joe pineapples Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 On the point of sanctions, could anyone tell me if the SPL transfer embargo, applied at the same time as the 10 point deduction is still in force? I take it that punishment was within their remit, that H&D didn't run to the CoS on that point? Not much point as the company that had the embargo have had all their players TUPE to SEVCO 5088 Ltd Or?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 On the point of sanctions, could anyone tell me if the SPL transfer embargo, applied at the same time as the 10 point deduction is still in force? I take it that punishment was within their remit, that H&D didn't run to the CoS on that point? The embargo is for clubs in administration, so it will still apply to the old Rangers FC if liquidation hasn't started yet. The Newco wouldn't have an embargo. Killie chairman says they would be fecked without Rangers I must have missed that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 I know what you mean but it is a chance to once and for all change scottish football I was looking at Motherwells accounts yesterday and without tv money we are knackered and that is what the club will be looking at. No point punting Rangers and then half the SPL following them within a year. This is a chance to change the structure of scottish footbal for ever so we don't need to rely on the "Glasgow giants" for crumbs. We need to ensure a more even share of sponsorship and TV revenue to allow scottish clubs to survive and change the voting structure so the bigot brothers never gain control again. My first reaction is to kick them out but what happens when they come back in 3 years time and teams like Motherwell have ceased to exist. It pains me to say it but a negoiated settlement may be the way to go If Motherwell are setup to rely on Rangers presence to survive, then they don't deserve to survive any more than Rangers do , same goes for any other team that has spent the past however many years chasing 3rd place, in what may become the most corrupt league in the world. For the record I include Accies in that statement 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 I must have missed that. Must be true, it was in the sun 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Name & Registered Office: SEVCO 5088 LIMITED 35 VINE STREET LONDON UNITED KINGDOM EC3N 2AA Company No. 08011390 Status: Active Date of Incorporation: 29/03/2012 Country of Origin: United Kingdom Company Type: Private Limited Company Nature of Business (SIC): None Supplied Accounting Reference Date: 31/03 Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED) Next Accounts Due: 29/12/2013 Last Return Made Up To: Next Return Due: 26/04/2013 Name to changed to The Rangers Football Club Ltd Date of incorporation ? sounds a little bit fecking dodgy to me ! 6 weeks after the admin announcement ! which means it was planned earlier than registration and only registered on said date. I'm I being paranoid here or is there something fishy and suspicious going on ? or is this the certification the yank tried to use an incubator club for the assets and Nuff n Helps let Greenback use that !. Questions questions and I demand clarity and transparency ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe pineapples Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 It couldn't be any more unpopular if it was born with two heads and a big tail . Surely it needs SFA membership before it can even be called a football club, surely UEFA would only recognise it from this point and it could only then file accounts from this point. So first crack at Europe then would be 2016/17? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Killie chairman says they would be fecked without Rangers, can you imagine them getting relegated? The way the SPL chairmen who haven't been in the 1st division operate is unreal, they are so 1 minded. Where he say that? Making stuff up again? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) So first crack at Europe then would be 2016/17? It looks like it, otherwise they could've linked the club to any company over 3 years old. Edited June 16, 2012 by blanco 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 I think under the current financial constraints and a need to get the economy moving then the best thing is to not allow them to be called The Rangers but something else new crest the lot. This will give much needed business to tattooists and those offering tattoo removal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Date of incorporation ? sounds a little bit fecking dodgy to me ! 6 weeks after the admin announcement ! which means it was planned earlier than registration and only registered on said date. I'm I being paranoid here or is there something fishy and suspicious going on ? or is this the certification the yank tried to use an incubator club for the assets and Nuff n Helps let Greenback use that !. Questions questions and I demand clarity and transparency ! It's probably a standard practice, especially if you know that a CVA has no chance of acceptance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe pineapples Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 It looks like it, otherwise they couldv'e linked the club to any company over 3 years old. Daily Record headline will be 'Gers Massive Euro Ban extended' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Registered in England, not in Scotland. Hmmmm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuyahoga Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) Date of incorporation ? sounds a little bit fecking dodgy to me ! 6 weeks after the admin announcement ! which means it was planned earlier than registration and only registered on said date. I'm I being paranoid here or is there something fishy and suspicious going on ? or is this the certification the yank tried to use an incubator club for the assets and Nuff n Helps let Greenback use that !. Questions questions and I demand clarity and transparency ! No, there's nothing fishy about this part (although there's plenty elsewhere!). This is an "off the shelf" company incorporated in advance by legal firms and held for future use when someone comes along and want to start a business. It often starts this way. This company shell could have just as easily been used for a hairdressers or for Sammy's MOT centre. The Sevco part normally refers in some way to the legal firm that set it up and the number probably refers to the numerical count of companies set up by this legal firm. The name then gets changed to a more relevant one when required. ETA - it saves time in that you don't need to go through the Companies House incorporation rigmarole - it's all done in advance. Edited June 16, 2012 by cuyahoga 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepitsafe Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Where he say that? Making stuff up again? Even if he did. IF!!! You lot got relegated on that last day. Would he even be in a position to spout any pish? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelman65 Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 No, there's nothing fishy about this part (although there's plenty elsewhere!). This is an "off the shelf" company incorporated in advance by legal firms and held for future use when someone comes along and want to start a business. It often starts this way. This company shell could have just as easily been used for a hairdressers or for Sammy's MOT centre. The Sevco part normally refers in some way to the legal firm that set it up and the number probably refers to the numerical count of companies set up by this legal firm. The name then gets changed to a more relevant one when required. ETA - it saves time in that you don't need to go through the Companies House incorporation rigmarole - it's all done in advance. True the date Mr Green became a director was14/05/2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 It's probably a standard practice, especially if you know that a CVA has no chance of acceptance. Then why make a fecking CVA offer then when the HMRC website officially states we do not accept CVA's EVER. Complete stall tactic if ever there was one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Where he say that? Making stuff up again? read post 47,016 I in all honesty think it was more nonsense journalism and exaggeration a lot like the Sky pish they spouted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe pineapples Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Then why make a fecking CVA offer then when the HMRC website officially states we do not accept CVA's EVER. Complete stall tactic if ever there was one. One stall tactic amongst others. Deadlines for preferred bidders etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Rover Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Where he say that? Making stuff up again? It seems to be a popular belief that Killie will back Rangers - do Squirrelhumper and craigkillie think that's wrong? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Then why make a fecking CVA offer then when the HMRC website officially states we do not accept CVA's EVER. Complete stall tactic if ever there was one. For a start, the first guy to say there was no chance of a CVA and they were going to liquidate would've been chased out of town with pitchforks and blazing torches. If i was in charge of haudit and daudit they'd be told to string it out as long as possible to make as much as they could. 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.