Colin M Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 It won't be of any real meaning for 'precedent' or anything... but have there been cases in other European countries, of clubs using "2nd contracts" after the event? If so - what punishments were given? Derry City were expelled from the LOI in 2009 because of "under the table" payments to players. The principle is the same, I would suggest - a scheme of paying players outwith their registered contracts (although in Derry's case it seems to have been to get round rules enforcing wages are no greater than 65% of turnover). The implication is that the players were not properly registered - a parallel could be drawn to Sion earlier this season, perhaps? Given during the period in question Rangers have competed in Europe and earned a huge amount of money in return, if there is proof of wrongdoing I would expect UEFA to threaten the SFA, ie "hammer them or we will hammer you". Given the time period in question, the inquiry is basically asking.... "Have Rangers cheated in the SPL for its entire existence?". I would imagine there is no precedent or even similar situation to the possibility that a team fielded potentially 100+ improperly registered players over a 14 year period (during which they reaped the rewards as the country's most successful club). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I wouldn't disagree with any of that from a personal viewpoint. But it's any transfer of "football membership assets" that causes the problem and what Rangers fans would cling to as Leeds fans have - they aren't a new club in the eyes of the footballing authorities. If they were, they'd be having to apply for membership, etc. I don't think the media has regarded Leeds as a new club either. I'm sure rival fans did, perhaps quite justifiably. If they fold the club, then the football authority membership folds too. Keeping a mythical football identity is conceptual and it's a rubbish idea, can see why SPL might want to make such a distinction, but if Rangers are folded then why should such an thing float in the ether for the Newco to grab and claim as theirs? To continue the teapot thing, it'd be an invisible teapot. How can you place value on something you can't see or touch? The Leeds thing should be left apart from the situation we're seeing unfold here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 That is singularly the biggest load of pish I have seen from these fucking clowns in all my life ( and they have come up with a bucket load of pish ideas) So to protect Ranjurs and Sellicks European ambitions they would punish the wee teams more harshly than the big teams. These cunts have lost it...They have totally lost the fucking plot.. ( and of course the scary thing is that they are our clubs, our chairmen.. Why don't they just assemble on the steps of Hampden, drop there pinstripe strides, bend over and let the fucking Old Firm rodger there arses. It would be much quicker and then we could just get on with it..) This snash deserves it's own thread really.... My instant reaction to the idea to limit the punishment to "european" clubs is that it is entirely illogical. Look at Motherwell, Dundee and Livi - they all went into admin after over-spending in chasing 3rd place. Surely, these would be exactly the type of "financial doping" offences that deserve to be punished - ie - where a club rises above it's peer group by unsustainable spending? It is also completely possible that a club can reach the SPL by overspending in the 1st Division in a speculative way in the hope that SPL membership will pay off the "credit card" and then get into financial trouble. As far as I'm concerned, these "crimes" are equal and should be punished identically. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 St Mirren have a teapot, St Johnstone have a teapot, Celtic have a teapot... everyone has a teapot, including Rangers. The difference is that everyone else bought their tea bags, while for over a decade, Rangers stole them out of Tesco without paying. Now, if I went into Tesco and stole tea bags for ten years - here's what would happen. Tesco would ban me from their stores - they would not simply re-admit me if all I did was change my name from pozbaird to pozbaird fae' Paisley 2013. Secondly, they'd say 'you owe us ten year's worth of teabag money, ya' thievin' gypsy'. They would not shake my hand and accept my offer of 10p in the packet. They'd take away my Tesco Clubcard membership - and if I tried to transfer it to Asda for three years, before popping back up in my local Tesco, I'd be chased. Simples. Now, if I'm missing something, I apologise. Two sugars and milk please. All of a sudden I feel thirsty - have a green tea, sir. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) Just listened to the BBC radio report. It seems the SPL are now investigating the player contract situation going back as far as the late 1990s. Meanwhile, 'noises' from Ibrox/Murray Park suggested the tiered wage reduction process negotiations aren't going terribly well. Oh dear....what a shame....never mind Edited March 5, 2012 by Drooper 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Derry City were expelled from the LOI in 2009 because of "under the table" payments to players. The principle is the same, I would suggest - a scheme of paying players outwith their registered contracts (although in Derry's case it seems to have been to get round rules enforcing wages are no greater than 65% of turnover). The implication is that the players were not properly registered - a parallel could be drawn to Sion earlier this season, perhaps? Given during the period in question Rangers have competed in Europe and earned a huge amount of money in return, if there is proof of wrongdoing I would expect UEFA to threaten the SFA, ie "hammer them or we will hammer you". Given the time period in question, the inquiry is basically asking.... "Have Rangers cheated in the SPL for its entire existence?". I would imagine there is no precedent or even similar situation to the possibility that a team fielded potentially 100+ improperly registered players over a 14 year period (during which they reaped the rewards as the country's most successful club). Not based on any facts - but my gut feeling is that if UEFA really started to look under the rocks to see the mechanisms that their member clubs have used to pay players over the years, they would have to hammer some far bigger names than Rangers.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) If they fold the club, then the football authority membership folds too. Keeping a mythical football identity is conceptual and it's a rubbish idea, can see why SPL might want to make such a distinction, but if Rangers are folded then why should such an thing float in the ether for the Newco to grab and claim as theirs? To continue the teapot thing, it'd be an invisible teapot. How can you place value on something you can't see or touch? It's like any other intangible asset. The Rangers FC plc hold 1 of 12 shares issued by The Scottish Premier League Ltd (which shareholders must rescind if they finish bottom of the football tournament the company holds). They also have to renew their membership of SFA annually, in somewhat the same manner a company might renew corporate membership of a golf club. Both are assets. Both can, subject to conditions etc., be transferred. Shares in SPL are fixed at £1, IIRC. It costs £1,000 to join SFA for the first time, thereafter a notional renewal. The Rangers FC plc possesses 1 share in SPL, and has a Certificate of Membership of SFA as evidence of its membership. It's the continuation of these ownerships/memberships which 'validates' the claim that "the club" has continued, in the eyes of some. The Leeds thing should be left apart from the situation we're seeing unfold here. It may turn-out very similar though. Edited March 5, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 It's like any other intangible asset. Rangers hold 1 share of the 12 shares issued by The Scottish Premier League Ltd (which shareholders must rescind if they finish bottom of the football tournament the company holds). They also have to renew their membership of SFA annually, in the same manner you or I might renew membership of a golf club. Both are assets. Both can, subject to conditions etc., be transferred. Shares in SPL are fixed at £1, IIRC. It costs £1,000 to join SFA for the first time, thereafter a notional renewal. The Rangers FC plc possesses 1 share in SPL, and has a Certificate of Membership of SFA as evidence of its membership. That's the important part, if that company is liquidated, it holds nothing, the legal entity is defunct. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Nomad Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Rangers takeover lawyer resigns http://www.thelawyer.com/rangers-lawyer-quits-collyer-bristow-following-clubs-administration/1011681.article 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Not based on any facts - but my gut feeling is that if UEFA really started to look under the rocks to see the mechanisms that their member clubs have used to pay players over the years, they would have to hammer some far bigger names than Rangers.... That could well be true. I hope it happens. The financial shift in football has ruined it in many respects - it would be marvellous if the greed of some of the big clubs became their undoing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 That's the important part, if that company is liquidated, it holds nothing, the legal entity is defunct. And, as far as 'identity' goes, it would be 'continued' membership of the SFA that would be the key. An SPL share has been given/taken up every year since the start by differing clubs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Either we're defining it or we're not. If we are defining it, then (and this is I'm sure what the administrators mean) the liquidation of Rangers does not mean the end of 'the football club' if the assets that make 'a football club'... and not a refridgerator manufacturer, a purveyor of boutique furnishing, or a dance troupe... are continued undisturbed. Whether it's right or wrong is another debate. When Celtic were bought-out by McCann in 1994, am I not right in saying such assets were transferred to a different company, leading to the loss of the "Athletic" part of the title? I don't see people of a view that Celtic were founded in 1994, or that the Celtic founded in 1888 ceased in 1994 (if my preceding part's correct). Clachnacuddin FC is one of the most historic clubs in the Highland League, but their memberships etc. are held by Clachnacuddin 1990 Ltd. Do we conclude Clachnacuddin are 21 years old? Again, whether such transfers are right or wrong is another debate, but the literal facts are fairly indisputable. Neither Celtic nor Clachnacuddin were new clubs in football's eyes. Their full membership continued unaffected. What made them new clubs? They were not new clubs because the entity which transferred the assets to the new company were still in existence at the time of the transfer. If Rangers are liquidated they are no longer in existence therefore any transfer of membership after that liquidation means it is a 'new' club 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 That's the important part, if that company is liquidated, it holds nothing, the legal entity is defunct. I cannot see how league membership and/or the SPL share could be treated as an asset in the same way as eg the stadium. If the company is liquidated then the transfer of share to a new entity would be at the behest of the SPL - ie it is not an asset. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyle Lanley Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Top post on followfollow... So that's an investigation by the stock exchange an investigation by the sfa an investigation by strathclyde police an investigation by the insolvency service an investigation by the spl fuxxsakes, the only characters we're not being investigated by are miss marple and scooby doo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 That's the important part, if that company is liquidated, it holds nothing, the legal entity is defunct. If you regard the legal entity as 'the football club'. Which many people will not. The football authorities in England did not when Leeds Utd went bust - and I'm sure their fans don't either. I'm sure fans of their arch-rivals do. Some people hold the view that the unaffected continuation of the "football assets" means the continuation of the football club. That could include via transferance to another company, before/due to liquidation. I've no doubt that if it happens, Rangers fans will claim continuation, and their rivals will claim otherwise, and it'll go on forevermore. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrunitedfw Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Another uneventful day in terms of player being released Party has been delayed till further notice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy1967 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 And, as far as 'identity' goes, it would be 'continued' membership of the SFA that would be the key. An SPL share has been given/taken up every year since the start by differing clubs The SPL share changeover between relegated and promoted club is a neccessary mechanism for promotion between two seperated leagues. It hasn't always been exchanged in seasons like 2002/03 where no relegation imposed by the SPL. Presumably Gretna forfeited their share and didn't exchange it in 2008. Were the number of shares expanded from 10 to 12 in 2000? Does anyone know what the legal mechanism is for the SPL and are they a Ltd? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Another uneventful day in terms of player being released Party has been delayed till further notice. Given the implications of the SFA and SPL inquiries, the entire administration saga seems a bit of a sideshow now! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) They were not new clubs because the entity which transferred the assets to the new company were still in existence at the time of the transfer. If Rangers are liquidated they are no longer in existence therefore any transfer of membership after that liquidation means it is a 'new' club Fair enough, and perhaps it's simplying the discussion to talk about "after liquidation". What if the transfer happens before a liquidation event? Leeds formed their new company at the end of 2006-07, quickly transferred their Football League and I assume FA memberships, then liquidated? It's explicitly not a new club in the eyes of the football authorities though. E.g. in England, Leeds didn't have to come-in down the NLS and didn't have to serve 1 year in the FA Vase before entering the FA Cup. Edited March 5, 2012 by HibeeJibee 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.