stonedsailor Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 First of all well done on the abbreviated version on the rules & regulations of the licensing of clubs being eligible to play in European competitions under UEFA,for that is what this articles of association relates to.Nothing to do with transference of membership within a domestic football asociation,or indeed a continuation of a historical timeline,but i would imagine you know exactly what this full article of UEFA relates to,nice flannel though i'll give you that. Now let's go to your next part,as at this moment in time it's safe to assume that The Rangers Football Club plc aren't formally liquidated,so in that respect the administrators of the club surely then must have sold the club to Sevco before liquidation took place,making Sevco the operating company of the football club,making it in theory a buy out before liquidation. That then makes it a continuos club as agreed by the SFA,SPL and SFL after agreement to undertake certain conditions imposed after transfer of the SFA Membership,no problem on that from myself i have to say. Now i'll argue the toss on this with you all you like but tbh i'm getting a bit bored with it all now but can you answer me one question,why have other clubs in Europe that have went through a similar procedure been given recognition of continuity by UEFA in a football context,why not Rangers. And please don;t go back down the road of companies law,that's been done,a straight answer under a football context will suffice. Have there been any clubs given continuance of history? Middlesbourgh stole back their claim to the history this is evident in the fact that between 1986 and 2007 their badge carried the year 1986 on it. I can't think of any others. If there are is it possible that since the financial fair play rules came into force there has been a change of tact? Is that why UEFA has defined a club now as "the legal entity fully responsible for a football team?" Are UEFA as pissed off with arsehole clubs shedding debt then starting again, fresh and debt free so have done something about it? Have the rules changed in the quarter century since Boro went tits up? Whatever the answers to these questions the fact is UEFA views the club and company as the same thing. Which blows Charles Green's only explanation for continuance that the club and company are separate out of the water. Now can you explain to me how you go about separating club and company? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Everyone else can follow it ... However poor wee Bennett doesn't understand it seems .. getting way too complicated for him ... never mind Green will sort it all out for you .. you just keep pumping the money in .. It's there in black and white from the BBC, Celtic never declared the payments from their EBT usage which is against the rules. Unless you think that the BBC lied about it, Celtic payed a player paymenyts otuwith his contract. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) at this moment in time it's safe to assume that The Rangers Football Club plc aren't formally liquidated,so in that respect the administrators of the club surely then must have sold the club to Sevco before liquidation took place,making Sevco the operating company of the football club,making it in theory a buy out before liquidation. That then makes it a continuos club as agreed by the SFA,SPL and SFL after agreement to undertake certain conditions imposed after transfer of the SFA Membership,no problem on that from myself i have to say. Now i'll argue the toss on this with you all you like but tbh i'm getting a bit bored with it all now but can you answer me one question,why have other clubs in Europe that have went through a similar procedure been given recognition of continuity by UEFA in a football context,why not Rangers. And please don;t go back down the road of companies law,that's been done,a straight answer under a football context will suffice. So, if a CVA wasn't agreed, the liquidation has yet to take place & the sale of the club, & assets (via D&P's), been made to the Green Knights. Surely Sevco have bought the club lock, stock & barrell for £5.5M, so what's the problem? SDM paid £6M & CW £1, I see no real difference in this deal after all. What's that you say, the liabilities aren't part of the deal, is that legal? It seems like a straight forward purchase of the club from the administrators to me! Edited September 12, 2012 by kiddy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 He'll be waiting for McConville or RTC to provide a suitable anwer first, i've never know anyone as blinkered as that. most Celtic fans that i know (real life/offline) are prepared to listen to reason and accept that everythings not Rangers bad - Celtic good. Given the stance of every Rangers fan refuse to accept any evidence about their club and have even defended Charles Green at every turn. Irony overload. I frigging hate defending Celtic so you have annoyed me more than usual. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) So, if a CVA wasn't agreed, the liquidation has yet to take place & the sale of the club, & assets (via D&P's), been made to the Green Knights. Surely Sevco have bought the club lock, stock & barrell for £5.5M, so what's the problem? SDM paid £6M & CW £1, I see no real difference in this deal after all. What's that you say, the liabilities aren't part of the deal, is that legal? It seems like a straight forward purchase of the club from the administrators to me! I can see this "Club separate from the holding company" thing coming back to bite them hard with the creditors. It's the club they're chasing for payment, they don't give a feck about what "holding Company" is running the show.. Edited September 12, 2012 by kiddy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Troll .. or stupid which is it? You may be a stupid troll but you're our stupid troll. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 First of all well done on the abbreviated version on the rules & regulations of the licensing of clubs being eligible to play in European competitions under UEFA,for that is what this articles of association relates to.Nothing to do with transference of membership within a domestic football asociation,or indeed a continuation of a historical timeline,but i would imagine you know exactly what this full article of UEFA relates to,nice flannel though i'll give you that. Now let's go to your next part,as at this moment in time it's safe to assume that The Rangers Football Club plc aren't formally liquidated,so in that respect the administrators of the club surely then must have sold the club to Sevco before liquidation took place,making Sevco the operating company of the football club,making it in theory a buy out before liquidation. That then makes it a continuos club as agreed by the SFA,SPL and SFL after agreement to undertake certain conditions imposed after transfer of the SFA Membership,no problem on that from myself i have to say. Now i'll argue the toss on this with you all you like but tbh i'm getting a bit bored with it all now but can you answer me one question,why have other clubs in Europe that have went through a similar procedure been given recognition of continuity by UEFA in a football context,why not Rangers. And please don;t go back down the road of companies law,that's been done,a straight answer under a football context will suffice. Firstly youngsy ! that was well constructed ! but shite . Secondly ! don't go greeting yer face aff when the shit hits the fan when punishments are handed out to yer club,if you are willing to accept money as the oldco then yer big enough to accept the punishments of the oldco as well ! do enjoy the title stripping and other sanctions. You can't pick and choose what suits you or your team best. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I can see this "Club separate from the holding company" thing coming back to bite them hard with the creditors. It's the club they're chasing for payment, they don't give a feck about what "holding Company" is running the show.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I can see this "Club separate from the holding company" thing coming back to bite them hard with the creditors. It's the club they're chasing for payment, they don't give a feck about what "holding Company" is running the show.. Well if i was a creditor I would have a major issue with getting bumped for payment for services along with many others and then they came back insisting they were the same club I would be kicking the cat up and down the street. Pay the money you owe and then they can be Rangers they don't everything should change , name , crest the lot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 The club is the company. Any variation of that is wind and pish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Firstly youngsy ! that was well constructed ! but shite . Secondly ! don't go greeting yer face aff when the shit hits the fan when punishments are handed out to yer club,if you are willing to accept money as the oldco then yer big enough to accept the punishments of the oldco as well ! do enjoy the title stripping and other sanctions. You can't pick and choose what suits you or your team best. No it wasn't shite,as i said that is the Articles of Association of UEFA relating to licensing of clubs on entering European Competitons,nothing to do with membership transference or club continuity,try reading the articles in the full context or at least a large part of it,as there are about 78 articles.. As for punishments or conditions,try reading my posts again relating to continuity,you'll find that i've stated the continuty takes the good and bad under football rulings,i.e. paying football debts. As for title stripping if this happens then after we go down the full road of appeal,then if it is upheld then so be it,but that will only be after every avenue is exhausted. If the old company was liquidated before transference then it would be accepted by myself that this was a new club but as transference took place before liquidation it is the same continuity,otherwise what would be the point in transference. We aren't going to accept transference under conditions imposed if we were not deemed a continuos club,why would we. It would be more sensible in a business context to apply for new membership if that was the case. And before anyone starts,the club would have still been accepted under new membership,the fanbase income would have ensured that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 He accepted a conditional membership in order to gut the remaining desperation, and cash, from Rangers supporters. Fair play to him, it's almost win-win. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 The club is the company. Any variation of that is wind and pish. A simple way to get round everything it would seem, for any company. Set up a subsidiary, slide the debts to them then carry on as if nothing had ever happened whilst sub plot 1 crashes & burns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I can see this "Club separate from the holding company" thing coming back to bite them hard with the creditors. It's the club they're chasing for payment, they don't give a feck about what "holding Company" is running the show.. You're wrong,it's the old company,The Rangers Football Club plc that any payment to creditors will come from. Except of course any debts,such as football debts,that the new company have agreed to pay. Two different registration numbers,Oldco SC004276,Newco SC425159. BDO may well decide the valuation of the assets was to low though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 It's the old company/club. The administrators don't give a damn about made-up ethereal 'clubs' etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) No it wasn't shite,as i said that is the Articles of Association of UEFA relating to licensing of clubs on entering European Competitons,nothing to do with membership transference or club continuity,try reading the articles in the full context or at least a large part of it,as there are about 78 articles.. As for punishments or conditions,try reading my posts again relating to continuity,you'll find that i've stated the continuty takes the good and bad under football rulings,i.e. paying football debts. As for title stripping if this happens then after we go down the full road of appeal,then if it is upheld then so be it,but that will only be after every avenue is exhausted. If the old company was liquidated before transference then it would be accepted by myself that this was a new club but as transference took place before liquidation it is the same continuity,otherwise what would be the point in transference. We aren't going to accept transference under conditions imposed if we were not deemed a continuos club,why would we. It would be more sensible in a business context to apply for new membership if that was the case. And before anyone starts,the club would have still been accepted under new membership,the fanbase income would have ensured that. The Licence Applicant may only be a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member). The licence applicant is responsible for the fulfillment of the club licensing criteria. It's even on the SFA website. The company is the club. NB I have highlighted the fact that this covers national competitions and not just your weak get out clause of being related to European competitions only. ETA the legal entity is also viewed as the member of the association so when the membership transferred it transferred from one club to another. Edited September 12, 2012 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 No it wasn't shite,as i said that is the Articles of Association of UEFA relating to licensing of clubs on entering European Competitons,nothing to do with membership transference or club continuity,try reading the articles in the full context or at least a large part of it,as there are about 78 articles.. As for punishments or conditions,try reading my posts again relating to continuity,you'll find that i've stated the continuty takes the good and bad under football rulings,i.e. paying football debts. As for title stripping if this happens then after we go down the full road of appeal,then if it is upheld then so be it,but that will only be after every avenue is exhausted. If the old company was liquidated before transference then it would be accepted by myself that this was a new club but as transference took place before liquidation it is the same continuity,otherwise what would be the point in transference. We aren't going to accept transference under conditions imposed if we were not deemed a continuos club,why would we. It would be more sensible in a business context to apply for new membership if that was the case. And before anyone starts,the club would have still been accepted under new membership,the fanbase income would have ensured that. The oldco is not liquidated yet ! because that's next weeks jelly & ice cream moment . Green has done a masterful spin job on selling you a continuance of a club and so have some other key figures mainly ex gers players and staff.He chooses his words and wording very carefully indeed. UEFA have excluded Rangers for 3 years in Euro competitions as they see you as a new club. As for the money you received from UEFA ! Green is in receipt of the oldco's SFA licence which probably legally means it gets paid to whomever is in ownership of the licence through the SFA ? is this is this the work of Ogilvie ? ! but this could be a grey area especially if someone complains to UEFA as to which of the 2 clubs receive it.The dead club or the new club ? none of these players had TUPED over to the newco until after the EURO's and these players were still employed by the oldco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Two different registration numbers, Oldco SC004276, Newco SC425159. BDO may well decide the valuation of the assets was to low though. On that i will most certainly agree with you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 The company is the club. Great. So from what date was Celtic founded? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 It's there in black and white from the BBC, Celtic never declared the payments from their EBT usage which is against the rules. Unless you think that the BBC lied about it, Celtic payed a player paymenyts otuwith his contract. This is the thing Bennett, 'outwith his contract' implies not contracted to do so. Wee Silly Billy has already dropped oldcorpse in it by stating he got his payment by contract,,,,,,,,and NOT the one registered! Gettit now? 2 contracts 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.