GlasgowCeltic.org
-
Posts
116 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by GlasgowCeltic.org
-
-
I do hope you're being ironic.
You can hope for whatever the f**k you like, it's a free country.
0 -
You guys are absolutely mental. BDO and HMRC do not give a single fuck about sevco trading as Rangers.
They're not, they're trading as 'The Rangers Football Club'.
0 -
Too easy. You're not going to embarass yourself by suggesting that The Rangers Football Club is distinct from Rangers are you?
From the Rangers website.
Define 'Rangers'.
0 -
There is. Companies House wouldnt allow you to register those names and Sevco/Rangers would enforce removal or name change. (just like the parent company of Easyjet sucessfully (in most cases) did a few years ago with over 80 companies who used the name 'Easy' in their name
They're not registering it as a company though, they're merely using it as a 'trading name'.
0 -
There would be if you attempted to pass it off as the business it's named similarly to, though.
Absolutely, I agree.
Unless I'm mistaken, the only people who could object to it currently would be Duff and Phelps, who are tied in with Green/Whyte/Ticketus etc.
No idea if BDO could once they take charge.
0 -
That's not proof, that's an assertion. As we've already seen, the name change won't actually happen until July 31st.
Unless I'm mistaken, they don't need to change anything.
In theory, there's nothing to stop me setting up a company called Sevco 5089 Ltd., and trading under the name "The Football Club Rangers" or similar.
0 -
Proof please.
It's on the homepage of the website they bought from the now defunct Rangers FC (IA).
"The Rangers Football Club, a trading name of Sevco Scotland Limited (No SC425159)"
0 -
From the BBC website
Sunday 29th July 2012 This table charts the fixtures during Sunday 29th July 2012 Ramsdens Challenge Cup - First Round North-East
Show last 5 matches and coverage Fixture Kick-off Status
Show Brechin V The Rangers FC 15:05
So this is the name the BBC are runing with
According to the website of Sevco Scotland Ltd., they are using the 'trading name' of 'The Rangers Football Club'.
0 -
Did Campbell Ogilvie also want Clydebank's history to transfer to Airdrie United? The SFL list it that way, as HibeeJibee pointed out earlier in the thread.
There are not a finite number of SFA memberships. If another club wanted to join the SFA, it could do so without taking on Rangers' membership. If it wanted to transfer the membership of Rangers, then that would require the permission of the oldco, and in that case it would be considered to be a continuation of the old Rangers, and would be liable for the punishments and priveliges of the oldco.
Why would it be considered a continuation of the now defunct club?
The sanctions would apply to any club which chose to take on the membership of the now defunct Rangers FC (IA).
If they want to keep their history, all they have to do is to get the shares from Craig Whyte, and either pay off the clubs debts, or come to some arrangement with their creditors. There's really no other option.
0 -
The SFA membership is what records the clubs achievements.
Does it?
So what if Rangers FC (IA) had decided to move to England and join the EPL?
They would have had to resign their membership of the SFA.
Would that have meant that they lost their history?
What if another club was started, and applied for the now vacated SFA membership? Would that club have Rangers FC (IA) history?
SFA membership carrying history is just another Campbell Ogilvie inspired piece of nonsense to dupe Sevco Scotland Ltd. fans into believing that their club isny pan breid.
0 -
IF, history can be bought, it seems, from what I've read, that the fans of Newco believe that the "history"
can only really be bought by the club trying to assume the former club's mantle.
I don't see why that should be the case, as you have pointed out.
The marker for 'preserving history' has changed so many times it's difficult to keep track of.
First of all it was 'agreeing a CVA lets us keep our history', which would actually have been correct.
Then it was 'Once the SPL share transfers to us, we keep our history.'
Now it's 'If we transfer the SFA membership, we keep our history'.
If the SFA membership doesn't get transferred to the new club, we can expect some new line of nonsense along the lines of "aye, but as long as we play at Ibrox, we keep our history".
Some people are just living in denial that their club is snuffed.
It's quite worrying, if people were to walk around claiming that Third Lanark still existed and played football, they'd get sectioned.
0 -
Not sure about that. But history is an intangible asset. Goodwill (the business type) is another. These can be purchased.
Scots law has never recognised 'history' as an incorporeal moveable property.
Like I said, if I purchased the 'history' of Rangers FC (IA), would that mean that it was fans of me who had wrecked Barcelona, rioted in Manchester etc. ?
Could, for example, Aberdeen FC 'purchase' the history from AC Milan, and claim to have won umpteen Serie A titles, despite never having played in it?
Nonsensical idea.
0 -
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.
Rangers FC (IA) didn't file their accounts either. They shouldn't even have been licensed.
This certainly has nothing to do with the likes of former Rangers FC (IA) shareholder, director, employee and SFA president Campbell Ogilvie.
0 -
The adminstrators, who are still running the old company, stated in their interim report issued on 10/7/12 that not only the assets but also the business, history, goodwill (the business sort!) have been transferred to the new company, which is now running the club. The new company will even take the old company's name in due course.
History is not an asset.
If it were, then could one person buy it, and claim that they have the history of Rangers FC (IA)?
What if that person dies, and leaves all of their assets to their cat?
Would their cat then have the history of Rangers FC (IA)?
It's patently nonsense designed to appease those who hear what they wish to hear.
0 -
So, there IS a route where Charlie Green can preside over a new footballing entity that has no SFA sanctions imposed upon it, nor is it liable for the sins of the oldco's EBT scam, AND they are called Rangers, and have all history intact with 5 wee stars on their shirt?
No.
Sevco Scotland Ltd. are not, and never will be Ranges FC (IA).
The penalties for all of the wrongdoings of Rangers FC (IA) will be applicable to any club which wishes to gain the membership that Rangers FC (IA) held.
In theory, Celtic FC could revoke their membership, apply for the one previously owned by Rangers FC (IA), and if transfer is granted, Celtic FCwould be subject to the sanctions.
It wouldn't mean that Celtic FC had taken on the history of Rangers FC (IA).
There is no way to transfer 'history', it's not an asset, and it's not associated with any memberships of any organisation.
0 -
You are wrong on this as well.
I'm under the impression that the SFA requirements on club licensing require 3 years of audited accounts?
Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 would seem to suggest that they do, and that it should already have been submitted.
0 -
So the Club existed as something other than a company before 1899. Surely that bolsters the argument that a football club is not a company but rather an entity solely defined by the governing bodies, in this case the SFA.
Yes, it existed as a privately owned organisation, which was subsequently incorporated.
In theory, an individual could have bought up all of the shares in the club and unincorporated it again.
0 -
To try and cut to the chase - IF Charles Green can get a new 'entity' to start this season... is there any way he can do it and see his new entity completely dodge any SFA imposed sanctions and also dodge any punishments in regard to oldco EBTs?
Yup, apply for a new SFA membership, instead of trying to gain the one previously held by the now defunct Rangers FC (IA), which will have the sanctions attached to it, and subsequently, to any club which wishes to take it on.
Of course, this would require 3 years of audited accounts...
0 -
Well if you think about it, an asset is something you can sell for a monetary value. Players can leave on free transfers, or in the case of Rangers, just leave anyway, therefore they can't be regarded as assets.
Rangers FC (IA) could have sold those players, as they were contracted to Rangers FC (IA). They didn't, the club went bust, and so the players were, at that point, no longer assets of the now defunct club.
0 -
Do you have anything to back that up?
http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495830
"as Rangers formally became a business company."
http://www.rangers.co.uk/coaching-staff-profile/article/1555141
"In May 1899, Wilton was given the dual role of manager and secretary when the club became a limited liability company."
Those are from the official website of the now defunct Rangers Football Club.
0 -
The playing staff is not an asset, I don't believe.
wut?
0 -
That's precisely what happened.
How can a club be an asset of itself?
Do we both agree that the club started off as a body of individuals who incorporated the club in 1899?
0 -
No, the assets belonged to a PLC. The clue, as you say, is in that.
The club lost possession of the SPL share, not the company. The club lost it because of the actions of the company, granted, but there is a legal distinction between the club and the company, whether we want to accept it or not. That's not up for debate. Nobody has been relegated in this saga - the club or the company.
The club is not an asset of the company, the club is the company.
Instead of all this pish about agreeing a CVA, getting the shares from Craig Whyte etc, why not just buy the 'club' from the 'company' and leave the 'company behind'?
Because it's impossible, they are one and the same thing.
The club was formed as a private members association, and incorporated in 1899. The club is the company, and that is what is being liquidated.
0 -
The Rangers fans are correct in making a division between the club and the company
Why? They were the same thing.
0
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted
Nope, they owned 'The Rangers Football Club plc', which is the club which won a few titles, rioted in Manchester, Barcelona etc. If they wanted to own that same club, they would have had to have bought the shares from Craig Whyte.