Wings Over Scotland Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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 AWARDS68.1 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 bedistributed 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Koop Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stirlingshire_staggie Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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. It's a 4000 sell out. Tell the good people of Brechin to lock there doors and hide untill it's all over. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 "@STVRaman: STV has learned former Hearts duo Craig Beattie and Ian Black are to train with Rangers this week - starting today 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 name='Enrico Annoni' timestamp='1343123594' post='6461274']"@STVRaman: STV has learned former Hearts duo Craig Beattie and Ian Black are to train with Rangers this week - starting today 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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: It's really stretching credibility to believe that the timing of that change in wording is coincidental. You'll only give yourself a headache trying to find anything conclusive in the rulebooks amongst all the ambiguities and contradictions. They'll interpret them as they see fit. "Membership" can clearly include "Associate Membership" should they wish it to, and not if they don't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrshireTon Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 1343124237[/url]' post='6461305']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. You'll be lucky if they even know where Brechin or Glebe Park are. Bear in mind that these are the sort of folk who started leaving a League Cup tie against Clyde (2-2) and had to be told by the tannoy guy to go back and sit down as the game would go to extra time and not a replay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 “@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 That actually makes me chuckle a bit, TBH. Stewart Gilmour was fucking raging that Hearts signed Beattie (we were apparently trying to bring him in ) whilst unable to pay their current players on time. I fear for his blood pressure should Beattie sign for the newco 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I would argue that people at large generally accept these things So people at large generally accept that Gretna 2008 are Gretna? That AFC Wimbledon won the FA Cup with Vinnie Jones? That Clydebank have always played junior football and that Airdrieonians had a bit of a temporary liquidity problem? Yes, back in the days when folk played football while still wearing their monocles these things happened all the time and nobody batted an eyelid. But in the modern age if a team is wound up and resurrected people are always going to remember that. Some folk on here seem absolutely determined to be as down about this whole affair as possible even after all that's happened. Fucking self-hating fucking Scots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wings Over Scotland Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 We can see that by the fact that TUPE applied (TUPE only applies where there has been a transfer of undertakings). Amazingly enough, you're jumping the gun yet again. It very much LOOKS to any impartial observer that TUPE will apply, but it hasn't yet. Charles Green has filed an objection to former Rangers players moving to other clubs, and the SFA has refused to release their registrations pending a hearing. Southampton have, we're told, actually paid a transfer fee in respect of one ot the players concerned to bypass the dispute. I have no idea why you're so astonishingly doggedly determined to treat things as done-and-dusted facts prematurely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Just that the 'joke' was "snale oil" not "snake oil" It's been a slow morning. Very slow, never noticed and went with my own joke, and the worst of it have already put the order for the new business cards to the printers - bugger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wings Over Scotland Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 You'll only give yourself a headache trying to find anything conclusive in the rulebooks amongst all the ambiguities and contradictions. They'll interpret them as they see fit. "Membership" can clearly include "Associate Membership" should they wish it to, and not if they don't. While it's obviously true that the authorities can, have and will ride roughshod over their own rules if they so choose, it doesn't alter the fact that the meaning and intent of Rule 68 as it stands is crystal clear - the Capped Limit is for distribution to all members, the Excess is for distribution to full members only. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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? Surely it would be utter madness to sign a deal for that sort of duration...? In the course of almost a decade the markets could open up (e.g. with BT) and that competition could lead to improved offers. So people at large generally accept that Gretna 2008 are Gretna? That AFC Wimbledon won the FA Cup with Vinnie Jones? That Clydebank have always played junior football and that Airdrieonians had a bit of a temporary liquidity problem? If any of those were examples of the issue being debated, you might've had a point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) Apologies if this has already been posted http://www.rangersme...club&Itemid=529 First comment below that story : ----- I feel you missed the boat somehow ranger could of joined blue square and in 3 years could of been in the championship which I believe to be a richer league than spl but then we would have reps from three nations then and it would benefit our english leagues with rangers in it it will take you 3 yrs to get in spl anyway I'm sure we would of welcome you. When did that paticiple of speech come into being? Bloody English can't even speak their own language properly. I lived in England for 5 years and actually had to go to my daughter's school on one occasion to complain to the Head, as her teacher had marked "could've" as incorrect, had scored it out, and had written "could of" in its place....... a FECKIN' teacher. Mind you, given her non-punctuation and other grammar, it's not surprising. Edited July 24, 2012 by Happy Buddie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) 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. No its not stretching credibility. The context has completely changed in this section to describe constituent members of the divisions. You can infer whatever position suits you but the rules by definition can allow the word Member to describe an organisation that has joined the league (regardless of membership status) unless prohibited. If the rules stated something such as 68.4.3.1 55% of the Excess, to be divided among the Members, excluding associate members, in the First Division; or 68.4.3.1 55% of the Excess, to be divided among the Full Member Clubs in the First Division; then you would have a case, otherwise it is ambiguous and at the discretion of the league. If we accept your logic then the Newco Rangers can negotiate their own TV deal as the rule that prevents them from doing so only mentions members this is rule 70.1: Members may enter into commercial arrangements or sponsorship agreements with third parties but must ensure that any such proposed arrangement or agreement does not and will not conflict with the commercial arrangements or sponsorship agreements contemplated or already negotiated by the Board on behalf of the League as contemplated in Rule 71 (Commercial Arrangements by the Board). Cannot have it both ways I am afraid. Edited July 24, 2012 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Koop Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Legover managed to confused 'someday' with somebody'. Hey ho, we all make mistakes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 While it's obviously true that the authorities can, have and will ride roughshod over their own rules if they so choose, it doesn't alter the fact that the meaning and intent of Rule 68 as it stands is crystal clear - the Capped Limit is for distribution to all members, the Excess is for distribution to full members only. So, if they survive until money dishing out time, it will be up to one of the other 'members' to complain. I don't think it will come to that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagmaster Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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. Given that your username is Pull My Strings, i'm intrigued as to what your paying client is paying for! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.