Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[cyderspaceman]

So the Club existed as something other than a company before 1899. Surely that bolsters the argument that a football club is not a company but rather an entity solely defined by the governing bodies, in this case the SFA.

May as well chip in since it's quiet.

Surely this bit ..... ""when the club became a limited liability company.""...... means that the club became a limited liability company.

i.e. the 'club' stopped being a club and became a limited liability company

From that point on, the 'club' and the 'company' are one and the same entity, never to be split assunder..

[MarreZ]

Well they can put however many stars on their shirt as they like. There is no shirt design protocol and no body that awards stars or anything like that.

The SFA are engaged in the negotiations to transfer the membership, they want the club to continue because they want to issue their sanctions. They can't give Sevco a new membership and expect to place sanctions on it.

Example. I buy your car from your estate because you got caught drink driving and topped yourself. I wouldn't have to take on the penalty points, ban or jail sentence just because I bought your car.

(In this case Ibrox and Murray Park are the Car)

If I was also to buy your corpse and re-animate it to be my chauffeur then that sums up where we are now.

Its simple really, technically the history dies with the club, but if they want to keep that history they are being afforded that opportunity by being punished, they can legally say that its not their problems, it was the previous company but it brings a raft of new problems if they do that, mainly not being able to transfer the membership.

[GordieBoy80]

Does this minger switch his computer on himself or does he get a chimp from Glasgow zoo to do it for him?

Oh come on, that's grossly unfair...

Chimps are far more intelligent than that.

[Bearwithme]

Fat Sal surely has to go soon............

1. His latest outburst is just nonesense.

2. Sevco can't afford his ridiculous salary which will have TUPE'd

3. He's already pending an investigation into "Who are these people"

I went to the extent of having a gander at oddschecker.com and the "first coach to be sacked" market. Stupid me, the bookies don't even bother having a market on the 3rd Div staff.

It's interesting that Channel 4's Alex Thomson (who is much fawned over by many on here) has today named the members of the tax tribunal dealing with Rangers' EBT case. Personally, it doesn't bother me but perhaps some feel he should be subject to severe criticism.

[WILLIEA]

Does this minger switch his computer on himself or does he get a chimp from Glasgow zoo to do it for him?

Glasgow Zoo is dead, but a rotting hulk.

Pretty much like Rangers really!

[Savage Henry]

I'm under the impression that the SFA requirements on club licensing require 3 years of audited accounts?

http://www.scottishf...a%20%282%29.pdf

Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 would seem to suggest that they do, and that it should already have been submitted.

I thought that too, but when one of the junior teams made the same point, the SFA - and for good or ill it is they who control these things - said that the three seasons of audited accounts were not a condition of entry because they are not applying for new membership. This may well be because Rangers are unable to produce them, but they've made their position clear for future reference. I'll see if I can find a link to it.

Found this. This Scots Law Thoughts fellow has basically just taken Alex Thompson's research and passed it off as his own, but it does at least explain the SFA position. I'm not saying it is all on the level, but this is the case made by the SFA.

An Analysis of It All

Edited July 22, 2012 by Savage Henry

[Wings Over Scotland]

Just as Associate Members are entitled to their share of the Settlement money.

Do we actually know that for sure? Is there a precedent? I imagine most new SFL members DO have the requisite four years of accounts for full membership.

[Wings Over Scotland]

No, the assets belonged to a PLC. The clue, as you say, is in that.

Yes: a PLC called Rangers FOOTBALL CLUB. In other words, the club and the company are the same thing.

The club lost possession of the SPL share, not the company.

The club hasn't lost possession of anything yet. RFC PLC still holds the SPL share.

but there is a legal distinction between the club and the company, whether we want to accept it or not. That's not up for debate.

You can link us to the legal definition of this distinction, can you?

[Leepylee]

McCoist Refuses To Accept Rangers Didn’t Win Champions League Last Season

Speaking at a supporters rally, Ally McCoist made it clear he will never accept that Rangers didn’t win the Champions League last season.

The head coach of Sevco is adamant that Rangers beat Barcelona 2-1 in a thrilling final in Munich two months ago, and lambasted “sinister forces” inside the SFA and UEFA who are trying to claim otherwise.

“What they are doing to our club is unforgivable,” vented McCoist, closely flanked by his handlers from Carstairs psychiatric hospital.

“The joy we all felt when Kirk [broadfoot] headed the winner past Víctor Valdés will never go away,” asserted the angry newco boss, to loud cheers from the assembled Sevco fans.

“We won that final fair and square. But now people are trying to tell us we were pumped out in the preliminaries, and that Chelsea won it on penalties? It’s outrageous!”

Added McCoist forcefully: “Who are these people? We demand to know.”

The rotund ex-Rangers striker was then bundled into an ambulance and taken back into care.

Club ambassador Sandy Jardine then stepped forward to address the crowd, and urged the Sevco loyal to boycott Champions League matches next season, as a show of their defiant corporate might.

“Make no mistake, we know who our enemies are,” revealed Jardine, who earns an excellent wage for stoking up hatred. “And I predict Real Madrid and Inter Milan will go to the wall without our fans there to bankroll them next season.”

HAHAHAHA I can't decide if your a comic genius OR if you have just copy and pasted an actual story from the daily record

[GlasgowCeltic.org]

The adminstrators, who are still running the old company, stated in their interim report issued on 10/7/12 that not only the assets but also the business, history, goodwill (the business sort!) have been transferred to the new company, which is now running the club. The new company will even take the old company's name in due course.

History is not an asset.

If it were, then could one person buy it, and claim that they have the history of Rangers FC (IA)?

What if that person dies, and leaves all of their assets to their cat?

Would their cat then have the history of Rangers FC (IA)?

It's patently nonsense designed to appease those who hear what they wish to hear.

[Wings Over Scotland]

I thought that too, but when one of the junior teams made the same point, the SFA - and for good or ill it is they who control these things - said that the three seasons of audited accounts were not a condition of entry. This may well be because Rangers are unable to produce them, but they've made their position clear for future reference. I'll see if I can find a link to it.

SFA rules allow the Association to waive the conditions at its discretion. Also, because Sevco Scotland Limited are applying to transfer an existing membership, not applying for a new one, the rule doesn't apply anyway.

[P45]

Clydebank didn't die airdieonians did, airdrie united is just clydebank with a name change, completely different circumstances.

Rangers are dead...end of...newco are the airdrie united if you like.

It is down to perception.

IMO the SFA sees Airdrie United as a continuation of Clydebank. So the achievements gained as Clydebank FC are passed to Airdrie United and any future Airdrie United achievements are attributed to the club formally know as Clydebank.

The same would be applied to Newco. Rangers FC's achievements would be passed to The Rangers.

They didn't achieve them as The Rangers FC but they have bought them and can add to them.

In my view the Rangers scenario would be like Airdrie United having bought Airdrieonians' membership which pretty much would be a continuation of the club.

Why didn't Airdrie do that btw?

[Claymores]

It's interesting that Channel 4's Alex Thomson (who is much fawned over by many on here) has today named the members of the tax tribunal dealing with Rangers' EBT case. Personally, it doesn't bother me but perhaps some feel he should be subject to severe criticism.

I'm no fan of Thommo - he's made too many gaffs through his limited understanding of the nuances of the Scottish game. His last one being that Berwick would vote "yes to Div 1" as the Chairman was a small shareholder in The RFC football club. Guess what Thommo, those shares are worthless as oldco are about to be liquidated and their Chairman is a minority shareholder who couldn't out-vote the board even if he wanted to.

Now I'll get pelters for not sukking up Thommo's ass.

[Fife Saint]

I deal with club/society bank accounts etc. now and again. The resolutions declared on their mandates don't make any reference to other companies holding association membership. Clubs used to be exactly that - clubs. They are all generally at senior level companies who trade to earn profit in order to further their infrastructure and enhance their competitive chances in whatever field they desire.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Fife Saint

[Savage Henry]

It is down to perception.

IMO the SFA sees Airdrie United as a continuation of Clydebank. So the achievements gained as Clydebank FC are passed to Airdrie United and any future Airdrie United achievements are attributed to the club formally know as Clydebank.

The same would be applied to Newco. Rangers FC's achievements would be passed to The Rangers.

They didn't achieve them as The Rangers FC but they have bought them and can add to them.

In my view the Rangers scenario would be like Airdrie United having bought Airdrieonians' membership which pretty much would be a continuation of the club.

Why didn't Airdrie do that btw?

Does anyone neutral really see, in reality, Airdrie United as being Clydebank with a different name? I'm not sure too many people actually do. May well be wrong though.

[cyderspaceman]

It's interesting that Channel 4's Alex Thomson (who is much fawned over by many on here) has today named the members of the tax tribunal dealing with Rangers' EBT case. Personally, it doesn't bother me but perhaps some feel he should be subject to severe criticism.

At least one of them is proving unfindable on t'internet.

By me anyway, probly just don't have the skills required.

[GlasgowCeltic.org]

SFA rules allow the Association to waive the conditions at its discretion. Also, because Sevco Scotland Limited are applying to transfer an existing membership, not applying for a new one, the rule doesn't apply anyway.

Rangers FC (IA) didn't file their accounts either. They shouldn't even have been licensed.

This certainly has nothing to do with the likes of former Rangers FC (IA) shareholder, director, employee and SFA president Campbell Ogilvie.

[Savage Henry]

Rangers FC (IA) didn't file their accounts either. They shouldn't even have been licensed.

This certainly has nothing to do with the likes of former Rangers FC (IA) shareholder, director, employee and SFA president Campbell Ogilvie.

Part of the reason why they were refuse their SPL place. Also one of the reasons for the £160,000 fine.

[stonedsailor]

No, the assets belonged to a PLC. The clue, as you say, is in that.

The club lost possession of the SPL share, not the company. The club lost it because of the actions of the company, granted, but there is a legal distinction between the club and the company, whether we want to accept it or not. That's not up for debate. Nobody has been relegated in this saga - the club or the company.

I would say that it very much is up for debate.

In terms of the creation of a new company, the law of the land is clear. One of the most fundamental principles of commonwealth company law is the principle of the separate corporate personality. Such principle distinguishes companies from human entities. Similarly, each company has its own separate legal personality. Although the notion of a company gives rise to an artificial entity, the law considers such entity valid, once the formalities and the legal requirements have been dealt with appropriately. When a new company is registered, it automatically receives its own separate legal personality. Things cannot be different in football. The same principle applies and every time a new football club is registered as a company, it receives a new and separate legal personality. Although there may be traces of association with a previous old company in terms of fan base, stadia, support and personnel, legally speaking, the new company is distinct and it does not relate to the previous old company who happened to have a similar name, the same fans or even the same employees. What is important here, relates to the legal qualification of the new company to be able to trade. This qualification, therefore, needs to be satisfied by 1) The company's registration and 2) The acquisition of a VAT number, which of course would be different to the VAT number the previous old company had. In other words, the new company has no legal relationship, whatsoever, with the old company and similarly, the new company would not be responsible for the debts and liabilities of the old company. This is clear and it accepts no arguments.

[cyderspaceman]

Does anyone neutral really see, in reality, Airdrie United as being Clydebank with a different name? I'm not sure too many people actually do. May well be wrong though.

FWIW I think of them as the 'new' Airdrieonians. Never given it any thought before but

if asked, I would have said their story started when they started.

i.e. recently. (can't be arsed checking the date)

What do Airdire fans think?