Newco? Oldco? Discuss here…
The Newco/Oldco debate has been ended over on TSFM, with the deletion of the excellent post from HirsutePursuit marking the end. While some think we need to keep reinforcing the message that its a totally new club, others are bored of the subject, so I can’t blame TSFM for wanting to move on.
Personally – I have read all the arguments – I am yet to be shown any factual proof that Green’s Gers are the old club. People will, and can believe whatever they want. For Rangers fans who want to believe its the same club, then, as long as they are happy, then fine. However, on paper, and in law, its a new club, and thats all that I care about!
TSFM posters wanting to continue the debate can do so below following on from HP’s excellent deleted post!
—-
TSFM
This blog, as far as I have been concerned, is widely regarded as a forum for people who wish to highlight the inequalities and skewed reporting of the issues within the Scottish football arena. If it is not, perhaps you can make it clear what you see as its purpose.
Perhaps the biggest ever story within the Scottish game has been the circumstances surrounding the demise of Rangers Football Club. It is a multi-layered story and one that that is still moving. In many ways, it may be a story that is only just beginning.
Central to the debate (that should be completely on-topic) for this blog, is whether or not the authorities (at all levels) have acted in an equitable manner and whether or not the “free press” have given life to events in a truthful and balanced way.
With absolute regard to these matters, there is a fundamental issue surrounding the status of the club incorporated in 2012 and currently playing in the 3rd division of the Scottish Football League.
If you genuinely believe that the club incorporated in 2012 are the same club as was founded in 1872/1873 then you have every right to be outraged at the behaviour of the footballing authorities. You will probably accept that UEFA were right to “ban” the club from European competitions because of its holding company’s insolvency event; but feel completely persecuted by your fellow Scottish clubs who demoted your team to the arse-end of the game. You will see this “demotion” as a punishment far too severe for the actions of the rogue ex-owner of the club’s former “holding company”. To compound matters, you will see the LNS enquiry as just another opportunity for the clubs who have already revelled in meting out a severe punishment, to have another fly-kick. You would, no doubt, believe that whatever the previous owner of the club’s “holding company” did in terms of player payments, the trophies were won fairly by the club on the field of play and can never be taken away. You will be – in the main – satisfied with the narrative of the “free press” in referring to your club as the same entity as played in the SPL.
All of the attitudes and beliefs rely 100% on the tenet of a “club” existing as a separate entity from the legal entity (“company”) responsible for a football team.
If you genuinely believe that the club incorporated in 2012 are a different club as was founded in 1872/1873 then you will still have every right to be outraged at the behaviour of the footballing authorities. UEFA would rightly refuse European Club Licence for the new club – if one was applied for – as the new club do not meet the criteria; but you will feel completely let down by the self-serving nature of the SPL and the weakness shown by the SFA in attempting to place the new club in the top tier of Scottish football. You will see the new club’s fast-track acceptance into the SFL as without precedent and their award of full member status (of the SFA) as against existing rules. You will wonder how – when the members of the SFL voted to give them associate membership as new club – the SFL executive list them on their website as the old club. As the old club had ceased footballing activities in June, there should have been no SFA membership or SPL share to transfer in August. Since the old club is no more, you will not recognise any punishment for the actions of the rogue ex-owner of the club. You will see the LNS enquiry as an opportunity for some sort of justice in relation to years of outrageous cheating by the now dead club. You will think that trophies and prize-money were stolen from clubs who played by the rules. You will think that a correction of results is simply a consequence of the old club being found guilty of cheating. You will probably think that the LNS enquiry has nothing to do with the new club; but may wonder if the enquiry orders the repayment of the old club’s prize-money, would this create a new “football debt” that has to be repaid by the new club to continue using the old club’s SFA membership? You will be aghast at the apparent repeated mis-reporting of the situation by the “free press”.
All of the attitudes and beliefs rely 100% on the tenet of a “club” being the legal entity (“company”) responsible for a football team.
You may feel that these positions are “just a matter of opinion” and do not ultimately matter.
I disagree. The indeterminate status of the club incorporated in 2012 is a huge sore in the Scottish football landscape. This is the biggest story that just cannot go away. If the schism created by this sense of injustice is not resolved, Scottish football will implode. Attitudes may already be too entrenched; but that should not stop us trying to find a way forward.
The principal difficulty (again totally on topic) is that it appears – from both sides of the debate) -that people in positions of power within the game have made decisions that cannot be justified by their rules and articles of association.
We can – as you wish us to – stop talking about the status of the club incorporated in 2012, or we can continue to argue our respective positions as a crucial factor in this controversy.
In my view we can only hold the SFA, SPL and SFL to account if we insist that a definitive answer to all of the important questions are given.
The status of the club incorporated in 2012 is – in my view – a simple matter of fact. It is only because it is being considered to be a matter of opinion that we are where we are.
Thanks for re-posting this here Steve.
HP, I think most people on TSFM, and the other blogs I read, agree with what you’ve written. Even the fans of the wee clubs in Division 3 are not afraid to point out the new reailty. No one is fooled. But if, as you indicate, the powers that be ignore reality and get the backing of the press for the myth, many traditional fans will turn away, not because they are anti-Rangers, old or new, but because they are pro fair play. I suppose the worst-case scenario is some political judgement from on high, for purely non-sporting reasons, that fudges the whole thing in legal gobbledygook.
…..”In my view we can only hold the SFA, SPL and SFL to account if we insist that a definitive answer to all of the important questions are given”…….
Don’t hold your breath HP waiting for any of the above ruling bodies to provide any answers.
Let alone definitive ones.
And well done Saintee for finding a home for a fine summary of an emotion versus facts cul de sac.
I think one way or the other this is all going to end up in a court of law. In my opinion that will have only one outcome and neither Mr Green nor the current rangers supporters will like it
Steve,
thanks for allowing those who missed this excellent post on TSFM, the opportunity to digest some of the relevent facts, from a poster of the highest quality.
Having been a Lurker since the first day of RTC, yesterday was probably one of the most dissapointing days since we kicked off nearly two years ago. In-fighting that sees some of the most respected posters being deleted and subsequently leaving the Blog, just gives Brownie Points to the Cheats Charter.
In this instance, I consider that ‘the offenders’ were treated harshly. Not all posters read back before posting, and it could be that the warning by TSFM was not read by all. At a time when unity is of the utmost importance, yesterday was a black day.
As I posted on TSFM several days ago. The media and rangers fans accept the club was incorporated, that it went into administration then failed to get a CVA, however, they don’t accept the club entered liquidation. That happened to an imaginary ‘Holding Company’ apparently, someone should tell this to BDO because they are liquidating a company responsible for the activities of a Sports Club.
They exercise this level of denial and delusion whilst following the ‘same’ club around the lowest league in Scottish football, a position they find themselves in, not through demotion or relegation, but rather through application as a newly formed club.
HP,, you piece is well written and it does give an argument from both sides, meater I must say in the it is a new club argument. That said it is on an argument I’m beggining to despair of in part I suppose because whether I like it or not the likes of Sky etc are talking about Rangers as if they are the same club and nothing happened. I find it annoying inside when guys I play football with turn up with the top the got for Christmas 5 stars et al. I have to remind myself that this is a replica top of a former team with strong ties with a current team. Until such times as the LNS report comes out and the SFA/SFL/SPL clarify the situation it drags on and it’s a cancer eating away at the whole of Scottish Football. The sooner we see/hear clarification and the governing bodies admit they made mistake it eats away. If they said yes this is not the the same Rangers and yes we did bend the rules to allow them entry into SFL and that they had no right to entry into SPL or SFL but as has been shown this is a good financial and emotional reasons for that that have been shown. I would also like them to say that a Rangers in its new form is important to scottish football whether we like it not but Mr Green and co must stop this we have been punished enough mantra, they weren’t punished. It is a fact that if you are found guilty of a crime you a punished and may result in a custodial sentence. Any sentence can be reduced with good behavious but Mr Green & Co are showing no signs of good behaviour and this must be address now for the good of Scottish football. I have stated it before until I see new branding on a Rangers shirt and at the stadium this is still the old club which is wrong in so many ways.
Mr Keevens the othe night on SSB saying Rangers were denied entry into SPL is factually incorrect and does not help.
Hope to see you back
Obfuscation and dithering has been the hallmark of both the football authorities and msm since Rangers entered administration.
The terms membership and licence were interchanged as if they were the same thing and it took the CST to ask for clarification before any distinction emerged from the SFA.
Even then it took msm a bit to cotton on that there were two separate issues and to my knowledge no one has asked if membership is dependent on licence and if it is what did the licencing committee accept as evidence of compliance from Rangers that all conditions were met or where the SFA applied the discretion National Club Licensing allows.
Too much done behind closed doors and no clarity provided to inform supporters of reasons why decisions were taken.
We might disagree but at least we would not be treated as bampots by morons who think intellect is the province of the few that can be conveyed only in paper print.
Intellectually, legally logically and morally The Rangers are a different entity and all the sophistry in the world will not make it otherwise except to those who lack intellect, a basis of legal understanding (it was a legal way to swerve debt but with other consequences) logic and morals.
It speaks volumes for a support prepared to give up claim toany of these 4 qualities in order to cling to an emotional belief. Its as if being a The Rangers supporter is more a matter of faith than just watching a football team.
Briggsboy
Spot on. All we want is honesty. Folk do what they do for reasons that seem right to them at the time usually based on fear.
In time these fears can be seen to be real or not but no one has 100% certainty when trying to predict what will eventually be.
It is the stubborn determination to continue to swerve the issues concerning supporters that is eroding any vestige of authority football governance and msm can lay claim to.
The message is stop treating us as bampots and we will stop treating you as untrustworthy morons with a self seeking agenda.
We do not want blood we want recognised as having value to add, some of those values apparently missing from the governance and reporting of the game.
Maybe when LNS proclaims the SFA will come clean.
Firstly, I didn’t realise that TSFM had ended the debate – that is quite sad because RTC was completely undeterred in its quest to tell the truth about the tax issue. In my opinion a much bigger story is unravelling now, so to just switch off is as I said quite sad.
Second, as you say, this really isn’t about Rangers as such although they are heavily involved of course. This is about how the football authorities are facilitating a scam in which a club can simply wipe away its debt whilst the rest of the clubs have to pay its bills.
This is about how the football authorities are deliberately going against every logical piece of evidence in order to make it look as though liquidation never really happened.
This is about how the media can and do use their influence to promote the opinion that Rangers never really liquidated at all.
This is about how people who are earning a living out of the game, Regan, Ogilvie, Longmuir & Doncaster et al can use and abuse their position to blackmail every honest and decent football fan and club in the country, all to save the establishment team. They are unanswerable, they only raise their head above the parapet when it suits them, they are taking good money out of Scottish football yet they are complicit in this corruption. This is where we are today.
Remember the threats? Armageddon? Six clubs will fold without Rangers? And remember how the authorities tried to force the new club right into the SPL?
I remember Neil Doncaster say “without fear or favour”.- yet he and his cohorts have paved a way for a club that went bust, to reappear shortly after as though nothing happened.
When Rangers went bust, it owed millions to the taxman (might be more if HMRC win the appeal) as well as other businesses up and down the country. Charles Green just had a share issue raising £20+ million but not one penny will go to creditors. Yet they want to retain “Rangers” status.
Without a shadow of a doubt, the biggest scandal in Scottish football because for all we know, this plan could have been conceived behind the scenes a long time ago. We’ll never know – because the SFA are answerable to no-one.
They make their own rules, they break their own rules. Sevco should never even have been allowed into football in the first place as it did not have 3 years accounts.
But semantics, half-truths and some downright lies (remember they said a “holding company” went bust) have all contributed to the confusion which in turn takes the argument on to the message boards and away from the corruption within Scottish football itself. It is deliberate and calculated and corrupt.
Personally I could not bring myself to pay one more penny towards Scottish football again whilst we are being forced to accept this lie. Rangers supporters (old club or new club) are no different to the rest of us. They are not “The People”. The rules set out in football are there for the benefit of us all. There should be no special cases. Without fear or favour.
The SFA have bastardised the entire Scottish game for the protection of the establishment club.
Rangers FC went bust. It ceased to exist. Charles Green formed a new club (Sevco) and changed its name to The Rangers. It is so basic and so simple to understand.
Am I wrong for making the simple assumption that if you are Rangers, they should pay Rangers’ debts? If you’re not paying the debts, you are not Rangers?
I don’t become a Rangers hater or obsessed for applying that logic. It is the basic principle of every honest and decent club throughout the land. Pay your bills or accept the consequences. Is that fair? Am I wrong for demanding that basic concept?
What Charles Green and the Scottish Football authorities are doing is beyond contempt. It is taking the entire game forward on a lie.
Everyone with half a brain knows that Rangers Football Club went bust. The battle now is how the new club will be “perceived”.
Every football fan in the country must take the view one way or the other.
But in a few years time when Charles Green’s Rangers reach the top tier in football (either by merit or by reorganising the leagues to suit them) don’t complain when they outspend you again and rub it in your faces that they are debt free whilst your club struggles on.
And don’t dare complain about SFA rules or decisions to ban your manager from the dugout or whether a referee got the penalty decision against them wrong.
The SFA has officially declared that it WILL treat Rangers FC differently from the rest. They are doing it now right in front of your faces. It’s up to you whether you accept it or not.
Charles Green recently threw a birthday party for a 140 year old club whilst a few weeks later sold shares and in the prospectus he stated the club can’t play in Europe because it doesn’t have 3 years accounts.
That is what you are being forced to accept. That is what you are paying into when you go to watch Scottish football.
We either move forward free from corruption, with honesty and integrity or Scottish football is forever tainted with corruption for the benefit of one club.
Scottish football fans have the power to decide. It’s your choice.
But remember: all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
A big thanks Steve for posting HP’s piece and may I say well done on your site – you’ve made a great job of it, very impressed!
The truth is that the debate was not ended on TSFM, what happened was posts that stated that the club was a continuation were being allowed without moderation. Anyone who posted an alternative view were being moderated. If TSFM was serious about ending the debate then all posts stating either viewpoint should have been removed. Anyone who challanged theshield2012 was labelled a baiter by TSFM on the forum. After i had privately contacted TSFM about the influence of secret organisations within the scottish game and TSFM itself, i found my posts blocked. How can fair decisions be made by either the SFA or TSFM if consideration must be given to an outside influence.
The removal of HP’s post was disgraceful censorship, and a slap in the face to the legacy of RTC’s position of the challanging of the type of innaccuracies that become so repeated by the msm that they become the accepted position.
For TSFM to state yesterday that the blog had become anti rangers was a dangerous own goal and handed the enemies of the blog a fine chance to dismiss the upcoming Auldheid proposals as similar, i feel the blog was actually offering concessions on accurate debate in a concerted effort to seek more rfc supporters onto the forum in an attempt to gain credibility.
I have stated my case many times on the blog that being a Kilwinning resident i am surrounded by many rfc fans, my wife was a fan in her younger days until she recognised the damage the club does in scotland through its exclusive policies, highlighting amoruso is no defence when you recognise mr surrender no was happy to include masonic references in every statement he made. How anyone can have faith that such outside influences are not still prevalent in the corridors of power, or even in what is supposed to be a monitor of corruption is beyond me. Many rfc fans i know and love dearly are fine individuals but to fail to recognise that rfc stand for exclusion is becoming ever more undeniable with every statement emanating from the highest positions within the club. Do we want to allow this club to return to its all controlling position of power while it whips up a frenzy of anger by appealling to the type of people who have consistently blighted my families day to day lives in towns such as Kilwinning. As i say, i know many decent rangers men, but the truth is the club has never been decent, the sectarian policy has been watered down in public but it remains in full force within the club. The financial doping was taking hold around the time the policy was being hidden away and as such the club has a lifelong history of disgusting anti social, anti sporting behaviour. TSFM should be encouraging rfc fans to change their club into an acceptable modern incarnation, open to all and competing fairly. To allow innaccurate statements on the blog in an attempt to encourage more rfc fans to participate in debate is wrong in my opinion.
Steve, thanks for allowing me to read this post by HP. This whole episode on TSFM has left me angry and upset. The reasons for this have been expressed in an excellent manner by Rab(rab on January 19, 2013 at 8:24 pm)
Thanks jean.
It was both infuriating and saddening to see some excellent points by very talented and knowledgable posters removed. It made a mockery of the strapline, “asking the questions the media wont ask”.
My posts are still blocked on TSFM so i can only only assume i am the very abusive ( liar ) and grammatically challanged ( petty but possibly accurate ) poster that the big pink refers to.
I therefore give TSFM permission to post our email exchange and any moderated posts where i have been abusive. If he does not, then i will consider myself absolved of the uncalled for and fabricated slur.
Will TSFM have the courage to remove barcabhoys post on oldclub/newclub. If it is removed it may be the deathknell for the blog. Too much damage may already be done over the last few days, its time for TSFM to drop the ego and accept that the football supporters in this country demand our opinions to be heard and not dictated to by hierarchical powers.
The link to this debate is now locked away in a previous TSFM post, so unless someone stumbles into this blog then expect more oldclub debate on TSFM until suchtimes as a sticky link is added to TSFM.
I will continue to waste my time adding opinions on this blog, responding to points raised on TSFM.
I have just read the fans charter on the SFA website.
In the sections marked Principles and the Rights and Responsibilities section, much attention is drawn to the overiding factor of making sure that no members of the community should feel excluded from attending a match.
Yet still no response to the banned, illegal, UEFA sanctioned billy boys song that rang around Hampden recently.
Typical insipid SFA mouth music.
This mistrust is equalled only by the frustration at being unable to do anything to change the attitude and action of those at the SFA (and Leagues) responsible for that governance, a frustration compounded by the reluctance of the mainstream media to focus on the very issues of trust and integrity that concern us.
Auldheid
The problem with TSFM taking your proposals anywhere is that at some point the mistrust will have to be documented yet TSFM does not want anything that he deems anti rangers being published on the tsfm site. Most of the distrust and mistrust has built up because of the favourable treatment of newco RFC.
The problem now is that through TSFM’s determination to force his own set of opinions and values onto the blog at the expense of the regular posters opinions, and the attempts to ignore what the majority of posters express ( a bit like the SFA and the MSM ), all TSFM has achieved over the last week is to alienate his own customers and seriously undermine the proposal put forward by Auldheid.
TSFM is now censored.If you type what he wants it gets published otherwise it gets deleted. I have noticed a marked change in the contributions as a few posters have been reined in and now type muted posts for fear of being moderated or banned.
What has happenede to TSFM, has it been bought over but trying to carry on as the old blog. Has the owner lost his nerve.
The blog in its current beige form is finished.
Unfortunately this dumbing down of opinion, and subsequent drop off in readership has co-incided with the Auldheid proposal, thus diluting the effectiveness of his important contribution. The LNS enquiry is also due to be heard in the next week or so, and any pressure that could have been applied through group consensus has also been lost.
It makes you wonder if certain club chairmen and judicial figures have shaken hands in agreement with influential TSFM personell to sabotage the blog and reduce its effectiveness.
I accept this may be paranoid claptrap, but the iconography included on TSFM badge, and the instant removal of posts relating to freemasons, as well as the refusal to discuss the referee situation ( and their main choice of after dinner circuit jobs ) leaves room for such thoughts.
As some of you probably know I have moderation privalages on TSFM. I rarely use them as I don’t really believe in deleting posts.
However, reading through the ‘deleted posts’ there is rarely any deleted which add anything to the discussion. A concious decision was made to try and limit the freemason stuff (which removes any credibility the blog would ever have) and the refereeing debate is one for Pie and Bovril, not one about saving Scottish Football. Referee decisions will always be contencious. I watched Chelsea/Arsenal last night and I thought decisions for both goals in the 1st half were spot on – ESPN commentators however swore blind they were wrong. TSFM is not the place for them.
Being a moderator I also have access to the ‘banned’ list. There is currently only one username on it!! If people are unable to post send me a message privately and I’ll look into it for you. To give you an example on how wordpress works, I have this blog set for anyone can post. There is no banned words and no blocked IP’s. I do not require moderation of any post… However, around 20% of posts go into ‘moderation’ – infact, the last one I posted, on my own blog, went into moderation. WHY? I have no idea!!
TSFM being tapped up by the club chairmen? No… he hasn’t. Just as I haven’t.
Re: the link to this being lost in the archives on TSFM, I have spoken with him about adding a sticky to direct people away from TSFM for those that wish to talk about the conspiracy’s. I tend to agree with some of them… (currently trying to work out if Rangers are setting a new world record for minutes played against 10 men!!)
I tried to post this on TSFM earlier; but it appears I am that one banned username.
========================
Firstly, can I say well done to Auldheed in putting together a document that should strike a chord with all fair-minded football fans in Scotland. I wish it every success in being adopted by supporter groups throughout the country.
For me, his opening two paragraphs sum up all that is wrong with our game:
Regardless of which side of the fence you are on – in relation to the events surrounding the liquidation of Rangers Football Club – it is highly likely that you and your fellow supporters will feel immensely let down by the actions and inactions of our game’s administrators.
The SPL – essentially as a trade association – will correctly do what they can to maximise revenue for their members. It falls to the SFA – as the game’s regulators – to ensure that the SPL’s existing procedures, articles and rules are adhered to.
It is almost without dispute that the SPL have not functioned well in following protocol. The SFA have been incredibly weak in insisting that they do so. In fact the SFA – by being party to the 5-way agreement – are themselves seemingly complicit in going off-plan. Again, regardless of your own beliefs and agenda, the SPL (by their actions) and the SFA (by their inactions) are not TRUSTED to act as fair brokers.
Lord Nimmo Smith is due to reconvene his enquiry in just over a week’s time. When writing my previous (and quickly deleted) post earlier in the week, my mind was already moving towards (what I consider to be) the insurmountable difficulty the retired High Court judge will face in steering his commission to a logical conclusion.
In football parlance, I fear that the SPL have given him a “hospital pass” that will eventually leave him just as damaged as the game. I had already prepared an outline of why I think his enquiry will ultimately flounder; but, wonder if this topic too will fall foul of the new censorship policy on this blog.
As I think Lord Nimmo Smith’s remit is an important point that needs discussion – and out of respect to those people who have supported this blog as the spiritual successor of RTC – I will attempt to post my thoughts here first. If this post gets removed or doesn’t get past moderation, I’ll do as TSFM (Big Pink?) suggested earlier and find another, more open, forum to engage in.
I apologise in advance for the length of this post; but the points, I think, are fairly straightforward. Please do bear with me.
We should probably start at the SPL Press Release of 12th September 2012:
http://www.scotprem.com/content/default.asp?page=s2&newsid=11698&back=home
Couple of points worth noting:
1. The Commission will proceed with its inquiry in the terms of the Notice of Commission and will now set a date for a hearing and give directions.
2. Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules
So it is clear here that Oldco and Rangers FC have, in the terms of the Notice of Commission, been described as separate entities. It is important to realise that this distinction is made before the commission has had any opportunity to consider the circumstances.
This is a non-negotiable “fact” – as supplied by the SPL – that LNS either accepts or stands aside. He has chosen to accept it.
This “fact” was later given reasoning by way of the Commission’s Statement of Reasons and carried the names of the Commission members:
Click to access SPL%20Commission%20reasons%20for%20decision%20of%2012%20September%202012.pdf
Here we were introduced to a few new ideas:
1. That SPL members “own and operate” association football clubs
2. That “Rangers Football Club” was “owned and operated” by Oldco (Rangers Football Club plc).
3. Club means the undertaking of an association football club
4. An “undertaking” is “a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. “
5. “A Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. “
6. “A Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.”
So, the principle, by which Lord Nimmo Smith, purports to connect Oldco and Newco is by the alleged transference of a non-corporate entity between the two owners and operators of the “Club”. The Club is the non-corporate entity he identified as the “undertaking” referred to in Article 2.
However, this is where he gets into some very serious difficulty. It is very strange that – when quoting the relevant articles – the retired High Court Judge did not notice or think the following did not have a part to play.
Click to access ARTICLES%20OF%20ASSOCIATION%20AS%20AT%2022%20OCTOBER%202012.pdf
The SPL articles make specific reference to the Companies Act 2006. Specifically “words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act”
So when the articles refer to “undertaking” we must refer to the 2006 Act to check what meaning we should apply. If we do so, we find:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/1161
Everything that LNS uses to connect Newco to Oldco relies on a Club being a non-corporate entity. Without that interpretation, his original acceptance of the commissions remit would look very foolish. In my opinion, the commission’s statement of Reasons were always poorly framed
Using the 2006 Act – as it appears it is bound to do – I cannot see how any interpretation of “undertaking” can be used in the context of the SPL articles, other than “a body corporate”.
If I am correct and the correct interpretation of an undertaking in this context is “body corporate”, SPL Article 2, specifically (and quite clearly) states that a Club is the company. Since the Club that played in the SPL is in liquidation and the current version of Rangers has never been a member of the SPL, any attempt to sanction the new club for the sins of the old will be laughed out of court.
The real question – for me at least – is why has this ridiculous proposition has been put forward in the first place? Perhaps we can assume that the SPL chose to frame the commission’s remit in this way for purely commercial reasons; but, more worryingly, why have the SFA allowed it to progress?
i just moved it from the spam folder to the ‘live’ folder on TSFM… your username is not banned 🙂
You have obviously done something to annoy wordpress as your post here went to the spam folder on saintinasia too!
Cheers 🙂
Stevensanph
could you explain why freemason debate loses the blog credibility. I admit that i dont know a great deal about the organisation, as far as i am aware they are not a sectarian organisation and do carry out commendable charity work, but given Alistair Johnsons constant remarks it seems as though he was appealing for outside help from them, why would they want to aid rangers particularly, i know john ure primrose linked the club way back in 1912 and it troubles me that an outside agency can effect influence in a sporting organisation to the detriment of others who cant call on this service. I understand that members of the SFA are members and a high percentage of referees also, again this causes a mistrust to form whereby this influence can effect decisions taken against fellow members. Surely decisions must be taken on merit without consideration to outside bodies.
I dont really mention individual referee decisions on the blog as i realise they are open to individual interperation, but again, if referees are members of an outside body with its own agenda my worry is this could manifest itself on the field of play and against sporting principle, arbitary bodies must be seen to be unconflicted. I dont have a problem with freemasons, i realise they come from many faiths and backgrounds and have included many great Celtic men in thier ranks, i just worry that consideration may be given in sporting contest where none should be.
Thanks for the reply, after the great cull my posts have been unable to get through and i assumed that i was the one being criticised on forum without right of reply, i apologise if i have upset the moderators with my angry tone. However, due to the recent heavy handed approach and stifling of opinion now being advocated on the blog i am unsure if i would like to return to the fold only to be moderated as i cannot and will not accept that sevco can assume rangers mantle as i ploughed thousands of pounds into Celtic during the murray tenure watching a corrupt game. Oldclub/newclub is central to how both camps view the sanctions past and future about to befall rangers/sevco. Unless sevco are recognised for what they are, i will have lost all faith in natural justice in Scottish football, and i believe a Scottish football monitor should have this as a core belief.
re: freemason debate:
My belief is the general perception given off by discussing this is conspiracy nutheads. Whether it has a factor on the direction this story has gone is, I agree, a matter for debate. There has been a LOT of very strange decisions made, which seem to be contrary to law. However, the outside perception is that people who believe in a secret society are the same people who believe in UFO’s, the US government blowing up buildings in NY during 9-11, flight 95 never crashed and everyone is living on a carribean island under new identities, Princess Di is still alive and that the Titanic never sank.
Unfortunately that is the way the general public perceive it. If TSFM discusses that openly it will be labeled as a nut job site, full of bampots and will never be taken seriously. If you want to air theories, with evidence, I am happy to share them on here for a wider audience to see. I love a good conspiracy theory myself…. 🙂
Re: Scottish football – I have been very disheartened about what has happened. This summer was a great chance to rebuild Scottish football, but instead, the powers that be, the clubs included, have decided to go down the same road. Nothing has changed, and nothing being discussed in relation to reconstruction will change the core issues.
The sporting bodies that oversaw open rule breaking are still in place, and not running for cover, but openly trying to reconstruct the game using the same flawed methods as before. As I have stated elsewhere I have no interest in such a game, and have paid little attention to results in Scotland this year as a result.
I last night watched the tennis between Djorkovic and Wawrinka. It was a game played on a level playing field, with no bias. Contentious decisions were immediately verified by the video referee and the correct decision awarded. The game was eventually won not through cheating, or foul play, but following a fantastic final rally which left an exhausted Wawrinka on his knees after being beaten by an exquisite shot. Djorkovic then proceeded to stand and applaud his opponent off the court.
That to me was sport. Scottish Football, in its current form, is not.
Steven.
Thanks for taking time to explain your thoughts. I accept that the freemason debate would give the blog detractors vital ammunition, i will have to remain deeply suspicious that they form part of the foundations ( ahem ) in everyday society, including scottish football, as such, my belief in sporting contest is destroyed.
I have proof that lady Di was piloting a ufo built by the USA and used the newly developed mega teleportation ray to move NY buildings onto the Titanic iceberg, which is actually an island owned by Elvis and situated in the Bermuda triangle, sadly i cannot share it for fear that my brother shall bury my tongue in shallow waters.
Steven – many thanks for publishing HP’s original post here. Notwithstanding what the mods have said on TSFM I think it was an error to withdraw it on that site. Perhaps understandably it has left some feeling of frustration on the site but it may yet recover to play a role in pushing forward Auldheid’s work.
There is of course a possibility that the LNS result gives fresh life to the oldco/newco debate and I wonder what the TSFM response will be then. If still deemed off topic I hope we will be able to discuss it on your site.
Stephen, thanks with your assistance last night in “unspamming” my post on TSFM earlier today. It appears – since I can post on here – that my username is only marked as a spammer on TSFM. Perhaps this is a mistake – perhaps not.
Anyway, this is what I tried to post several minutes ago…
wjohnston1 says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 09:51
3 0 Rate This
HP. Excellent post which I admit to struggling with a little.
Could it be that in allowing this to progress, the SFA have given themselves enough room to uphold an appeal after the LNS decision is announced.
Wouldn’t put it past them.
They are no doubt avid readers of this blog and must be aware of this situation and have done nothing to correct it.
———————————-
The very short version is this:
The SPL articles state that its definitions and expressions need to be given the meanings as described in the Companies Act 2006.
The Companies Act 2006 says that an “undertaking” is “a body corporate” i.e. a company.
Lord Nimmo Smith has ignored this definition and instead accepted (or created) an alternative meaning for “undertaking” (as used in Article 2) which is fundamental to the concept of being able to separate Club from Company.
The principle of Club and company being distinct entities was expressly stated in the commissions terms of reference.
Lord Nimmo Smith has accepted the terms of reference as “facts”.
The SPL articles and rules apply to Clubs and to their “owners & operators”.
LNS asserts that the Club “Rangers FC” was owned & operated by Rangers Football Club plc.
He asserts that the Club “Rangers FC” transferred from Rangers Football Club plc to Sevco Scotland Ltd.
The Club (if found guilty) is still liable for the alleged breaches of SPL rules, even though the Club is no longer a member of the SPL.
He asserts that Sevco Scotland Ltd – as the new owner & operator of the Club – have a material interest in his commissions findings.
However…
Instead of his accepting LNS logic that allows the ethereal Club to be transferred between companies, the truth is – read in conjunction with the Companies Act 2006 – Article 2 really says that the Club is the “body corporate”. The Club is the Company.
The Club is Rangers Football Club plc. That Club is in liquidation.
Since Sevco Scotland Ltd did not purchase Rangers Football Club plc, Sevco Scotland did not buy the Club.
*On the simple basis of Sevco Scotland’s purchase of Rangers FC’s assets, the Commission cannot legally apply sanctions that would fall to Sevco Scotland for remedy.
This issue should have been fairly straightforward. We need to understand why it is not.
It is surprising to me that an experienced high court judge accepted the commission’s terms of reference without first checking its validity. It would be interesting to understand if the statement of reasons was really his own thoughts or a re-hash of the SPL legal advice that framed the commissions work.
It does not surprise me that the SPL have framed the commission in the way that they have. The “transferable Club” logic was first used to unsuccessfully argue that Newco should have Oldco’s share in the SPL. They are acting in their own commercial interest. Sporting Integrity has never been high on their agenda. We know what they are about.
It is hugely disappointing – but perhaps not surprising – that the SFA have not stepped in to clarify matters. Conflicted and/or incompetent probably best sums up its contribution.
————-
*I have one caveat to add to this.
We don’t know the exact details; but it is my understanding that Newco has agreed to settle all footballing debts relating to Oldco by virtue of the 5 way agreement.
You need to remember that one probable consequence of a guilty verdict from the commission is that Oldco would be ordered to repay SPL competition prize money. If it were to be repaid, this could be a very substantial pot (circa £15m?) for re-distribution to the league’s members and ex-members.
It appears that, having failed to get Newco into the SPL, the executive now believe that any Oldco fines and/or an order for prize money repayment would create a new football debt. This debt, in theory, could be enforceable against Newco.
Without seeing the actual document, I have no way of knowing just how financially exposed Newco are with respect to the commissions determinations. And, of course, depending on what Mr Green has signed, the ethereal club wheeze may no longer even be required for their purposes. In this context, the rush to get the share issue done perhaps makes more sense now than it did at the time.
However if, as I suspect it is, the 5 way agreement is based on the concept of a club called Rangers FC being a transferable non-corporate entity, the document would be so damaged as to be worthless.
Its live now. No idea why wp doesnt like you all of a sudden. Try posting sans formatting next time as that might be trigerring the spam filter…
“A Saintee
Cant post on TSFM so i will post it here.
==============================
ianagain on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 14:24
Hope they got paid up front.
Field Fisher Waterhouse corporate finance partner Christine Phillips spent much of 2012 on one of the highest-profile deals of the year, advising Rangers FC.
Rangers’ assets have now been floated on the AIM-listing and the club has raised £22m to improve its facilities and capital and boost the squad after liquidation saw it go from its premier position among Scottish football clubs to a lowly place in the third division of the Scottish Football League.
“It was a business that supported a lot of other suppliers,” says Phillips, “so inevitably for any football club to struggle economically in any city it causes problems for a lot of local businesses.
.“It’s important that you feel you’re doing something constructive for the local economy and with that club it was such a massive brand with a very dedicated and loyal supporter base that it has also been very rewarding to think that you’re helping the survival of the club.”
The deal was a rewarding but trying one, with the club’s fortunes all the while in the public eye. The consortium led by Charles Green, the club’s former owner, attempted to structure assets as acompany voluntary arrangement to try and ensure the survival of the club and its Scottish premier League membership.
Key creditor HMRC refused to support this, which meant the construction of a newco and the subsequent vote by the Scottish Football League for Rangers to
join the third rather than first division.
Phillips has both secured admission to AIM and an offer to fans to buy shares in their club, the total value of which is now £45.6m. Her work will make her popular with at least half of Glasgow.
===========================================
I dont know if this is badly worded or i am reading it wrong, but the part that says the deal was “lead by charles greens consortium, the clubs former owner”
is that not textbook pheonix trading and gratuitous alienation.
It would appear that the unspeakable organisation has utilised its corrupting powers and left Scottish football broken and unrepairable.
Still, best not mention it in case someone calls us paranoid.