Wings Over Scotland

It may be to you, it may be to common sense, but it isn't to the law.

Proof please.

I have deleted absolutely no posts here at any time. I'm sure any admin can confirm that.

Not yet they can't. The point about the SPL share is that Charles Green DID buy it. The sale document quite explicitly says so, and the fact that he voted on behalf of the oldco at the SPL meeting in question rather backs that up. However, mere possession of the share doesn't entitle him to its privileges, which is why newco isn't in the SPL. Same goes for the other marks. Various legal procedures have to be gone through before Sevco can trade as Rangers, and while it's likely that they will be, they haven't yet. Try to get it through your skull, and argue with what I've actually said, rather than your own twisted and inaccurate version of it.

I'd love you to quote me on that. For months I've been saying on the blog what I've just said above - they CAN trade as "Rangers" in theory, but not yet. So you'll forgive me if I assume your "recall" is rather less than total.

1. That's a VERY big "if", especially if sub-20,000 crowds are the norm at Ibrox. 2. There's more to getting players to sign for you than being able to pay them.

No. A company is only regarded as a "phoenix" in terms of not being able to use the old marks if some or all of the new directors were also involved in the oldco.

Same reason they're not in the SPL despite buying RFC's SPL share...

What, my "form" for repeatedly correcting your basic factual errors with accurate sourced information?

Not quite. They "own" the old club's SFA membership too, but don't yet have permission to use it. Simply buying something in this context doesn't automatically give you the right to use it. It is of course LIKELY that if Sevco reaches agreement in the current negotiations they'll be allowed to trade under Rangers' name and trademarks, but it's not the case yet.

SFA membership and SFL membership are not the same thing.

Our predictions of what the next 48 hours of this exciting and fun-packed family story will hold: http://wingsland.podgamer.com/the-guessing-game/

Pretty sure there are some fairly important words missing from that post somewhere.

Um, no, since I don't believe that there is. Are you confusing me with someone else?

Is there somewhere we can view the Sports Lawyers Premier League table?

I don't know what their corporate structure is. But the directors of AUFC took over Clydebank as a going concern and renamed it. The membership stayed where it was, only the name (and the strip, and other stuff) changed.

No membership transfer took place in the case of Airdrie Utd and Clydebank.

Can nobody be arsed to use Wikipedia around here?

SFA rules allow the Association to waive the conditions at its discretion. Also, because Sevco Scotland Limited are applying to transfer an existing membership, not applying for a new one, the rule doesn't apply anyway.

Yes: a PLC called Rangers FOOTBALL CLUB. In other words, the club and the company are the same thing. The club hasn't lost possession of anything yet. RFC PLC still holds the SPL share. You can link us to the legal definition of this distinction, can you?

Do we actually know that for sure? Is there a precedent? I imagine most new SFL members DO have the requisite four years of accounts for full membership.

They're really not. The "company" whose assets Sevco 5088 bought was called "Rangers Football Club PLC". I'd say there's a pretty big clue there that it was, in fact, a football club. If the "club" has continued separate from the company, why isn't it in the SPL? It was never relegated by football authorities, either on or off the field.

So far as I've been able to ascertain, the rules preventing a phoenix company using the old company's name only apply if the phoenix has some or most of the same directors as the oldco. It has nothing to do with the idiotic pish spouted by Sevco FC fans about the "club" and "company" being separate entities, it simply appears to be a slightly bizarre facet of the law that you can buy a bankrupt company's assets and then also take over their name so long as you're not one of the old directors.

Here's a fun detail: so far as I can make out, Rangers will not be entitled to any share of TV money from broadcasting their SFL games. http://wingsland.podgamer.com/a-thing-we-just-noticed/

Let's twist again, like we've been doing all summer: http://wingsland.podgamer.com/lets-twist-again-like-we-did-all-summer/