Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Savage Henry]

On further investigation, it does indeed appear that Sevco Scotland Limited will NOT be entitled, under current SFL rules, to a share of any TV revenue obtained through broadcasting its matches.

http://wingsland.pod...ding-the-field/

I think you are protesting too much on that point.

[drs]

No reason for why though.

Proably what the bottom of his bottle told him.

[cyderspaceman]

It would confuse old Leggup if Brian Green and Charles Kennedy got involved.

He could never type out all those names without getting in a tangle.

http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Brian-Green-4164

http://www.charleskennedy.org.uk/

Spurious nonsense thread for this pish. I know.

[Fasda]

I think you are protesting too much on that point.

To be fair that's exactly how this whole sordid story has been moved along by forums such as this and blogs such as his. Keep it up FFS!

Edited July 24, 2012 by Fasda

[MEADOWXI]

WTF is Snale oil???

what a fuckwit

Not sure but I fancy setting up a franchise selling it.

If being a 'snake oil salesman' allows Charlie Green to swan around in the country in his one suit buying football clubs and talking of having 20 investors willing to input millions into your plans then it must be a good thing.

May get it added to my business card

'Snake Oil Salesman & Stand Up Guy' - Should fool all the people now with those two credentials

Edited July 24, 2012 by MEADOWXI

[Tommytommybrolin]

The Leggo blog spotted a problem with Rangers' fans buying tickets: "It also came on a day when Rangers fans who turned up at Ibrox to buy tickets for the game at Brechin on Sunday, discovered Charles Green’s Sevco company was unable to take payments by credit or debit cards." Presumably of more interest to many of them would be whether they could buy season tickets with someone else's credit card.

[~~~]

“@STVRaman: STV has learned former Hearts duo Craig Beattie and Ian Black are to train with Rangers this week - starting today http://t.co/20uKW6Cr”

Apart from the lack of ambition from the 2 players, I think it shows how poor a manager McCoist is if he really thinks he needs these players to get out of Div 3 & 2

[cyderspaceman]

Not sure but I fancy setting up a franchise selling it.

If being a 'snake oil salesman' allows Charlie Green to swan around in the country in his one suit buying football clubs and talking of having 20 investors willing to input millions input your plans then it must be a good thing.

May get it added to my business card

'Snake Oil Salesman & Stand Up Guy' - Should fool all the people now with those two credentials

Woosh?

[pozbaird]

By that logic you've just written off Hibs' Scottish cup win, however I don't see people reminding you of that via the medium of song every weekend.

Time will pass, people will forget, and nobody will care to listen to those who complain otherwise whether you like it or not. Such is life.

Nope. People won't forget. They won't forget because your club cheated, willfully witheld tax, and once found out and cornered, bleated like fcuk about being punished - seemingly on the grounds that a big boy did it and ran away, the big house must stay open, and you are the people.

It doesn't wash. I don't give much of a fcuk about the paperwork and legal shenanigans. I am none the wiser after reading page upon page of inter-forumster argument about 'club v company' on here.

Rangers are cheats and tax evaders. They died. In shame. In 2012.

A newco will likely be portrayed in the red tops, on the telly, and by oldco supporters as being Rangers - and I fully understand that will happen. If the Newco gets going - Sky TV will talk about Brechin City v Rangers. The red tops will print the result as Brechin City v Rangers. The newco to the outside world will be Rangers.

We know differently. Diddy team fans know it, and while they won't admit it, deep down, oldco fans know it. Rangers were cheats, tax evaders, and in embryo newco guise are still arrogant triumphalist whinging bawbags...

FACT.

Edited July 24, 2012 by pozbaird

[strichener]

On further investigation, it does indeed appear that Sevco Scotland Limited will NOT be entitled, under current SFL rules, to a share of any TV revenue obtained through broadcasting its matches.

http://wingsland.pod...ding-the-field/

Selective reading I believe. If you read the Constitution and Rules, the definitions include the following:

“Member or Member Club” means a football club however constituted

which is a member of the League as provided for in Section 2 of these Rules

and includes an Associate Member or Members where the context so

allows or requires;

On the basis of your argument, an associate member cannot resign as rule 12 states:

No Member shall resign, retire or otherwise cease to be a member of the

League unless it shall have given not less than two full seasons prior written

notice so to do, unless with the approval of not less than two-thirds (66%)

of the votes cast at a general meeting of the League.

with no mention made of associate members.

[Stagmaster]

Was just perusing RTC website and seen a post which stated Doncaster was looking for an 8 year deal with Sky/ESPN for SPL rights. Am I alone in thinking he is worried how long it is going to take Newco to reach the SPL? So much so that he is giving Newco 8 years to reach the big table?

[MEADOWXI]

Woosh?

?

[cimex]

Apologies if this has already been posted

http://www.rangersme...club&Itemid=529

[cyderspaceman]

"@STVRaman: STV has learned former Hearts duo Craig Beattie and Ian Black are to train with Rangers this week - starting today http://t.co/20uKW6Cr"

Apart from the lack of ambition from the 2 players, I think it shows how poor a manager McCoist is if he really thinks he needs these players to get out of Div 3 & 2

I've been thinking about that.

There is NO WAY Ally can take a chance on not winning Div3.

Therefore he will squander every available penny on buying

what he considers to be the best available players.

Good.

Insolvency beckons.

Edited July 24, 2012 by cyderspaceman

[Dr Koop]

Was just perusing RTC website and seen a post which stated Doncaster was looking for an 8 year deal with Sky/ESPN for SPL rights. Am I alone in thinking he is worried how long it is going to take Newco to reach the SPL? So much so that he is giving Newco 8 years to reach the big table?

Eight years is about enough time for the SPL clubs to meet and decide who wants tea, who wants coffee. You never know, there might even be league reconstruction by 2020 as well.

[cyderspaceman]

?

Just that the 'joke' was "snale oil" not "snake oil"

It's been a slow morning.

[Wings Over Scotland]

Selective reading I believe.

Not if read in context. Rule 68 is absolutely explicit in reference to "Members and Associate Members" the entire time it talks about distribution of the Capped Limit, then suddenly stops mentioning Associate Members at the exact point it starts talking about the Excess:

68. MONETARY AWARDS

68.1 The League shall make monetary awards to each Member and Associate

Member in the three League Championship competitions.

68.2 For the purposes of this Rule 68, the surplus on the League’s Trading

Account shall be subject to a capped limit of £1,187,649 in Season

2008/09 (the “Capped Limit”).

68.3 The Capped Limit shall be adjusted each year by a percentage equivalent

to the difference between the Retail Prices Index issued on behalf of HM

Government for the month of March in the year of distribution and the said

index for the month of March in the preceding year. In the event of the

cessation of publication of such Index, the Board shall have power to

substitute such Index for adjustment purposes as it may consider most

closely reflects the impact of inflation upon the costs incurred by football

clubs in carrying on their business.

68.4 The surplus on the League’s Trading Account at the end of each financial

period shall be distributed to Members and Associate Members as follows:-

68.4.1 75% of the Capped Limit shall be divided equally among all Members and

Associate Members;

68.4.2 25% of the Capped Limit shall be disbursed among the Members and

Associate Members on an incentive ladder based system of payments; and

68.4.3 Any excess of the surplus above the Capped Limit (“the Excess”) shall be

distributed on an incentive based ladder system by the Board allocating:

68.4.3.1 55% of the Excess, to be divided among the Members in the First Division;

68.4.3.2 33% of the Excess, to be divided among the Members in the Second

Division; and

68.4.3.3 12% of the Excess, to be divided among the Members in the Third Division.

It's really stretching credibility to believe that the timing of that change in wording is coincidental.

[Happy Buddie]

The Leggo blog spotted a problem with Rangers' fans buying tickets: "It also came on a day when Rangers fans who turned up at Ibrox to buy tickets for the game at Brechin on Sunday, discovered Charles Green's Sevco company was unable to take payments by credit or debit cards." Presumably of more interest to many of them would be whether they could buy season tickets with someone else's credit card.

Anyone any idea how many Orcs will be heading to Brechin? Well, the number who bought the official allocation from Ibrox. There may be a few more who live near Brechin who'll buy home-support tickets.

[Dr Koop]

Apologies if this has already been posted

http://www.rangersme...club&Itemid=529

It doesn't really 'do' what it says on the tin, does it? Mind you, nice to see a recognition of Rangers' 'crime'.

[Pull My Strings]

No they didn't, the entire undertaking would be the old company et all. Sevco only purchased the assets of the company, the use of trading names is controlled by statute - The Business Names Act 1985. This Act imposes certain legal requirements on companies using trading names. The most obvious point is the trading name cannot be the same as or similar to another company or business name in a way that might be confusing.

In the case of Rangers transferring the name from the oldco to the newco and treating them as different companies could fall foul of the passing off regulations. It is down to someone to complain though.

I'm sorry but that is simply not right.

There is a general prohibition under the Insolvency Act 1986 (Section 216 )on the reuse of company names and that prohibition extends to trading names. However, there are exceptions to this general prohibition: one being where a new company buys the assets (or substantially the assets) of a company in administration or liquidation with the intention of continuing to operate that business. I've posted the exact rule three times on this thread now. Rule 4.228 of the Insolvency Rules 1986.

If you'd like to post the section of the Business Names Act 1985 which you think applies in this case I'm happy to reconsider but I've had this discussion with several posters already on this thread and no one seems to be able to provide any authority for their position. I've had a quick look again at the 1985 Act to refresh my memory and I can't see anything in there which would prevent sevco from trading as Rangers. Here's the Act if anyone feels like diving in. My understanding is that, actually, most issues with business names (not already addressed under insolvency legislation) are actually dealt with in the Companies Act 2006.

Incidentally there is a well recognised distinction between a company and a business undertaking. A business is the work carried out whereas a company is the legal personality under which that business undertaking operates. There has been a great deal of judicial discussion on the point at which a transfer of business property becomes a transfer of undertakings but the gist is that the same work is carried out by the same people, usually from the same premises with substantially the same customers etc. It's well recognised that in this context the purchase of the assets by Green from the oldco constituted a transfer of undertakings. We can see that by the fact that TUPE applied (TUPE only applies where there has been a transfer of undertakings).

Anyhoo, I've got a paying client in now so must dash. I'll try to find you a legal definition of undertaking later if you like.