Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[hellbhoy]

Neither am I, but I think this board does have some and I'm happy to listen to them and read the links they provide. I agree that it's a continuation (and a fcuking scandal like so much else in this mess) however, that does not necessarily mean that it meets the legal criteria of a phoenix company.

It's like the Whyte story in the DR today or the fact that MInty hasn't had the 4:00am door knock yet, incomprehensible to us 'normal' folk, but seems to make sense to the law

??? so the oldco is in liquidation and will soon die when BDO finish off on the last stroke off a pen and place The Rangers football club Ltd/PLC into the history annuls as a dead company never to play football at Ibrox ever again !.

Now here we have The Rangers football club Ltd (apparently at the mo) owned by Charles Green using everything that the oldco had wanting to play football as the oldco that is dead when liquidation finally happens.

Naw that does not fucking compute man ! it does not at all FFS it's like a bad dream trying to separate the two companies as different companies.

These two entities need to be separated for clarity ! one is dead and the other Charles Green's newco is not the dead company.One died this year and one was created this year and needs to be publicly announced that Charles Green is fielding and playing a brand new team at Ibrox where a dead club used to play football.

I'm happy if the two clubs are separated and Charles Green plays a Rangers team at Ibrox with the RFC badge ! but with no history and on the record this is a new Rangers team created in 2012.Just so we know the old club died FOR CERTAIN.

[Wings Over Scotland]

You've missed the point. Sevco are trading as Rangers,

Proof please.

[Wings Over Scotland]

To me that's phoenixing.

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

[Itwiznaeme]

You've missed the point. Sevco are trading as Rangers, they don't need to rename the company to trade as Rangers. If they were prevented from calling the company Rangers (which is what has been suggested) then they would equally be prevented from trading as Rangers under the insolvency rules on reuse of company names. There is, however, no problem under those rules because sevco bought the entire undertaking from administrators.

The reason for what you have posted above is that the oldco needed to change it's name before the newco take the official company name and because there are notice requirements. Nothing to do with reusing company names/trading names.

[Itwiznaeme]

So on 31/7

Rangers FC becomes RFC2012 plc

Sevco becomes The Rangers Football Club Ltd.

Correct? Brechin are not playing Rangers, they are to play Sevco.

Precisely!

[Pull My Strings]

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

Absolutely right. They don't show in your post history but they're still in the thread. Apologies for any offence.

Anyhoo, here's what I posted:

It's ludicrous to suggest that parliament would legislate with the express intention of killing a business which has been bought as a going concern by someone not associated with the original failed company.]

And here's your reply:

Where are you getting this "bought/sold as a going concern" cobblers you keep repeating from? That's exactly what DIDN'T happen. It's what WOULD have happened if the CVA was successful, but it wasn't. What Green bought was the assets of a failed company which is being wound up by liquidators, which he plans to use to create an entirely new business. Not the same thing at all.

And then my explanation:

Sorry you're talking bollocks. The old company is dead but the business continues. That's why TUPE applied. Rangers (a football business, running from particular premises, carrying out a particular type work, with a particular brand and particular set of customers) are the undertaking. That business undertaking was sold by the administrators to Green to allow Green to continue that undertaking. Those exact circumstances are one of the exceptions to the prohibition on reusing company names/trading names.

Rule 4.228 of the Insolvency Rules 1986

4.228.—(1) Where a company ("the successor company") acquires the whole, or substantially the whole, of the business of an insolvent company, under arrangements made by an insolvency practitioner acting as its liquidator, administrator or administrative receiver, or as supervisor of a voluntary arrangement under Part I of the Act, the successor company may for the purposes of section 216 give notice under this Rule to the insolvent company's creditors.

(2) To be effective, the notice must be given within 28 days from the completion of the arrangements, to all creditors of the insolvent company of whose addresses the successor company is aware in that period; and it must specify—

(a)the name and registered number of the insolvent company and the circumstances in which its business has been acquired by the successor company,

(b)the name which the successor company has assumed, or proposes to assume for the purpose of carrying on the business, if that name is or will be a prohibited name under section 216, and

©any change of name which it has made, or proposes to make, for that purpose under section 28 of the Companies Act.

(3) The notice may name a person to whom section 216 may apply as having been a director or shadow director of the insolvent company, and give particulars as to the nature and duration of that directorship, with a view to his being a director of the successor company or being otherwise associated with its management.

(4) If the successor company has effectively given notice under this Rule to the insolvent company's creditors, a person who is so named in the notice may act in relation to the successor company in any of the ways mentioned in section 216(3), notwithstanding that he has not the leave of the court under that section.

Now, that looks to me like you're refuting the suggestion that Rangers have been sold as an ongoing business undertaking and, since you went to the trouble of contradicting me, I assume that you also refute my explanation as to why they are not prevented from using the company name or trading name. I'd be interested to hear your properly sourced rebuttal.

[GlasgowCeltic.org]

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)"

[cyderspaceman]

http://www.rangers.c. ..article/2832728

Duff and Phelps, administrators of The Rangers Football Club plc (in administration) issued the following statement today.

"We have written to all shareholders of The Rangers Football Club plc (in administration) to provide notice of a general meeting of the Company to be held at Ibrox Stadium on July 31.

"The resolution to be put forward at that meeting is to change the name of the Company to RFC 2012 plc and there will be no other business on the day.

"This is a procedural measure in order for Sevco Scotland Limited - which acquired the business and assets of the Company from the administrators on June 14 - to change its name simultaneously to The Rangers Football Club Limited."

The club/company name changes have not yet taken place.

Whatever the legalities of the situation, it still looks like a con trick to delude the previous customers of 'Rangers' into believing that this 3rd rate pile of shite is the same team as wot they used to support. Shameful! Something must be done to protect these poor vulnerable individuals from this sort of chicanery.

[Itwiznaeme]

To me that's phoenixing.

Both start with The Rangers Football Club.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18509619

"Any attempt to adopt the name 'The Rangers Football Club' would require the approval of the liquidators, BDO."

"Companies House has said that a name change application has not been made by Sevco 5088, and may not be possible."

"The consortium claims the full company name has already been transferred over by the administrators Duff & Phelps."

" 'The Rangers Football Club P.L.C.', which has the registered company number SC004276, has not yet been dissolved, but will inevitably be liquidated due to unpaid debts."

[Wings Over Scotland]

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)"

That's not proof, that's an assertion. As we've already seen, the name change won't actually happen until July 31st.

[The Old Northerner]

Proof please.

The small print at the bottom of their website suggests that Sevco Scotland is using The Rangers Football Club as a trading name

[chico]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18509619

"Any attempt to adopt the name 'The Rangers Football Club' would require the approval of the liquidators, BDO."

"Companies House has said that a name change application has not been made by Sevco 5088, and may not be possible."

"The consortium claims the full company name has already been transferred over by the administrators Duff & Phelps."

" 'The Rangers Football Club P.L.C.', which has the registered company number SC004276, has not yet been dissolved, but will inevitably be liquidated due to unpaid debts."

So it Sevco 5088 Ltd bought the assets, where's the Sevco Scotland Ltd coming from?

That's a different company, registered in a different county?

Is Sevco 5088 a holding company for Sevco Scotland?

[Wings Over Scotland]

Now, that looks to me like you're refuting the suggestion that Rangers have been sold as an ongoing business undertaking and, since you went to the trouble of contradicting me, I assume that you also refute my explanation as to why they are not prevented from using the company name or trading name. I'd be interested to hear your properly sourced rebuttal.

Sigh. Yet again, you've provided proof that Sevco CAN trade as Rangers, which I've at no point disputed. The fact that they CAN do so, however, is not the same as the assertion that they are CURRENTLY doing so.

[Pull My Strings]

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.

Go on then, I am all ears. The problem with bluffing on the internet is that occasionally someone will call you on it.

The reason they are not in the SPL is because the other members refused to sanction the transfer of the share. It's not an unusual concept and it's got nothing to do with the use of company names or trading names. Unless you're suggesting that the other members of the SPL own the name, 'Rangers'. Now that would surprise me and would make your argument coherent. I fear you're not arguing that, however.

[GlasgowCeltic.org]

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.

[Wings Over Scotland]

Go on then, I am all ears. The problem with bluffing on the internet is that occasionally someone will call you on it.

The reason they are not in the SPL is because the other members refused to sanction the transfer of the share.

When did I dispute that? I merely, and I'm dismayed to have to say this AGAIN, refuted the previously-made assertion that buying the assets of the oldco automatically granted the ability to use them, noting the SPL share as an example. The specific reasons in the case of the share are utterly irrelevant, all I was pointing out was that the mere purchase of assets didn't necessarily provide the concomitant rights.

[Pull My Strings]

Sigh. Yet again, you've provided proof that Sevco CAN trade as Rangers, which I've at no point disputed. The fact that they CAN do so, however, is not the same as the assertion that they are CURRENTLY doing so.

With all due respect, it's rather poor form to contradict someone publically and then refuse to provide a proper explanation of your position.

You remarked that I was talking cobblers when I said that there was no problem with sevco trading as Rangers. Which part of that is cobblers and where is the source that you claim to have posted in response?

[Wings Over Scotland]

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.

There would be if you attempted to pass it off as the business it's named similarly to, though.

[Pull My Strings]

When did I dispute that? I merely, and I'm dismayed to have to say this AGAIN, refuted the previously-made assertion that buying the assets of the oldco automatically granted the ability to use them, noting the SPL share as an example. The specific reasons in the case of the share are utterly irrelevant, all I was pointing out was that the mere purchase of assets didn't necessarily provide the concomitant rights.

Sorry, who suggested that? I'd be delighted to read that particular quote.

[Wings Over Scotland]

With all due respect, it's rather poor form to contradict someone publically and then refuse to provide a proper explanation of your position.

You remarked that I was talking cobblers when I said that there was no problem with sevco trading as Rangers. Which part of that is cobblers

The part that says there's no problem with it. There are in fact numerous problems with it. The fact that they will likely be overcome doesn't mean they don't exist.