suffice
Rangers in the broadest sense, its new owners, its manager and assorted spokesmen eg Sandy Jardine have, in associatIon with the SMSM, created a scenario whereby any attempt to apply any rules is seen as ‘punishment’; they were ‘thrown out of the SPL’, ‘relegated to the 3rd Division’, ‘banned from Europe’ etc. They will hear no talk of medals or titles being withdrawn if they’ve breached rules associated with payments not being declared to the SFA either.
From this one can only deduce that they simply expected to be fined 10 points for going into admin, before continuing in the SPL debt free, their license and membership transferred to Green and his consortium. As I say, rules are not for Rangers, or The Rangers, they’re for everyone else.
I am at work currently and have little time. Bullied into unlawful sanctions? I give u an analogy. Wee boy moves into a village. He goes out to play and sees a game of football being played. He goes up and says, “my distant cousin used to live here can I play?” The boys playing the game say “we dont know who you are or where u came from, but since your cousin used to stay here you can play as long as everyone gets to give you a chinese burn!” The assertion that there is no intention of removing titles is a nonsense. Why else would there be such an investigation? If the oldco is found guilty, do they intend placing more unlawful sanctions on newco, or fining the oldco or chasing david murray? Retrospectivelyy making every match a hypothetical 3-0 loss ghen makes hypothetical retrospective relegation too. There is as much point investigating third lanark, unless of course you have an ulterior motive. Need to go now but will be back to discuss sfa rules and breaking them. See ya shortly
“Retrospectivelyy making every match a hypothetical 3-0 loss ghen makes hypothetical retrospective relegation too. There is as much point investigating third lanark, unless of course you have an ulterior motive”
Lance Armstrong will be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles
Ben Johnson had his gold medal stripped from him.
If Rangers FC* were guilty of cheating on a grand scale then they should be punished accordingly.
If they did nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about.
But forget agendas and ulterior motives mate – cheating should be punished.
Specials: there were no “rules” in place for such a scenario. The only “rules” were the 10 point penalty for going into admin. The reason a vote had to be called was because the SPL hadn’t thought ahead to what might happen if someone moved towards liquidation.
10 points, a fine, voted out of the SPL, with-held prize money, a transfer embargo – these are all punishments and more punishments than have been handed to any team, in any league, for any offence. The transfer embargo is a great example, a punishment that the SPL made up on the spot to specifically target Rangers, proven in a court of law to be outwith their range of sanctions.
So please spare us the “you haven’t been punished” argument.
“10 points, a fine, voted out of the SPL, with-held prize money, a transfer embargo – these are all punishments”
A very important point you need to take into consideration.
Your club was never voted OUT of the SPL. Liquidation forced you out of the SPL.
The vote that was taken was to allow a new club to begin life INTO the SPL ahead of other candidates.
The vote was to allow The Rangers (formed in 2012) into the league.
The vote wasn’t to force Rangers (formed in 1872) out of the league.
Lance armstrong and ben johnson chose to cheat. I would be surprised if any rangers player from the relevent period was so financially astute to consider that a tax loophole, which to this day has not been declared illegal, was something which may haunt them in later years. It was a club issue. Nobody has said where they consider the line be drawn in retrospective sanctions. As I said u can presume retrospective relegation, do you then trawl the planet for ex-rangers players to demand they hand back medals? If every match was a hypothetical 3-0 loss then rangers would not have qualified for europe, do u then want to lobby uefa to have champions lge and europa league results deleted from history? I have come to terms with the fact that old rangers are deceased. It serves no purpose to pick over the bones of the corpse. If, when ian brady dies, and there turns out to be a letter identifying where keith bennets body lies, would you demand that brady’s body be placed in a dock and tried as an example to potential murderers? For god sake, how much hate can people have for a football club that, even when it no longer exists, they want to dance on its grave. Regarding rules applying to all – they must! If it was considered that old gers breached the rules, then a proper investigation should take place. It cannot be a kangaroo court where anonymous bams can make it up as they go along. They are bound by the rules too. I would like a link to the sfa article that says “the association reserves the right to do as it pleases, with impunity, and under a cloak of anonimity and to make rules up as it sees fit” That cannot happen in a civilised society. If a police officer acted above the law then the public would demand to know who he was and have them removed (unless he pushed a newspaper vendor obviously). The sfa transgressed their own rules and have no moral high ground over any club now. Is everyone comfortable with the way the situation has been handled? Is everyone comfortable that, unless the situation has changed, celtics lawyers are investigating rangers? Were it, oooohh just to pluck a random name, donald findlay qc being asked to investigate celtic, would that be fair? Whether green’s choice of the word bigotry was wise is a matter for conjecture, but there can be no doubt certain individuals and associations were /are working to their own agendas regarding old and newco gers. Shame on anyone who colludes with them.
You’re right no one knew what the rules were for moving towards liquidation, well not in the case of Rangers anyway. You may recall Gretna went bust. They reformed and now play in England, I think.
Seeing as you owed other football clubs money it wasn’t so much withholding prize money rather a case of making sure that money didn’t disappear into the black hole of Rangers balance sheet. If youd got it where would it have gone exactly, it was a comparative drop in the ocean.
The transfer emargo was handed out as an alternative to expulsion, and more importantly was nothing to do with administration or pending liquidation it was a punishment for the flagrant and disgraceful way Rangers had behaved since Murray sold the club for £1. Two different judges disagreed with each other about the sanction but only after Rangers broke another, FIFA Rule about not taking governing bodies to Civil Courts.
These are the only punishments, and the transfer embargo has been hasn’t even kicked in yet.
“Lance armstrong and ben johnson chose to cheat. I would be surprised if any rangers player from the relevent period was so financially astute to consider that a tax loophole, which to this day has not been declared illegal”
The players are not the ones being punished – it is the club who will be punished if found guilty. Although the players might be asked to pay back the loans they took out.
“Regarding rules applying to all – they must! If it was considered that old gers breached the rules, then a proper investigation should take place. It cannot be a kangaroo court where anonymous bams can make it up as they go along”
Lord Nimmo Smith, Charles Flint QC, Nicholas Stewart QC. They aren’t anonymous and they aren’t bams.
“As I said u can presume retrospective relegation, do you then trawl the planet for ex-rangers players to demand they hand back medals?”
I don’t think anyone is looking for medals back, however don’t rule out HMRC asking a few questions about the loans these players took out.
The point is – if cheating took place then it must be recognised with the relevant punishment met out – otherwise you have a system where anyone can do anything, anytime without any fear of being punished.
This game of ours called football must have a central rule book which we all have to abide by. It really is that simple.
To be honest mate when you start to mention Ian Brady in all of this, I just think the debate has taken a nosedive.
Rules are rules. They are there for all of us to abide by.
Spartans were thrown out of the Scottish cup for fielding ONE ineligible player.http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15672375
It may be the case that Rangers FC* fielded many ineligible players over a 10 year period.
Do we live in a society where we apply rules fairly to everyone or do some people see themselves as above the rule book?
The rule states that every part of a players salary must be declared to the SFA.
It appears that rule was broken. Many times over many years.
Just what exactly do you expect to happen in a fair and equal society?
Whether you like the ian brady comparison or not is irrelevent. The fact remains that you cannot change history, and you cannot punish a corpse. Rangers oldco is dead, as so many gleefully point out. Everyone who played for the club did so as honest professionals, not as cynical cheats. To remove their honours benefits no-one, all it does is
Medals and titles can and have been stripped retrospectively if it was found out at a later date that the said medals & titles were won fraudulently.
Lance Armstrong and Ben Johnson are two examples.
There must be a deterrent to ensure this doesn’t happen again.
Rather than focus on the outcome of the Rangers investigation, perhaps you should be focussing on David Murray and why he allowed this to happen.
Purely from a sporting point of view, David Murray had players playing for Rangers that may not have been there if they were paying the same taxes as every other player in country.
It was an unfair advantage.
Is that what you class as an achievement?
Whether you like the ian brady comparison or not is irrelevent. The fact remains that you cannot change history, and you cannot punish a corpse. Rangers oldco is dead, as so many gleefully point out. Everyone who played for the club did so as honest professionals, not as cynical cheats. To remove their honours benefits no-one. Earlier in this debate it was suggested that only the media was advocating removal of titles, now it seems that it is a must that titles have to go. As this whole episode has played out it strikes me that some people appear to hate rangers more than they love their own club. The original sanctions placed on rangers were by an anonymous panel who invented their own punishment, and I believe you know very well that that was what I was alluding to. I expected rangers to demand to know who perpetrated such acts. Now mccoist is to appear before them to answer why he should be indignant at such an unjust decision. In any organisation the rulebook is where the answers are. If they believed that the sanctions they could impose were insufficient, then tough! It was not unprecedented for a club to go into liquidation, but the sanctions applied to rangers newco vice the oldco were. Your own argument is that all must abide by the rules. That must apply to scottish football authorities too. But not content with being exposed in court for making it up, they compounded their incompetence by insisting the newco accept oldco’s sanctions! The crux of the matter is that everyone wants the financial bonanza that comes with rangers, old or new. How dare the hypocrites sneer at rangers rulebreaking for money when they breach their own rules to keep us in their league system for their own financial gain?
Sporting integrity is in very limited supply in scotland. Does anyone think a hasty league reconstruction will raise its head soon? Will everyone get on their high horse and threaten boycotts if the spl clubs try to fast track rangers back to the spl? What is more important, sporting integrity or watching your own clubs die? To see the spl clubs try to grasp money from the sfl tv deal was pitiful to watch. Frankly, I am enjoying my football more now than I have for years. The div 3 clubs and the pubs and chippys etc are enjoying the goldmine we bring and btw, I only paid £15 for my ticket for thursdays match!!!!! There is no grasping spl chairmen who think there’s nothing wrong in ripping off old firm fans. I would happily have seen us do three years in the juniors then enter the leagues, if accepted. But if the rules can be broken, for money, by the authorities then they have no right to sit in judgement on rangers, whether old or new.
Grant, Rangers and McCoist knew were on the panel beforehand, they were neither anonymous nor a secret.
However McCoist pretended he didn’t know.
He knows this and the SFA know he knows this. He’s been called to order because of this.
The SFA, SPL and SFL need to do what’s best for Scottish football, all of Scottish football, it’s a very tortuous logic to say they can’t sit in judgement because they want you in. If you’re in, you’re in, and you play by their rules, like them or not. Either that, or leave and go somewhere else. The way you’re buying players you can’t wait to get back to the top, leaving all that nasty debt behind, so you’re idea of three years of Junior football isn’t shared by anyone in your Club.
“The original sanctions placed on rangers were by an anonymous panel who invented their own punishment”
Yes but you fail to understand that the punishment they invented was a lesser punishment than that one that should have been given out. The punishment they invented was designed to help you but your head is so full of agendas you cannot see it.
The the only stated punishments (i.e. the only punishments available in the rule book) above the maximum £100,000 fine already administered are suspension or expulsion from participation in the game, ejection from the Scottish Cup or termination of membership
What is you preference – suspension or expulsion from the league or a paltry transfer embargo?
Remember too that you should not even be anywhere near division 3 – yet you have been given a lifeline and allowed to play there.
After you stop wailing about how much the world is against you, take a step back and look at the situation – the SFA have been throwing you a lifeline from day 1, yet you want to complain about punishments.
Why don’t we go back a few months and just apply the rule book as it should have been.
The Rangers apply for membership of the SFA for the first time. They get refused. So go away and come back when you have 3 years accounts.
Is that what you want? I must admit, it appeals to me.
Again , limited time because of work commitments. Of course the club wants out of div3, that is hardly a shocker is it? I suspect most spl clubs privately want gers back because we bring money with us. Whether the sfa is bending over backwards to help is certainly a matter for debate. Would we have accepted suspension ? Yup prob. Suspension from scottish cup? Yup, but I think sponsors would have something to say. Fact is, if that was the available sanctions under rule, then that was all that could be placed on the oldco. They had no legal right
Again , limited time because of work commitments. Of course the club wants out of div3, that is hardly a shocker is it? I suspect most spl clubs privately want gers back because we bring money with us. Whether the sfa is bending over backwards to help is certainly a matter for debate. Would we have accepted suspension ? Yup prob. Suspension from scottish cup? Yup, but I think sponsors would have something to say. Fact is, if that was the available sanctions under rule, then that was all that could be placed on the oldco. They had no legal right to step outside of that. And the fact that the breached their own rules to bring gers back, not because they love us and want to help, but because they want the money, completely undermines their authority and integrity.
I agree entirely that the SFA tearing up their rule book undermines their authority. The Scottish Football authorities have taken a bad situation and made it worse imo.
But they still have Campbell Ogilvie on the payroll so they don’t have one ounce of credibility as far as I am concerned anyway.
Had and other club went bust they would’ve been replaced and accepted applications from new clubs to take its place. It would’ve been done and dusted in a couple of weeks.
You are correct, they have looked at the money Rangers* brought to the table and if they got their way, The Rangers would’ve been playing in the SPL right now, make no mistake about that.
We’ve been told that the Scottish football would die without Rangers, we’ve been told that there would be civil unrest without Rangers … and this is coming from the organisation that is supposed to be responsible for administering the game. Why all the threats?
As far as I am concerned, the SFA have brought as shame on this entire saga and it is true, money talks. Thank God for the fans who put pressure on their own chairmen to tell them – “no to newco”
I agree with you, they should not have stepped outside of their own rule book – in fact the book should’ve been thrown at Rangers* but you don’t seem to grasp the fact that what they did, they did to help the club so I ask you again, would you have preferred suspension or expulsion from the league or cup?
The transfer embargo is a farce anyway – look at the players The Rangers have signed to play in the 3rd division, I am sure they will be well equipped to play in the 2nd division too when the embargo starts.
The minute we start administering rules based on money and sponsors, rather than sporting integrity, that is the day football is officially corrupt.
Managing to get this typed on my PC now instead of struggling with a tiny phone screen!!
Stephen, they did not do it to help the club. They did it for their own grubby motives. I already explained that, personally, i would have accepted a suspension, or expulsion from a cup, because if that is what is in the list of sanctions previously agreed by all member clubs then it is lawful. I must say I would be stunned if the outcome would have been complete and final expulsion from the association though, but if that was what was the consensus of all clubs, and it was an agreed sanction, then the only debate would have been whether the sanction was draconian, not about why it was unlawful. To impose unlawful sanctions once was careless, to impose them twice is vindictive, and you can dress it up as compromise all you want, but it is bullying. The newco didnt get much room to compromise did it? It was take it or leave it. It would have been interesting to see what the outcome would have been had Charles Green refused the unlawful sanctions. Would the SFA actually have had the balls to exclude Rangers and the money, or would they then have had a reasonable compromise? We’ll never know, but I think the fact that they already had no problem about riding a horse and cart through the rulebook suggests if Green had been a bit ballsier we might have been able to get the sanctions made to be lawful. Of course the newco should have had none anyway as it is not connected to oldco, so we are reminded on a daily basis. It is all about the money the newco brings to the party, not sympathetic assistance for Rangers.
Any sanctions imposed in any walk of life cannot be imposed as a knee-jerk reaction to mob-rule or emotive public displays. They must have been previously agreed, be proportionate, just, evidence-based and they must be targetted at the guilty parties, agreed? To already have a pre-determined sentence of stripping titles, with people now attempting to find evidence to fit around it is does not fill me with confidence that it will be a just trial, for a kick-off. I would be interested to see if there is actually scope for retrospectively stripping trophies or titles in the SFA rules as currently agreed.
The investigation must determine if the players were complicit in the EBT/hidden payment allegations. And do not forget it was not every player who had an EBT, do you attack innocent honest pro’s too? Were the players aware they were breaking the rules? If the answer is yes and evidence is produced to prove that, then I would, with heavy heart, accept agreed, legal sanctions. If, however, they simply believed they were entering into a legal tax-avoiding loophole, as many millions of high-earners did, and still do, is it fair to strip individuals of their honours and achievements for accepting duff advice from their agents/lawyers? If the argument is that Rangers may or may not have been able to sign individuals, only because of EBT payments, then frankly it is an unsatisfactory argument. It is a presumtion. How many players would people want to remove/add to the past playing staff on a hunch? I could just as easily presume that in another set of circumstances that Rangers signed Beckham, Rooney and Ronaldo and had the greatest team ever to grace a Scottish football pitch. I have no more evidence to back up the presumtion than anyone who presumes we may not have signed Amoruso etc, regardless of which is the more likely hunch. You cannot justify stripping trophies on a presumtion. No-one would advocate sending someone to jail for murder, just because we presumed the accused did it. So, evidence must be the only factor in deciding guilt.
The spotlight should shine brightest on the Chairman and Directors. They would be the ones who made the decisions to make payments by the EBT method. If they hid payments from the authorities, and evidence proves they did. Then the most appropriate course of action would be to ban the guilty parties from Scottish football, sine die if it is considered necessary.
I raised the Olympique Marseilles case as a comparator, but that was dismissed by Stephen because he neither knew nor cared about the case, but he then raised the Lance Armstrong and Ben Johnson cases, as if somehow they are relevent. Poor debate to dismiss so off-handedly lad. OM won the champions league in season 1992-93. In 1994, three players from Valenciennes reported that they had been approached by Marseilles player Jean-Jacques Eydelie to fix the score of their 1993 match and ensure that there would be no Marseilles players injured before the Ch Lge final against AC Milan. There is also evidence that bribes were paid to players of CSKA Moscow and Brugges during the Ch Lge group matches and Mark Hately has also publicly stated, several times, that he was approached by shady characters offering bribes during that period.
For the domestic bribery and match fixing Marseilles were relegated one division and had one title stripped from them. Despite all that went on, UEFA have, to date, not stripped Marseilles of the Champions League victory. At least one player was complicit in cheating, it wasn’t just boardroom shenanigans, the cheating was at pitch level too. As I previously stated, the SFA goon who thought he was being clever by hinting at Rangers only making it worse if they were match-fixing, has allowed us to ask, that if UEFA are cool with OM remaining as Champions of Europe, then what justification can the SFA have for stripping titles, for what they perceive to be a lesser offence?
As for Armstrong and Johnson, they were individual sportsmen who made a conscious decision to take performance-enhancing drugs, I fail to see how they represent a better comparison than the OM case.
If only Scottish football were an impartial and just society I would have confidence in a fair hearing for Rangers, but I doubt that any other football association across the globe would ask the lawyers of their greatest rivals to investigate them. I already asked, but got no reply, but does no-one out there feel even a tad uncomfortable that Harper McLeod, a law fiirm who have worked for Celtic on several occasions, were appointed? Even trying to be objective about it, Harper McLeod must know that any recommendation they make will always have more than a whiff of suspicion attached to it. If this had been an Eastern European case, all the football people would shake their heads and tut-tut about what a shambolic way a club could be investigated. However, when it is Scotland and Rangers, the bloodlust and hate for Rangers overtakes the need for natural justice to prevail. It reminds me of the days of the casuals. When a top-boy went down, all the wee hangers-on from the other firm, who couldn’t take a proper punch, swarmed round to give him a kick so they could breathlessly brag about it to their mates on the train home. It is a most unedifying sight!
I need to pop off to work again now, but if we want to see ourselves as an honourable, civilized society then we need to ensure fair-play, and that transgressors are given a fair hearing. Is it fair to impose unlawful sanctions on the newco? I say no, but then we should be in the junior ranks. Personally I would shrug and get on with it, as would most fans, but Charles Green needs a return on his money so he has taken the chinese burn to get the club in the league system.
Is it proper to allow your dislike for rangers to let you believe that perceived justice will be done by dragging the corpse of the oldco into the SFA dock to strip titles and most likely allow David Murray et al to walk away scot-free? If you think it is then fine, but its a sad day for us all I think.
Much in there Grant. Firstly, the “stripping of titles” comment, this is becoming another one like the “banned from Europe for three years”, it’s a handy catchphrase but it’s factually incorrect. Simply put, incorrectly registered players create a reversal of the result of the game which included any incorrectly registered player. If this means you lose sufficient points to create a different result to the League campaign then that’s the CONSEQUENCE of the offence, you’ve not been “stripped” of anything, rather the rules have been applied. Rules that are clear and unambiguous and apply to every team.
Furthermore it is everyone’s legal duty to ensure that the tax advice they receive and benefits they accrue are correct. Saying “I didn’t know” isn’t a defence. These are highly paid individuals who could all afford good advice. If they took advice and it turns out to be wrong they should have redress legally. if they didn’t and took Murrays advice instead then that’s no defence, to coin a phrase they were “duped”.
Secondly your point about assumptions regarding wages and players signed is wrong. Sorry but it is. Rangers went bust because they spent money they didn’t have, they got through huge sums of money chasing glory, Murray, King and Lewis injected large sums of cash into RFC. Dick Advocaat and others made sure this was spent.
However EBTs created a scenario where players could earn far more at RFC than they could elsewhere as it was essentially tax-free or double bubble round at Ibrox. Footballers are coin operated and go where the money is, the money was definitely at Ibrox. When the boom years for Murray began to end and the large cash injections dried up the only way he could continue to attract the best players was through EBTs. Were a player to be asked in a Court of Law, under Oath – would you have signed for this Club had you received half the amount you were actually paid, you’re saying they would have done?
Thirdly the actions of individuals working on behalf of a Club doesn’t absolve the Club itself from punishment. Otherwise how would a Club ever be punished for anything? The Club is run by people, it cannot actually do anything by itself.
My personal view is that Rangers fans are about to be duped again, and I’d agree the Governing Bodies have behaved in a way that’s created a mess that many of you would have preferred to have done without.
Sorry to but-in on a good debate with some below the belt humor, but I found this article really funny and so in tune with the feeling of most fans on this debate!
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/manchester-city-makes-250-million-bid-for-arsenals-history-2012072335298
“Were a player to be asked in a Court of Law, under Oath – would you have signed for this Club had you received half the amount you were actually paid, you’re saying they would have done?”
A Rangers footballer thought to earn £25,000 a week has been fined for speeding – and told to pay the penalty at £25 per week.
He said that he was “unable, for contractual reasons connected to my profession” to give details of his salary.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1642857.stm
I wonder what was so difficult about the details of his salary?
I have been missing in action for a while, and this thread seems to have died in the meantime, but I will add a footnote nonetheless.
Stephen. You are again making assumptions about Mr Amoruso’s contract. For the record, I am contractually prohibited from discussing, in public, any details about my my work or my employers, or even any of my employers’ partners or agents. It is a standard clause for many employers to apply, but only in this country is that considered enough to have an individual hung, drawn and quartered for a speeding offence. You will have to do better than that lad!
Specials, regarding your reply. As I understand it you still continue to to make assumptions too. If it is necessary to put individuals under oath then surely in a just society then that is what must happen. Any charge, or sentence handed down on an assumption, has zero credibility. Further, if you are assuming that David Murray would not have paid players, other than by EBT, then evidence tends to refute that assumption. Jean-Alain Boumsong refused an EBT, but was still signed. I again suggest that in a just and moral society sanctions must be previously agreed, evidence-based, proportionate and targetted at the guilty. Do you, or do you not agree?
Now, I was very interested, but not at all surprised, to find out that the SPL have announced that Celtic have been cleared of culpability regarding Junhino’s EBT used by Celtic in 2004/05 season. It should throw up some interesting questions among football fans everywhere, and should further expose the corruption and hypocrisy of the SPL and SFA.
Some questions I have are as follows: Why did the statement clearing Celtic of culpability not also contain a statement absolving Rangers of culpability? It matters not that Celtic paid the tax in 2008. The current football-related investigation is into whether the Rangers players, who were paid by EBT, were properly registered with the SPL/SFA. Tax avoidance allegations are the remit of HMRC, not the SPL or SFA. Anyway, on the 23rd May 2012 the BBC wrote to all SPL clubs enquiring about the use of EBTs. Celtic confirmed in a reply to them that… it established one EBT scheme in April 2005… the scheme was worth £765,000 but the club DID NOT DECLARE THE TRUST PAYMENT TO THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION OR THE SCOTTISH PREMIER LEAGUE. The big question that follows is surely, was Juninho properly registered as a player then? If he was then Rangers’ EBT players must surely have been properly registered too. If not, then why is there no culpability on Celtic’s behalf, and why no reversal of Celtic’s results for that season? And what then is the difference between Celtic’s EBT and Rangers’?
Another question I have is: Who investigated Celtic’s EBT? Was it Celtic’s lawyers, Harper McLeod, who previously suggested that Rangers had a case to answer regarding EBTs. If it was, does that not create a bigger conflict of interest than them investigating Rangers? If another, impartial, law firm was employed to investigate Celtic’s EBT, then why was an impartial firm not used for Rangers?
For the third time, I ask: Is everyone comfortable with the investigation into Rangers by Celtic’s lawyers? I now add to that question: Is everyone satisfied that that Junhino was properly registered as a player when even Celtic have admitted that they did not declare the EBT payments to the footballing authorities?
Third world justice!!
Pretty element of content. I just stumbled upon your web site and in accession capital to claim that I get actually enjoyed account your weblog posts. Anyway I’ll be subscribing to your feeds and even I fulfillment you get entry to constantly rapidly.
I use to be a Jambo but since My Grandmother past away.I’ve changed to The New Club From Liebrox.As I says my Gran past away.Her elderly neighbour who lives next door to her is same age as my Gran was,So I’ve destroyed all neighbours Identification and gave my Grans id to her.My Grannies No Deed Anymore.The Infamous Govan Sevco FC 2012.This isn’t even up for Debate.Look at all newspapers from that time.140 Years of History GONE in a 9 minute meeting….