Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[AndyM_1875]

I totally get the argument that, emotionally, The Rangers is a continuation of all that has gone before.

Doesn't change the fact that, legally and financially, they were created in 2012. That is why their shrieks about punishment and demotion are unfounded.

Thats's why I'm with CWG on this.

Legally and financially Hibs were created on 11 April 1903.
We were still a professional football club for ten years before that and an amateur church club from 1875 to 1891.

Hearts went bust in 1905 and were bought over by a New Company and re-registered.

[JeMeSouviens]

Thats's why I'm with CWG on this.

Legally and financially Hibs were created on 11 April 1903.
We were still a professional football club for ten years before that and an amateur church club from 1875 to 1891.

Hearts went bust in 1905 and were bought over by a New Company and re-registered.

Wrong. The members' club, Hibernian, was incorporated as a limited company. It is the same financial and legal entity.

Edit: hmmm, you're more right than I thought, actually (apols). Here is an explanation:

http://www.morton-fraser.com/knowledge-hub/unincorporated-associations-facts

[portycabbage]

Thats's why I'm with CWG on this.

Legally and financially Hibs were created on 11 April 1903.
We were still a professional football club for ten years before that and an amateur church club from 1875 to 1891.

Hearts went bust in 1905 and were bought over by a New Company and re-registered.

If we were a professional club before 1903, then we would have had legal personality, as unincorporated associations can't employ staff. There's nothing to stop amateur clubs becoming professional ones, but when something becomes a business, then it can go out of business.

[CropleyWasGod]

If we were a professional club before 1903, then we would have had legal personality, as unincorporated associations can't employ staff. There's nothing to stop amateur clubs becoming professional ones, but when something becomes a business, then it can go out of business.
Don't know what the law was back then, but unincorporated associations can employ staff. Virtually anyone, or any body, can be an employer.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

Thats's why I'm with CWG on this.

Legally and financially Hibs were created on 11 April 1903.
We were still a professional football club for ten years before that and an amateur church club from 1875 to 1891.

Hearts went bust in 1905 and were bought over by a New Company and re-registered.


If we were an unincorporated association prior to 1903 we could not have gone out of business as we were not a " business ".

Just because we stopped playing football for a few months the unincorporated association continued as long as some of those who acted as the association remained active.

It was the same association that became incorporated in 1903.

[AndyM_1875]

If we were an unincorporated association prior to 1903 we could not have gone out of business as we were not a " business ".

Just because we stopped playing football for a few months the unincorporated association continued as long as some of those who acted as the association remained active.

It was the same association that became incorporated in 1903.

Between 1893 and April 1903 we were most certainly both a professional football club which paid players and staff and a business.

Prior to 1893 we were an amateur club that didn't pay players (cough!:greengrin)

[greenginger]

Between 1893 and April 1903 we were most certainly both a professional football club which paid players and staff and a business.

Prior to 1893 we were an amateur club that didn't pay players (cough!:greengrin)


But if we were unincorporated it must have been the committee members as individuals who paid the players.

[CropleyWasGod]

But if we were unincorporated it must have been the committee members as individuals who paid the players.

Like I say, an unincorporated organisation can be an employer.

What the law was back then, though.... no idea. Ask JonnyBoy. :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

Tomorrow it's Ashley v SFA over Kings fit and Proper status.
Hope he's got better lawyers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

Like I say, an unincorporated organisation can be an employer.

What the law was back then, though.... no idea. Ask JonnyBoy. :greengrin


According to this, unincorporated associations cannot employ staff.


http://www.morton-fraser.com/knowledge-hub/unincorporated-associations-facts

[CropleyWasGod]

According to this, unincorporated associations cannot employ staff.


http://www.morton-fraser.com/knowledge-hub/unincorporated-associations-facts

They're wrong, which is a bit scary.

I would prefer SCVO's view:- http://www.scvo.org.uk/setting-up-a-charity/decide-on-a-structure/voluntary-or-unincorporated-association/

As they say, "This structure is not regulated by an external regulator or subject to specific legislation, " I would slightly dispute that, as HMRC can have an interest. Also "A voluntary association is governed according to its own rules",

I have a few clients, and have had many over the years, who fit into the definition of unincorporated associations. They employ staff, and are therefore subject to HMRC rules.

Bottom line, as I say, virtually anyone can be an employer. Private individual, association, charity, unincorporated business, partnership, limited company, LLP, SCIO.....actually struggling to think who might be prohibited.

[greenginger]

They're wrong, which is a bit scary.

I would prefer SCVO's view:- http://www.scvo.org.uk/setting-up-a-charity/decide-on-a-structure/voluntary-or-unincorporated-association/

As they say, "This structure is not regulated by an external regulator or subject to specific legislation, " I would slightly dispute that, as HMRC can have an interest. Also "A voluntary association is governed according to its own rules",

I have a few clients, and have had many over the years, who fit into the definition of unincorporated associations. They employ staff, and are therefore subject to HMRC rules.

Bottom line, as I say, virtually anyone can be an employer. Private individual, association, charity, unincorporated business, partnership, limited company, LLP, SCIO.....actually struggling to think who might be prohibited.


I bow to your superior knowledge on this one. :aok:

[CropleyWasGod]

I bow to your superior knowledge on this one. :aok:

Cheers.:greengrin

I'm a bit puzzled as to why those lawyers would say such a thing. I get a bit miffed sometimes when lawyers get involved with things that are not their speciality, but one would have thought that stuff like this.... in the public domain.... would be double-checked.

[Deansy]

Tomorrow it's Ashley v SFA over Kings fit and Proper status.
Hope he's got better lawyers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's how shocking our game/SPFL is - MA having to actually need lawyers to prove THIS point !!

Having said that, am dying to hear the defence that's put up -

SFA - 'Mr King told us that he knew the South African judge was extremely biased and there was also rumours he was president of the 'South African Celtic Supporters' branch and so he decided to just plead guilty (out of the supreme goodness of his huge heart, btw) to save the South African tax-payer/government time and trouble' ..... 'he crossed his heart and hoped to die telling us that and that was more than enough proof for us to accept'

Should've had a competition for the best line that's going to come out of this lie-fest???

[Jonnyboy]

Like I say, an unincorporated organisation can be an employer.

What the law was back then, though.... no idea. Ask JonnyBoy. :greengrin

Oi, leave me out of this :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Oi, leave me out of this :greengrin

I hoped I might be able to slip that one in without you noticing :greengrin

Actually, now that you're here.... and this is completely off-topic...... your knowledge of all things historical might come in handy to confirm or pooh-pooh something my Dad brought up the other day. He reckons that, up until the 30's, priests and nuns got in free to ER, and that priests would bless the pitch. It was, apparently, Harry Swan that put a stop to that.

Any thoughts?

[Kato]

I hoped I might be able to slip that one in without you noticing :greengrin

Actually, now that you're here.... and this is completely off-topic...... your knowledge of all things historical might come in handy to confirm or pooh-pooh something my Dad brought up the other day. He reckons that, up until the 30's, priests and nuns got in free to ER, and that priests would bless the pitch. It was, apparently, Harry Swan that put a stop to that.

Any thoughts?

Priests and nuns were allowed in free to the main stand up until the early 70's. Some, if they turned up, were treated to free lunches off the board room on week-days. It was Eddie Turnbull that put a stop to it.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Priests and nuns were allowed in free to the main stand up until the early 70's. Some, if they turned up, were treated to free lunches off the board room on week-days. It was Eddie Turnbull that put a stop to it.


i remember my old man telling me decades ago that it was harry swan that put a stop to it, which makes sense really as ET was a player/manager...not really his business was it :dunno:

[Kato]

i remember my old man telling me decades ago that it was harry swan that put a stop to it, which makes sense really as ET was a player/manager...not really his business was it :dunno:

I got that info looking through old EEN's. In a 1970's interview with Eddie he claimed he saw money going down the swanney with these freebies being handed out so asked Tom Hart to stop the practice.

Harry Swan's first action as Chairman was to appoint a priest (Catholic) as a players "Monsignor", so at least one was given access. :wink:

[Jonnyboy]

I hoped I might be able to slip that one in without you noticing :greengrin

Actually, now that you're here.... and this is completely off-topic...... your knowledge of all things historical might come in handy to confirm or pooh-pooh something my Dad brought up the other day. He reckons that, up until the 30's, priests and nuns got in free to ER, and that priests would bless the pitch. It was, apparently, Harry Swan that put a stop to that.

Any thoughts?

Sorry, popped out for half an hour. Question now answered I see :greengrin

[GreenLake]

Priests and nuns were allowed in free to the main stand up until the early 70's. Some, if they turned up, were treated to free lunches off the board room on week-days. It was Eddie Turnbull that put a stop to it.

Shirley it was nun of his business.

[Ozyhibby]

Ashley halts legal action against sevco.
http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14250807.Mike_Ashley_s_Sports_Direct_halts_High_Co urt_legal_action_with_Rangers/
Wonder if that means his action against the SFA is off for tomorrow? Probably yes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Big L]

Just heard that on Sky, is that all actions inc DK not fit?

[s.a.m]

You need to read these upside down :greengrin



James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 3m3 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/694933341993304064)Also this month, Mike Ashley is suing the SFA over the fine he received last year over "dual ownership" which is also in Edinburgh




James Doleman‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 8m8 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/694932058574086144)
For those asking here are the cases still to come this month MASH holdings against the SFA re Dave King "Fit and Proper" (Edinburgh) 1/2


Edit: I dinnae mean standing on your head ;o)

[BSEJVT]

Ashley halts legal action against sevco.
http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14250807.Mike_Ashley_s_Sports_Direct_halts_High_Co urt_legal_action_with_Rangers/
Wonder if that means his action against the SFA is off for tomorrow? Probably yes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be honest he should have done this after the shellacking he got at the first hearing.

Between that and the second hearing he was on a hiding to nothing pursuing this particular agenda.

However he strikes me as being a vindictive sort, hopefully his next attempts will be better thought out and prepared.

[grunt]

However he strikes me as being a vindictive sort, hopefully his next attempts will be better thought out and prepared. I don't know if he's vindictive, but he's just spent £29m on transfer fees at Newcastle. I wonder, if DK hadn't upset him so much, whether he might have funded transfers at RFC?

[portycabbage]

They're wrong, which is a bit scary.

I would prefer SCVO's view:- http://www.scvo.org.uk/setting-up-a-charity/decide-on-a-structure/voluntary-or-unincorporated-association/

As they say, "This structure is not regulated by an external regulator or subject to specific legislation, " I would slightly dispute that, as HMRC can have an interest. Also "A voluntary association is governed according to its own rules",

I have a few clients, and have had many over the years, who fit into the definition of unincorporated associations. They employ staff, and are therefore subject to HMRC rules.

Bottom line, as I say, virtually anyone can be an employer. Private individual, association, charity, unincorporated business, partnership, limited company, LLP, SCIO.....actually struggling to think who might be prohibited.

The link you posted appears to say, like the other link, that unincorporated associations cannot themselves be employers - it has to be individuals in the association who do the employing, rather than the association itself.

"Leases/formal contracts have to be entered into in names of office bearers. This can cause technical difficulties where there are changes in the people holding these offices."
http://www.scvo.org.uk/setting-up-a-charity/decide-on-a-structure/voluntary-or-unincorporated-association/

[CropleyWasGod]

The link you posted appears to say, like the other link, that unincorporated associations cannot themselves be employers - it has to be individuals in the association who do the employing, rather than the association itself.

"Leases/formal contracts have to be entered into in names of office bearers. This can cause technical difficulties where there are changes in the people holding these offices."
http://www.scvo.org.uk/setting-up-a-charity/decide-on-a-structure/voluntary-or-unincorporated-association/
I can tell you that HMRC will, and do, recognise unincorporated associations as employers. If there is a default, the individuals themselves are liable, as with any unincorporated entities. The association , however, is the employer.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[portycabbage]

I can tell you that HMRC will, and do, recognise unincorporated associations as employers. If there is a default, the individuals themselves are liable, as with any unincorporated entities. The association , however, is the employer.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Surely what they're doing is a de facto recognition that employees are employed on behalf of the unincorporated association? Otherwise how could something/someone other than the employer be held liable? You'd know better than me about such things, but it's strange if what you say is the case, given that everything I've seen so far on the subject says U.A.s can't enter into contracts in their own name (eg-)

"An unincorporated charity isn’t a legal body in its own right so it can’t enter into contracts in its own name."
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/change-your-charity-structure

[CropleyWasGod]

Surely what they're doing is a de facto recognition that employees are employed on behalf of the unincorporated association? Otherwise how could something/someone other than the employer be held liable? You'd know better than me about such things, but it's strange if what you say is the case, given that everything I've seen so far on the subject says U.A.s can't enter into contracts in their own name (eg-)

"An unincorporated charity isn’t a legal body in its own right so it can’t enter into contracts in its own name."
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/change-your-charity-structure

That link is about charities, which is not what we're talking about.

Not sure what else to say on UA's

They are employers, in any sense of the word. Insurance - wise, tax - wise. Never known anyone to question that.

Anyways, we've probably hijacked the thread long enough [emoji6]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[et_hibby]

Shirley it was nun of his business.

It had become too much of a habit?

[portycabbage]

That link is about charities, which is not what we're talking about.

Not sure what else to say on UA's

They are employers, in any sense of the word. Insurance - wise, tax - wise. Never known anyone to question that.

Anyways, we've probably hijacked the thread long enough [emoji6]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Can charities not be companies or associations though?

Surely an important sense of the word "employment" is entering into contracts? And if the members themselves are personally liable for those contracts, then isn't the contract with them, rather than the UA?

"Individual members are personally responsible for any debts and contractual obligations."
https://www.gov.uk/business-legal-structures/unincorporated-association

Probably right about the hijack thing though!

[MrSmith]

Its Started:

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman

[MrSmith]

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 8m8 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/695212520450170880)
Counsel for Ashley agrees that he has to go over a "high bar" to succeed in having court overturn SFA decision.
4 retweets2 likes
Reply

Retweet
4



Like
2

More










https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000806818309/aa97d00733a96897045c26aeac6a570f_bigger.jpegJames Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 15m15 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/695210729406906368)
"No substantial differenice in English and Scots law" in these matters counsel for Ashley says quoting from supreme court decision
3 retweets0 likes
Reply

Retweet
3



Like


More










https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000806818309/aa97d00733a96897045c26aeac6a570f_bigger.jpegJames Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 19m19 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/695209865195732993)
No going over supreme court rulings on role of judicial review re statutory tribunals
3 retweets1 like
Reply

Retweet
3



Like
1

More










https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000806818309/aa97d00733a96897045c26aeac6a570f_bigger.jpegJames Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 23m23 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/695208756066525184)
Counsel for Ashley says SFA decision was one " no reasonable tribunal could have arrived at"
9 retweets3 likes
Reply

Retweet
9



Like
3

More










https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000806818309/aa97d00733a96897045c26aeac6a570f_bigger.jpegJames Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 27m27 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/695207823517597696)
Going through precedents again. Will spare you all the details.
2 retweets1 like
Reply

Retweet
2



Like
1

More










https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000806818309/aa97d00733a96897045c26aeac6a570f_bigger.jpegJames Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 35m35 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/695205708057436160)
Counsel for Ashley says "We are not here to discuss the merits of the complaint" instead issue is did they have jurisdiction over his client
5 retweets4 likes
Reply

Retweet
5



Like
4

More

[grunt]

Are we reading bottom to top again?

[grunt]

Anyways, we've probably hijacked the thread long enough [emoji6]



Probably right about the hijack thing though!Indeed.

[MrSmith]

Bottom to top! Sorry not very good at this internet copy and paste thingy!

Where is Ozzy when needed?

[CropleyWasGod]

Bottom to top! Sorry not very good at this internet copy and paste thingy!

Where is Ozzy when needed?

It's welcome. Please continue :agree:

[MrSmith]

Just use my link to twitter as my MacBook Air is giving me problems with hibs.net - started when I updated to El-Capitano :(

[Ozyhibby]

Apologies chaps. I'm having to work this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Apologies chaps. I'm having to work this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
'kin part - timer.....

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

'kin part - timer.....

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[emoji23]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/chairmans-update-supporters/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrSmith]

To sum up a little:

Derek Llambias was approached by Rangers board at the time to act as a consultant and taken on after proving to be good value - not an Ashley plant therefore, Ashley not influencing Rangers.

All good fun :)

[Deansy]

Indeed.


:thumbsup:

[grunt]

Severe lack of interest in today's court activities evidenced on this thread.


Judge asks O'Neil "Are you saying we should identify the notion of Rangers Football Club as a philosophical idea?"

[MrSmith]

Forgot about it! off to twitter a jolly well go .. :)

[MrSmith]

Judge "I find it hard not to think in legal terms, we are in a court. We are not here for our skill as metaphysicians"

love it!

[Deansy]

[emoji23]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/chairmans-update-supporters/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

'The Board also promised the manager he would have access to funds in the January transfer window if he felt players were available to bring in early and improve the overall squad in advance of next season. The manager has taken advantage of this opportunity and will also now commence the identification of players to further improve the squad during the close season.

....... by signing LOAN players !!. And still the mongol-hordes don't tipple.......... definitely the dumbest f***s in football !!!!

[Geo_1875]

'The Board also promised the manager he would have access to funds in the January transfer window if he felt players were available to bring in early and improve the overall squad in advance of next season. The manager has taken advantage of this opportunity and will also now commence the identification of players to further improve the squad during the close season.

....... by signing LOAN players !!. And still the mongol-hordes don't tipple.......... definitely the dumbest f***s in football !!!!

They did get O'Halloran from St J and paid £500k according to the fans with laptops at the DR. I doubt we'll ever know exactly how much St J end up with.

[grunt]

When reading all the comments from Justice (?) O'Neil in court about Rangers, I keep forgetting he is representing the SFA and not Rangers.

[MrSmith]

Judge "How does a judge deal with that? It's not legal rules he applies it's something else, drawing on some football jurisprudence?"

[Lago]

In my opinion things seem to be going rangers way at the moment.

[grunt]

In my opinion things seem to be going rangers way at the moment.Rangers aren't (supposed to be) involved in this one. :)

[Lago]

Rangers aren't (supposed to be) involved in this one. :)
How many really beieve that.

[Brunswickbill]

http://i.stv.tv/1QhxS2c

Dole man saying that STV has news that 5 charges in CW/ CG et al fraud case dropped.

[CropleyWasGod]

http://i.stv.tv/1QhxS2c

Dole man saying that STV has news that 5 charges in CW/ CG et al fraud case dropped.

According to the BBC, it's 6 out of the original 15.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35504189

[grunt]

Bloggers being closed down?

[Ozyhibby]

Bloggers being closed down?

??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

The Clumpany has closed its Twitter account.

[steakbake]

The Clumpany has closed its Twitter account.

A real shame. No idea why. I read and really enjoyed his stuff.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Whatever happened to this rocket? A comedy legend :faf:



https://youtu.be/A2s1awtLdyI

[NYHibby]

https://twitter.com/Full_Kit****er/status/698865784454418432

[CropleyWasGod]

The Clumpany has closed its Twitter account.
Think it's still there.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Think it's still there.


Yes, they seem to have returned to twitter.
Not sure what that was all about.

[greenginger]

Has there been any word about chuckie's appeal to get paid his legal fees ?


I see 802 Works, the WiFi people have got Sevco back up in court on Wednesday.


http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current-business/court-rolls/court-roll?id=0ec806a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

[Ozyhibby]

Has there been any word about chuckie's appeal to get paid his legal fees ?


I see 802 Works, the WiFi people have got Sevco back up in court on Wednesday.


http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current-business/court-rolls/court-roll?id=0ec806a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Been very quiet on the appeals. Hopefully get something this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Sunday Herald 'reinstates' Angela Haggerty after Rangers row - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35607032

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

So glad this thread has fallen so far down the board, for positive reasons. I actually had to do a search for it..... :greengrin

Anyways, breaking news from James Doleman:-

All charges against Duff and Phelps' Whitehouse and Clark dropped by Crown in Rangers fraud case.

The Crown however reserved the right to revive some of the charges at a later date.

The case against Craig Whyte, Charles Green, Gary Withey and Imran Ahmed continues.

[jacomo]

So glad this thread has fallen so far down the board, for positive reasons. I actually had to do a search for it..... :greengrin

Anyways, breaking news from James Doleman:-

All charges against Duff and Phelps' Whitehouse and Clark dropped by Crown in Rangers fraud case.

The Crown however reserved the right to revive some of the charges at a later date.

The case against Craig Whyte, Charles Green, Gary Withey and Imran Ahmed continues.

I would have thought Whyte et al will be asking for the case to be thrown out now, if D & P are off the hook.

[Brunswickbill]

I would have thought Whyte et al will be asking for the case to be thrown out now, if D & P are off the hook.

There is speculation that the Prosecution has done a deal with the Duff and Phelps geezers who will squeel and provide evidence against Whyte/Green et al. Maybe they are retaining the right to resurrect the charges if the DandF guys don't deliver.

[CropleyWasGod]

There is speculation that the Prosecution has done a deal with the Duff and Phelps geezers who will squeel and provide evidence against Whyte/Green et al. Maybe they are retaining the right to resurrect the charges if the DandF guys don't deliver.
That thought went through my head as well. :)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

The Duff and Phelps guys are not getting off with the rap.


http://news.stv.tv/west-central/1343774-crown-to-bring-fresh-charges-against-ex-rangers-administrators/

[Treadstone]

The Duff and Phelps guys are not getting off with the rap.


http://news.stv.tv/west-central/1343774-crown-to-bring-fresh-charges-against-ex-rangers-administrators/

??
"A charge against Green was also temporarily deserted, meaning the 62-year-old, as things stand, is not currently charged with any accusations."

Then.

"Whyte, Green, David Grier, Gary Withey, 51, and Ahmad still face a number of charges relating to their dealings with the club."

[CropleyWasGod]

??
"A charge against Green was also temporarily deserted, meaning the 62-year-old, as things stand, is not currently charged with any accusations."

Then.

"Whyte, Green, David Grier, Gary Withey, 51, and Ahmad still face a number of charges relating to their dealings with the club."

Yeah, saw it.

Doesn't compute. I assume the second paragraph is a mistake.

Not sure who "51" is either. Must be a Jambo. :cb

[lapsedhibee]

Not sure who "51" is either. Must be a Jambo.
That'll be the refugee shirley, at last being brought to book for the discrepancy between his earnings and his alleged earnings?

[grunt]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/follow-with-pride-2

[matty_f]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/follow-with-pride-2

:faf:

[Moulin Yarns]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/follow-with-pride-2

All the Rangers are gaaayyy!

[The Harp Awakes]

.........Gestures and chants which are deemed offensive should also be avoided no matter the level of provocation........

Hilarious. :faf::faf::faf:

I've got it now. The reason 50000 bigots sing their offensive, sectarian ditties is because they are provoked. Deary me, the world has gone mad.

[Alfred E Newman]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/follow-with-pride-2

We were provoked into singing the Billy Boys and Derrys Walls by those nasty Hibs supporters m'lud.

[Col2]

Tell me that's not The Rangers official site? It's like a school website.

[jacomo]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/follow-with-pride-2

Follow with Pride is all about positivity... Which is why we've started and ended this article by criticising the media and rival football clubs, and encouraged supporters to view them with contempt.

:hilarious

[Spike Mandela]

If they repeat a lie often enough it becomes their truth.

Unfortunately, others will forever remind them of their bigotry, their cheating and the broken history of their new young club.

[lord bunberry]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/follow-with-pride-2
It's not often I'm speechless

[Hibs Class]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/follow-with-pride-2

Feel the hurt. Just a fairly typical toddler tantrum, not surprising given their age.

[Ozyhibby]

Did Lord Tyre ever give his judgement on Charlie's legal fees?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[high bee]

How many other clubs feel the need to call their history "uninterrupted" at every opportunity. The psychologist in me says they are in denial.

The stages of grief:

Shock and denial,
Anger,
Depression and detachment,
Dialogue and bargaining,
Acceptance,
Return to meaningful life.

They're somewhere between denial and anger so it's a long road ahead for the poor wee souls.

[cleanyman]

Is that official?

**** me

What a total embarrassment

[Betty Boop]

If they repeat a lie often enough it becomes their truth.

Unfortunately, others will forever remind them of their bigotry, their cheating and the broken history of their new young club.
How can they be a new club if they still have all their trophies?

[Eyrie]

How can they be a new club if they still have all their trophies?

All purchased for a mammoth £1 from the liquidation of the old club. The new club has won two lower league titles in three seasons and has a great chance of adding a third this year together with their first ever cup if they can overcome Peterhead.

To be honest, I think most of us would say that's a fantastic achievement if it wasn't for the fanbase that they bought at the same time.

[greenginger]

If they ever make European Football qualification status, what will they say when UEFA give them a new club rating on seeding points .

[lord bunberry]

If they're the same club they can pay all the money they're owe.

[grunt]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/gers-face-celtic-cup/

[CropleyWasGod]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/gers-face-celtic-cup/
Twitter has already started on that. The whataboutery and old club/new club stuff will be cranked up to 11 over the next 6 weeks.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Hibs Class]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/gers-face-celtic-cup/

A lot of irrelevant stuff there. Think this will be the second time these clubs have met.

[CropleyWasGod]

A lot of irrelevant stuff there. Think this will be the second time these clubs have met.
And others think otherwise.

See what I mean? [emoji6]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Eyrie]

A lot of irrelevant stuff there. Think this will be the second time these clubs have met.

In addition to the League Cup game, didn't they also meet in some Glasgow under 18 cup which resulted in damage to Firhill?

[Hibs Class]

In addition to the League Cup game, didn't they also meet in some Glasgow under 18 cup which resulted in damage to Firhill?

Quite possibly. But this is definitely the first time they'll have met in the Scottish Cup. (Sorry CWG, I know you think differently, but no one will ever convince me otherwise, and the more they protest like earlier this week, the more I'm convinced they know it too)

[CropleyWasGod]

Quite possibly. But this is definitely the first time they'll have met in the Scottish Cup. (Sorry CWG, I know you think differently, but no one will ever convince me otherwise, and the more they protest like earlier this week, the more I'm convinced they know it too)

No worries. :wink:

The debate is going to to take on hysterical tones in the run-up to the game, which is going to be such a turn-off. I'm already reviewing my Twitter followees.... which, in the past few hours, has become :-

"Ur"

"Urnae"

"prove it"

"Naw. You prove it".

[ballengeich]

No worries. :wink:

The debate is going to to take on hysterical tones in the run-up to the game, which is going to be such a turn-off. I'm already reviewing my Twitter followees.... which, in the past few hours, has become :-

"Ur"

"Urnae"

"prove it"

"Naw. You prove it".

without either side of the "debate" ever defining what they mean by club.

[lapsedhibee]

without either side of the "debate" ever defining what they mean by club.
Didn't a lordship recently define it as a 'mythical entity' or sumpn? :dunno:

[Keith_M]

In addition to the League Cup game, didn't they also meet in some Glasgow under 18 cup which resulted in damage to Firhill?


Yep, their respective 'young teams' took it as an excuse to set off flares, sing the old sectarian ditties and generally act like wee fann1es

...without a word from our esteemed football authorities.

[grunt]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-statement-one-year/


YESTERDAY was the first anniversary of regime change at Rangers and provides the ideal opportunity to give an update on progress at the Club – on and off the pitch.

Supporters and staff should be proud of their contribution towards the achievements of the past year. The Board is grateful for this support and recognises it as the single biggest contributor to securing our return to the top of the football business. After years of trauma we now have clearly defined goals with everything possible being done to ensure that there is no repeat of the disasters of recent years.

It gives me and my fellow Board members a sense of pride that the focus has returned to football and not the off-field issues that dominated the recent past. We have, for the first time in a number of years, a solid, stable Board and we are more financially secure following years of reckless decisions and spending. The pursuit of personal interest and greed is now a thing of the past.

There is a renewed brightness and energy throughout Rangers with a revitalised staff that had been worn down by years of corporate mismanagement and false promises. We are all buoyed by the marked differences in the football department which had also been low in confidence and inspiration. A completely new management team led by Mark Warburton has been introduced and a more youthful and vibrant squad of players has been assembled.

The current squad was finalised at short notice last year by the new manager and his support staff with the objective of securing automatic promotion. It was always anticipated that further acquisitions would be necessary to compete in the Premiership if promotion was secured. Mark and the football executive are already working on the player-recruitment plan for the close season when we will bring in a number of new players to meet our ambitions to continue to compete at higher levels in the coming seasons.

The team is playing an attractive brand of attacking, winning football that has captured the imagination of supporters who have returned to Ibrox in huge numbers with more than 36,500 season tickets sold this season. Progression in the Scottish Cup has been a welcome reinforcement of the improvements made on the footballing front but the one non-negotiable this year was a return to the Premiership and the team is on track for this, sitting comfortably at the top of the Championship. Despite our current strong position, we will not take success for granted and will continue to approach every league game with the same intensity and attack-minded approach that has been on show throughout the season.

Many of the clubs in the Premiership will also be hoping Rangers is promoted because Scottish football has suffered on many levels since our Club went down to the bottom division.

Together we have demonstrated that our Club will not be kept down. We are no longer powerless to deal with issues that confront us. The Board will not stand by and allow Rangers to be negatively impacted on any front and will continue to challenge decisions made prior to regime change if they are damaging to our ambitions for Rangers.

It is also well documented that, after replacing the board last March, we inherited a number of legacy issues. All of these have been addressed. Some were capable of being resolved immediately but others require longer-term remedies.

In particular, the arrangements with Sports Direct remain problematic. The Club and I were compelled to deal with a number of legal attacks from Sports Direct in its attempt to reassert the dominant relationship that it enjoyed prior to regime change. The new Board and I stood up to this corporate and personal bullying and achieved resounding success in the court applications, including substantial cost orders in our favour. I have already expressed my personal views on the relationship with Sports Direct and its so-called management of the Club’s retail activities. There is no need to repeat them.

It is unfortunate that it required the repayment of the expensive so-called “interest-free” loan before we were able to give notice on the agreement with Sports Direct or to take legal action to protect the Club’s interests and seek restitution. This bizarre state of affairs was caused by poorly-negotiated agreements prior to regime change during which personal interest was put ahead of those of the Club. Additionally, some of the individuals negotiating on behalf of Rangers had a clear conflict of interest. A joint venture should be based on trust and that is clearly absent on both sides.

We have now had sufficient time to analyse the voluminous documentation supporting the establishment of the numerous agreements and side agreements with Sports Direct. Discussions have commenced with our legal advisors to review our findings and to devise the most effective legal strategy. This will be presented to the Board for approval at the end of this month.

It remains possible that the seemingly inevitable lengthy and costly litigation can be avoided. There is a far better alternative if Sports Direct recognises that the present arrangements are not working for either party and agrees to renegotiate the present arrangements to create the win-win situation that should have been reflected in the original agreements if Rangers had an effective negotiating team at that time. It would be an immediate boost for Rangers if the Board can be put into a position to endorse a revised deal prior to the launch of new kit for the coming season. It would be great to see our supporters once again being able to wear kit at games while being certain that their purchases will benefit the Club and the team.

It is also encouraging to know that a working group is currently assessing the best way in which to bring all our fans closer together. It will continue to be important to have unity through a truly independent fan group that represents and speaks for Rangers fans wherever they may be found. This would be a powerful body that should connect with the Board and influential agencies throughout Scotland.

The Club continues to require funding to meet its ongoing cash shortfall. This has largely been provided by me and the 3 Bears, however we have recently spread the investor base by securing a portion of the required investment from a group of Hong Kong based supporters. I will continue to look for like-minded investors who can share the financial burden. The recent history of Rangers has shown that it is better to have more investors than few. Hopefully, in time, we will see the broad-based supporters group having an increased stake in the Club.
I am also pleased to report that Rangers now has no third-party debt whatsoever. There are not many Clubs in the world that are in that enviable position.

Thank you again for your support. We are now approaching the business end of the season and we look forward to completing the journey back to the top together.

[Jim44]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-statement-one-year/

:sick:

[Hibs Class]

Presumably they have no third party debt because oldco walked away from all their obligations and no-one will lend to newco?

[CropleyWasGod]

Presumably they have no third party debt because oldco walked away from all their obligations and no-one will lend to newco?

I'd be interested in their definition of "third-party debt".

The Club continues to require funding to meet its ongoing cash shortfall. This has largely been provided by me and the 3 Bears, however we have recently spread the investor base by securing a portion of the required investment from a group of Hong Kong based supporters.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'd be interested in their definition of "third-party debt".

The Club continues to require funding to meet its ongoing cash shortfall. This has largely been provided by me and the 3 Bears, however we have recently spread the investor base by securing a portion of the required investment from a group of Hong Kong based supporters.

They owe it to themselves! Now where've I heard that before ... :rolleyes:

[Keith_M]

Presumably they have no third party debt because oldco walked away from all their obligations and no-one will lend to newco?


They share that distinction with Hearts, who dumped their debt in the same shameful manner.

[GreenLake]

I saw a great match between two clubs with a much greater history than Sevco last night. LA Galaxy 4 DC United 1. Both clubs have 21 years of history.

[SuperAllyMcleod]

If ever there's going to be a game for the Huns to dust off the old songbook it's going to be this one.

The rest of Scottish Football needs to listen carefully and then call them to account.

[jacomo]

Dave King has turned the smug dial up to max.

I'd love to see the crook brought down. Why are the media so scared to ask the questions?

[HoboHarry]

What are the chances of Sports Direct being on the Sevco jerseys next year as part of these "negotiations"?

[Eyrie]

If ever there's going to be a game for the Huns to dust off the old songbook it's going to be this one.

The rest of Scottish Football needs to listen carefully and then call them to account.

Not just Sevco - the other lot will be at it too. Ban the pair of them and clean up Scottish football in one move.

[greenginger]

http://rangers.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Financial_Review_070316.pdf


Sevco's 6 month figures.

The comparison figures for the 6 months to Dec 2014 are not the same as those published by the old regime, although the bottom line is the same.

I think they have stripped out the Rangers Retail element because it is now controlled by Ashley.

[greenginger]

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eser p%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor


BDO asking to be allowed to take Dead Rangers tax case to supreme court.

[Lago]

Unfortunately they seem to be getting their finances in order.

[Ozyhibby]

Breaking Rangers liquidators to be given permission to appeal tax case to UK Supreme Court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Judges rule "Rangers tax case" raises significant issues and should be heard by Supreme Court. M/F


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

http://rangers.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Financial_Review_070316.pdf


Sevco's 6 month figures.

The comparison figures for the 6 months to Dec 2014 are not the same as those published by the old regime, although the bottom line is the same.

I think they have stripped out the Rangers Retail element because it is now controlled by Ashley.

That's exactly what they have done:-

The loss of control over Rangers Retail Limited on 27 January 2015 resulted in the financial performance of the
retail business being shown separately from the football club operations. This is shown as “discontinued
operations” with adjustments made to prior year figures to ensure comparable presentation. The results for
this period are compared against the continuing operations for the period to 31 December 2014.

No Balance Sheet, though? :cb

[greenginger]

http://johnjamessite.com/2016/03/15/courting-controversy/

Seems Craig Whyte has been in court today, got a judicial revue for a claim on Dead Rangers assets. That is the money BDO have been pulling in for the creditors.

Maybe there won't be much left after the Supreme Court appeal.

[HoboHarry]

Maybe CWG will have some input into the end paragraphs but would be rather funny if true.

[grunt]

http://johnjamessite.com/2016/03/15/courting-controversy/

Personally I think JJ is completely at sea when it comes to analysing corporate and financial matters. His analysis of the Rangers interim financial statement was woefully lacking in any coherent factual content and only served to display his lack of understanding of financial statements and the difference between profits and cashflow.

His recent blog posts appear increasingly scatter-gun, and he seems to wander from point to point with no coherent or consistent strategy. I sometimes struggle to work out what point he's trying to make.

Although maybe that's just me.

[cabbageandribs1875]

i see Mr Sports Direct has been told to appear before some government committee in regards to treatment of SD employees


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-35811254

MPs have decided to issue a formal summons ordering Sports Direct boss Mike Ashley to give evidence to them about the treatment of his workers.
He previously declined an invitation to appear before the Business, Innovation and Skills select committee.
In a letter he accused MPs of "abusing Parliamentary procedure in order to create a media circus".
The committee has warned him that he could be in contempt of Parliament if he ignores the summons.

[CropleyWasGod]

Maybe CWG will have some input into the end paragraphs but would be rather funny if true.
I'm with Grunt in his opinion of JJ's financial nous. I've given up questioning him, as I just get ignored :)

I'm still puzzled, though, at the Liberty Capital thing. If there was such a loan, why is it only surfacing now? Why was it not in the accounts pre-admin?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_X7aVh2s6qcR0FNLTRZNzZ1elU/view


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_X7aVh2s6qcR0FNLTRZNzZ1elU/view


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who is it from?

[Super_JMcGinn]

Quite possibly. But this is definitely the first time they'll have met in the Scottish Cup. (Sorry CWG, I know you think differently, but no one will ever convince me otherwise, and the more they protest like earlier this week, the more I'm convinced they know it too)
I know a few Rangers fans and not one of them are bothered what a % of other football fans in Scotland think about them. Had they lost Ibrox as their home the argument that they might be another club might bear some weight, as it is they didn't, so I think any claims that they are a different club is just silly.
FWIW I don't care either way.

[grunt]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14345618.New_blow_for_Rangers_creditors_as_legal_c laim_on___18m_oldco_liquidation_pot_is_put_on_hold/?ref=twtrec


New blow for Rangers creditors as legal claim on £18m oldco liquidation pot is put on hold.

A COMPANY previously linked to Craig Whyte has had its legal claim for the whole of the £18 million creditors payout pot of the liquidated Rangers plc put on hold because of the on-going club fraud case. The development will further delay payouts to creditors of the liquidated Rangers oldco. Rangers FC Group has previously lodged a defence at the Court of Session over its claim, rejected by oldco liquidators BDO, that it is owed up to £25 million. Rangers FC Group says it holds a security over the assets of Rangers oldco RFC 2012 plc.

Rangers FC Group was formerly known as Wavetower, the company Mr Whyte used to buy Sir David Murray’s 85.3% stake in Rangers for a nominal £1 last May. The Court of Session claim, if successful, would make Rangers FC Group the only secured creditor and first in line ahead of HMRC, even if successful in the Rangers Big Tax Case. It could also earn Mr Whyte £6 million. The ongoing criminal case surrounds the 2010 acquisition of Rangers and the 2012 Sevco purchase of the club’s business and assets.

A Scottish Courts spokesman said: "The case has been sisted until the end of the criminal proceedings." The Rangers FC Group, has taken over the claim from Law Financial Ltd, the company also previously linked to Mr Whyte. The Herald revealed last month that new documents show that LFL had now taken control of Rangers FC Group which claims to hold the security. Rangers FC Group says it holds the security over the assets reassigned to the company after an £18m bank debt was paid off as a condition of Mr Whyte's purchase of the club from Sir David Murray in May 2011. He raised funds by organising a deal to sell off three years of future season ticket rights to Ticketus activated when he became owner. The security over Rangers income and assets was originally set up in 1999 in favour of the Bank of Scotland in response to the club's ballooning debt figure.

Mr Whyte, who presided over the Rangers oldco's plunge into administration in February, 2012, always insisted that the company he used to buy the club had inherited that security over the Ibrox outfit's assets. Documents showed that ultimate controllers of LFL and the action are the Worthington Group, an investment firm also once connected to Mr Whyte and who in October, 2014, said would continue to stake a legal claim over Rangers’ business and assets.

Worthington Group plc, confirmed in filings two years ago, that when it had the option of purchasing a 100 per cent stake in LFL, it was obliged to pay Mr Whyte £1 million in unsecured convertible loan notes and one third of the proceeds of any assets, claims or rights owned by his companies.

An interim £10 million payout to unsecured creditors of the in-liquidation oldco was due to have been made at the end of July to the tune of around seven pence, but has been held up because of the case. BDO has previously asked the court to dispense with any potentially time consuming and potentially expensive future hearings. The liquidators has also previously indicated to creditors that if the claim was pursued, as it has been, it could hold up payouts for some time. LFL is now owned by the Worthington Group, an investment firm also once connected to Mr Whyte and who in October last year said would continue to stake a legal claim over Rangers’ business and assets. Filings show that Craig Whyte is no longer a director of Rangers FC Group, and the four directors are Worthington Group executives Doug Ware and Richard Spurway, LFL and Liberty Corporate. Mr Whyte was a founding director of LFL, which claimed to have former Rangers newco Sevco 5088 as a subsidiary, but he stood down from the board in August, 2014.

Worthington Group were approached for comment.

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14345618.New_blow_for_Rangers_creditors_as_legal_c laim_on___18m_oldco_liquidation_pot_is_put_on_hold/?ref=twtrec

Still none the wiser. :greengrin

How can CW/Wavetower/LFL/Worthington be owed money, when CW used the Ticketus money to pay off the bank?

Either I'm missing something, or CW has confused the hell out of the Court as well. Not sure why BDO haven't been able to put up a simple case that effectively says "GTF".

Edit.. there's that Spurway name again. Shivers up my spine.

[AndyM_1875]

I know a few Rangers fans and not one of them are bothered what a % of other football fans in Scotland think about them. Had they lost Ibrox as their home the argument that they might be another club might bear some weight, as it is they didn't, so I think any claims that they are a different club is just silly.
FWIW I don't care either way.

HMRC should have taken Ibrox & Murray park off them at the CVA and redeveloped them for housing and told Rangers to go on their way without liquidation. :greengrin

That would have delivered a far greater return for the public purse than this protracted shambles.
Just think Ibrox could have been developed like Highbury and Rangers would be homeless which is what would happen to me if I didn't pay my bills.

[Ozyhibby]

Who is it from?

https://www.change.org/p/scottish-football-association-return-integrity-to-football-administration-in-scotland-94421b40-2d6b-4d4b-9cff-912c9849478f?tk=S2mvV4pA2ld5oNw2w87ou8I6JTvnrn4vQp yOygmJna4&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jim44]

Watching the golf from USA last week, I noticed that one guy's sponsor was none other than Duff and Phelps. I take there's an honest and legit side to the company.

[grunt]

Comment here about our own Rod

http://johnjamessite.com/2016/03/16/sporting-integrity-for-sale/


Sporting Integrity For Sale“Dear all (Neil Doncaster SPL, his Scottish Football League counterpart David Longmuir, SFL President Jim Ballantyne, SFA vice-president Alan McRae, Hibernian chief executive Rod Petrie, SPL chairman Ralph Topping).
Many thanks for your contribution and support over the last two weeks in trying to deliver a programme of change that will move Scottish football forward whilst addressing the need to deal with the Rangers matter with integrity and in line with our own values as an organisation.
I was hugely encouraged with where we got to last night on a long and tiring phone call and I thank all of you for your efforts to move this issue forward.
I thought it would be helpful if I summarised where I think we are:
1. The Rangers Football Club will be relegated to the 1st Division of the SFL with immediate effect and will be replaced in the SPL by Dundee FC.
2. The television rights for Rangers FC matches in the SFL will be purchased by the SPL for the sum of £1m as a one-off fee for the season 2012/2013.
A) A joint statement today from all 3 bodies confirming that productive discussions have taken place on a new blueprint for Scottish football. Consultation will continue over the next two weeks with a view to clubs getting together week commencing 2nd July to try and agree the way forward. (Darryl Broadfoot to provide this and circulate to David Longmuir/Neil Doncaster for approval)
B) Rod Petriw / Jim Ballantyne to finalise the all-through financial model by Wednesday this week latest.
C) Neil / David to finalise the detail on Governance, Commercials and Play-Offs (ideally Monday/Tuesday) and incorporate these, plus the financials in B) above into a legally binding Heads of Terms ‘draft’ for presentation to each league body w/c 2nd July.
D) David Lomgmuir to organise SFL Board Meeting w/c 25th June to gain buy-in to the plan and also arrange an all club meeting w/c 2nd July
E) Neil Doncaster to gain support from SPL Clubs 28th June
F) SFL Clubs Meeting to be planned for 3rd July
G) SPL Club Meeting to be planned for 4th July
H) Scottish FA Board to sign off on the final plan post 4th July. Subject to approval all bodies (including Newco) to sign legal documentation.
I) Agree joint communication strategy
J) In parallel to A-D above, could Rod Petrie please brief Charles Green confidentially on the discussions from a Scottish FA perspective so that there are ‘no surprises’ and there is a general acceptance of the plan plus all of the other conditions discussed e.g. transfer embargo, fines, repayment of football debt, waiving rights to legal challenge, acceptance of relegation and so on.
K) Andrew Dickson to ensure our check list of disclosures relating to Newco and Fit & Proper Person criteria are delivered by 2nd july. The Board will need these plus the Heads of Terms above in order to complete this plan.
The Scottish FA Board have agreed to provide a one-off restructuring budget of £1m on condition the above plan is delivered.
I hope this covers everything.
Speak soon….now off to the airport!
Regards
Stewart”

The plan backfired spectacularly on Friday 13 July 2012 when the SFL chairman rejected the proposals and voted 25-2 (3 abstentions) in favour of Newco Rangers entering the bottom tier. Turnbull Hutton of Raith Rovers stated unequivocally that the Scottish FA and SPL were corrupt and that their plan to railroad SFL chairman into accepting their proposals, with a threat of an SPL2 breakaway league to accommodate Rangers and exclude those that did not support their plan, beggared belief. The SFL chairman wanted Regan’s head and a consensus was building for a vote of no confidence, but this was stymied by Regan’s ally, SFL chairman Jim Ballantyne, who stated that there was no item on the agenda and that the forum was the inappropriate vehicle for a vote of no confidence

The most controversial point was Regan’s s instruction to Petrie – a man who claimed on May 14 2012 that sporting integrity was “beyond purchase” – to brief newco Rangers owner Charles Green “confidentially” on the various issues so that there could be “no surprises.”
Regan also said in the email that Dundee would replace Rangers in the Scottish Premier League in season 2012/2013, even though the SPL clubs were not due to choose between them and rival candidates Dunfermline until their annual general meeting on 25th June 2012, which was two days subsequent to the e-mail being sent. Moves were afoot at this meeting to create an SPL2 to accommodate Rangers, but this was not accepted.

Regan also makes it clear that for newco Rangers to be granted membership of the SFA – which they need in order to compete in the SFL – Green must accept the transfer embargo handed down by the SFA’s judicial panel in April, even though it was ruled unlawful by Lord Glennie at the Court of Session in May.

On top of that, Regan stressed that the club will still be responsible for any other fines and sanctions imposed as a result of the wrongdoing of previous regimes, such as the improper registration of players.

Let’s look at the players in this corrupt enterprise. Regan is still in place. Doncaster has an enhanced remit as CEO of the SPFL. McRae was promoted from Vice President to President of the SFA. Ralph Topping is chairman of the SPFL and a key member of The Scottish FA’s Professional Game Board. Rod Petrie, who briefed Charles Green, has been rewarded for his loyalty by being elevated to the position as Vice President of The SFA.

These five individuals run a business with a turnover of £60m+ who went out of their way to ‘relegate’ Rangers to the then first division. However there was no mechanism for ‘relegation’ so they had to make one up. They had decided in advance that RFC PLC’s share in the SPL would be given to Dundee. As the club/company no longer existed as a vital football entity it could not be relegated. The best the SFA could do was to transfer the licence of the former club to the new club, which they duly did.

The petition by Reiver, which has featured prominently on this site, is an attempt to have these corrupt individuals removed from football. Their decision to allow a convicted criminal to be chairman of Rangers is an exercise in corruption. Their decision to approve Paul Murray, who was a member of a board who perpetrated two tax frauds, is unconscionable. Their decision to create a kangaroo court, the LNS commission, to exonerate themselves and Rangers for what was tantamount to match fixing, was beneath contempt. Their decision to grant a licence for UEFA participation in 2011 transgressed two UEFA regulations. The decision to ignore company law and transfer 114 titles to enhance the commercial attraction of a member club is unprecedented.

Scottish football is a game played by Rangers, with a ball owned by the SFA/SPFL. Those who put their shirts down as goal posts have long since lost them and with them went their integrity.

[grunt]

Another win for the Rangers

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/charles-green-legal-proceedings/#.VuvwHOzNGYE.twitter


WE are pleased to advise that the appeal by Charles Green against the decision of the Lord Ordinary to dismiss his application to have Rangers International Football Club PLC meet the expenses of the criminal proceedings brought against him has been refused.

Lady Dorrian, Lord Bracadale and Lord Malcolm sitting in the Inner House of the Court of Session unanimously reached this decision.
Rangers Chairman Dave King stated: ‘I am delighted by this decision. When the new board was installed last year we made a commitment that we would protect Rangers interests at all times and hold those who damaged our Club to account. This was already evidenced by our success in dealing with the frivolous litigation launched by Sports Direct against the Club and myself – including punitive cost awards in our favour.’

Mr King added: ‘We are unsurprised but delighted that this latest court success brings to an end the unjustifiable claims by Charles Green. He is now totally responsible for the cost of defending himself in the criminal case brought against him for his dealings with the Club. Furthermore, we will vigorously pursue Charles Green for recovery of the legal costs that we incurred including the £50,000 lodged with the Court as a caution.’

[Ronniekirk]

So it looking more and more like King s Strategy is winning through
He hasnt yet invested a fraction of what he said he would
They have reduced debt to increasingly manageable levels
They are more or less guaranteed automatic promotion by the looks of things
They are merging supporters association under one new banner so they can start buying shares in the club
They will have no problem getting new investment next season i assume when back in Top League
Assume they will shift more season tickets
So is there any other fly in the ointment that can stop them going from Strength to strength
I am beginning to get the distinct impression that they are now over the worst


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

So it looking more and more like King s Strategy is winning through
He hasnt yet invested a fraction of what he said he would
They have reduced debt to increasingly manageable levels
They are more or less guaranteed automatic promotion by the looks of things
They are merging supporters association under one new banner so they can start buying shares in the club
They will have no problem getting new investment next season i assume when back in Top League
Assume they will shift more season tickets
So is there any other fly in the ointment that can stop them going from Strength to strength
I am beginning to get the distinct impression that they are now over the worst


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the asset purchase by Sevco is declared fraudulent then conceivably BDO could come looking for it to be sold again on behalf of Old Hun creditors. That ongoing possibility may deter investors of the non-emotional type.

Other than that the main fly in their ointment is they need to hit the ground running in the top flight. The hordes will not accept anything other than triumphalist triumph. There is no sign as yet of the kind of money they probably need to get near Celtic quickly.

[Geo_1875]

If the asset purchase by Sevco is declared fraudulent then conceivably BDO could come looking for it to be sold again on behalf of Old Hun creditors. That ongoing possibility may deter investors of the non-emotional type.

Other than that the main fly in their ointment is they need to hit the ground running in the top flight. The hordes will not accept anything other than triumphalist triumph. There is no sign as yet of the kind of money they probably need to get near Celtic quickly.

Their big problem will be the mobs reaction should they fail achieve overnight success. King will struggle to keep them happy without spending more than other peoples money.

[Ronniekirk]

If the asset purchase by Sevco is declared fraudulent then conceivably BDO could come looking for it to be sold again on behalf of Old Hun creditors. That ongoing possibility may deter investors of the non-emotional type.

Other than that the main fly in their ointment is they need to hit the ground running in the top flight. The hordes will not accept anything other than triumphalist triumph. There is no sign as yet of the kind of money they probably need to get near Celtic quickly.

Thanks for that Will be interested to see how the semi final pans out if Griffiths was injured
I know The Rangers don't yet have a million quid to spend on a player but Celtic haven't bought as well in i recent years imo
Ironically We may have assembled a squad capable of doing better in the top league than The Rangers but they have shown they ave the squad to win the Championship


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

Whenever I hear of investors being required by Rangers I get the feeling they are still in trouble.

Investor = someone who puts in money with the purpose of getting that money back + profit. Profit made (generally so far) at the expense of the efforts of the Rangers fans.

What many Rangers fans want is a return to the good old days when an "investor" was anything but, but was an idiot who was prepared to plough their hard-earned (or ill-gotten) money into a lost cause never to see it again.

There do seem to be a few these days though who have learned a lesson - having so nearly lost their club and having seen it go through the mill they have less inclination to see it act as profligately as they have in the past.

They need to be self-sufficient and imo the approach King has taken has been the right one for them. They need to live within their means and work with the not inconsiderable sums that "the hordes" can generate.

They look like they're pretty much out of the woods to me and might be going up at the right time for them. Celtic are no great shakes and are there for the taking. Their income will have taken a hit over the past few years and their pitiful European efforts won't have generated a significant amount of cash over the past few years.

I hate to give Rangers credit but in many ways if they pull through this I'm happy to put the whole thing behind me. They've done their time, they've done a stint in the lower leagues and I'm happy enough to move on. They're still a horrible bunch who need to do a lot more throughout the entire club to control their unpleasant element (and not actively encourage it) but if they get their house in order financially and live within their means then fair play to them.

I'm not up for retrospectively stripping titles but I want to have confidence that there is a rigid enough structure in place at the SFA that any such financial fuddery will not be tolerated in future. I have no such confidence right now as long as so many tarnished figures remain in position.

:tin hat:

[JeMeSouviens]

Thanks for that Will be interested to see how the semi final pans out if Griffiths was injured
I know The Rangers don't yet have a million quid to spend on a player but Celtic haven't bought as well in i recent years imo
Ironically We may have assembled a squad capable of doing better in the top league than The Rangers but they have shown they ave the squad to win the Championship


Yeah, you would imagine the New Huns will have more to spend than Aberdeen and they've managed to stay reasonably close to Delia's Celtc. The New Huns would be doing well to get to Aberdeen's current level within a season or 2 but I don't imagine too many of their fans will be happy with that, especially if Celtc sort themselves out with a new manager over the summer.

[Bishop Hibee]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35845621

Newco will "vigorously pursue" Green for legal costs after his appeal failed.

[Bostonhibby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35845621

Newco will "vigorously pursue" Green for legal costs after his appeal failed.
Green "losing" for the time being could be interesting. He must have a story to tell about events just before he appeared and during the early days of his stewardship. If only a Scottish paper fancied taking the story on. Never been a better time to offer him a few quid for his version of events

[doddsy]

It was expected Green would lose his case in the Court of Session. The said Court is a corrupt institution that will always favour the so-called establishment and Rangers are just such a one. The said Court is supplied by Lords employed by the Courts and Tribunals Services ultimately employed vicariously by the Government. There is no such thing as an independent Lord or Judge.

I did say on this thread some time ago Rangers will be awarded every judgement ultimately by their band of brothers the Lords of the Courts and Tribunal Services which is a very bigoted establishment institution. What may happen with Whyte and Co in the criminal trial is they may cop to some minor plea and be brushed under the carpet or be found not guilty. Mark my words, the establishment protects it's own vigourously.

:gwa:

[HoboHarry]

Any input on these beliefs/ideas/fairy tales (delete as appropriate)....... CWG?

http://johnjamessite.com/

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/pollyanna-goes-to-ibrox/

[CropleyWasGod]

Any input on these beliefs/ideas/fairy tales (delete as appropriate)....... CWG?

http://johnjamessite.com/

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/pollyanna-goes-to-ibrox/

First of all, the moment JJ starts with figures, my eyes glaze over. The only thing he says of in that piece that caught my attention is "The accountants who read my projections will rail against ....." We rail against most of what you say, JJ.......

That said, his figures may be reasonable. He just has so much previous that I CBA analysing them :greengrin The only thing people should be aware of is that, since they won the case against Chucky, RFC should be able to limp on until they can start selling ST's.

On Phil's piece, it's much the same song. "They huvnae any money". Again, it's wishful thinking and straw-clutching.

This is where I issue a disclaimer that, for all I know, there's another bomb ticking away which will explode over the next week or so and slip them 25 points down. The way things are going with us, I'm not even sure that will be much good. :cb

[Keith_M]

The Rangers are not going bust anytime soon. We should just close thread and concentrate on our own problems.

[doddsy]

Any input on these beliefs/ideas/fairy tales (delete as appropriate)....... CWG?

http://johnjamessite.com/

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/pollyanna-goes-to-ibrox/

Who would you believe- Dave King and Radar K Jackson or these men Phil and john james who are attempting to give the real story to the less naive.

They are merely keeping us abreast of the true story unlike the Scottish Media who are now timid- think of what happened to the journo Haggerty when she gave an honest account of a story involving rangers- sacked and alienated, albeit I believe she has served a penance and been readmitted into the fold with a word in the shellike to not do that again. If it was'nt for men like Phil and john james we would still be having the wool pulled down over the eyes. Keep up the good work.

[doddsy]

The Rangers are not going bust anytime soon. We should just close thread and concentrate on our own problems.

You don't have to click on this thread if you don't like it.

[CropleyWasGod]

Who would you believe- Dave King and Radar K Jackson or these men Phil and john james who are attempting to give the real story to the less naive.

They are merely keeping us abreast of the true story unlike the Scottish Media who are now timid- think of what happened to the journo Haggerty when she gave an honest account of a story involving rangers- sacked and alienated, albeit I believe she has served a penance and been readmitted into the fold with a word in the shellike to not do that again. If it was'nt for men like Phil and john james we would still be having the wool pulled down over the eyes. Keep up the good work.

Can't agree about JJ.

His financial positing has been pretty poor for the most part. As I've said a few times on here, every time I challenge him, he fails to either answer me or allow my posting.

Phil is different. But, as the immediate crisis recedes, even he is looking for straws to grab. On Twitter and the likes, the arguments between he and his like on one side, and the RFC guys on the other, has been reduced to "We ur" vs. "Naw ye urnae".

[doddsy]

Can't agree about JJ.

His financial positing has been pretty poor for the most part. As I've said a few times on here, every time I challenge him, he fails to either answer me or allow my posting.

Phil is different. But, as the immediate crisis recedes, even he is looking for straws to grab. On Twitter and the likes, the arguments between he and his like on one side, and the RFC guys on the other, has been reduced to "We ur" vs. "Naw ye urnae".

It's not hard to believe RIFC are around 30 million in debt. The SD agreement is still in place. The saga of BDO still runs as to creditors. The criminal proceedings may or may not take place. I am still no clearer as to how the ultimate ownership will pan out. There is still much to see in this ongoing circus. As for the Newco v Oldco we all know Rangers were liquidated but are more or less the same club.

[grunt]

It's not hard to believe RIFC are around 30 million in debt.If you're talking about PMcG's blog, then I don't think he's suggesting that they're £30m in debt - he's saying they've lost £30m which is different.
My problem with his current blogs is that he's discussing a set of accounts that no one has yet seen. Unless I missed it.

Like CWG I no longer even bother looking at JJ's site.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's not hard to believe RIFC are around 30 million in debt. The SD agreement is still in place. The saga of BDO still runs as to creditors. The criminal proceedings may or may not take place. I am still no clearer as to how the ultimate ownership will pan out. There is still much to see in this ongoing circus. As for the Newco v Oldco we all know Rangers were liquidated but are more or less the same club.

I agree with you on that, but we're probably the only 2 people outside Govan who think that way. :greengrin

But no way are they £30m in debt..............

[greenginger]

If you're talking about PMcG's blog, then I don't think he's suggesting that they're £30m in debt - he's saying they've lost £30m which is different.
My problem with his current blogs is that he's discussing a set of accounts that no one has yet seen. Unless I missed it.

Like CWG I no longer even bother looking at JJ's site.


They are discussing the Sevco ( ie football club accounts ) to the period ending 30/6/2015, just published. They contain all the information that was in RIFC accounts ( the holding company ) for the same period that were published in December.

The only major difference is the accumulated losses figure which has been reduced by pumping up the goodwill value of RIFC.

Huns and goodwill ! :confused:

[Ronniekirk]

The Rangers are not going bust anytime soon. We should just close thread and concentrate on our own problems.

I will go further i don't think they are gong bust at all
I think by the end of next season they will be through the worst


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[doddsy]

[QUOTE=grunt;4628128]If you're talking about PMcG's blog, then I don't think he's suggesting that they're £30m in debt - he's saying they've lost £30m which is different.
My problem with his current blogs is that he's discussing a set of accounts that no one has yet seen. Unless I missed it.

Like CWG I no longer even bother looking at JJ's site.[/QUOTE

Don't get me wrong I am no accountant but making a loss of 30 mill is not like going to the bookies and gambling it which would be a loss, in buisness sense a loss is the difference between outgoings and income, however it could be the RIFC is run on a different basis due to its lack of genuine lines of credit. I am not sure if it is simply money down the drain or a debt. Could anyone else enlighten us please.

In any case it is worse if it is a straight 30 mill down the drain no? hard cash without write offs.

[doddsy]

They are discussing the Sevco ( ie football club accounts ) to the period ending 30/6/2015, just published. They contain all the information that was in RIFC accounts ( the holding company ) for the same period that were published in December.

The only major difference is the accumulated losses figure which has been reduced by pumping up the goodwill value of RIFC.

Huns and goodwill ! :confused:

You seem to be saying it is a debt carried over by the Sevco years?

[greenginger]

[QUOTE=grunt;4628128]If you're talking about PMcG's blog, then I don't think he's suggesting that they're £30m in debt - he's saying they've lost £30m which is different.
My problem with his current blogs is that he's discussing a set of accounts that no one has yet seen. Unless I missed it.

Like CWG I no longer even bother looking at JJ's site.[/QUOTE

Don't get me wrong I am no accountant but making a loss of 30 mill is not like going to the bookies and gambling it which would be a loss, in buisness sense a loss is the difference between outgoings and income, however it could be the RIFC is run on a different basis due to its lack of genuine lines of credit. I am not sure if it is simply money down the drain or a debt. Could anyone else enlighten us please.

In any case it is worse if it is a straight 30 mill down the drain no? hard cash without write offs.


I'm pretty sure its a straight £ 30 million trading loss, but they had a £ 22 million share issue cushion to start with and that's all gone.

They need to get their income up or their costs down, a bit like ourselves and every other club in the country.

[CropleyWasGod]

You seem to be saying it is a debt carried over by the Sevco years?

It's not a debt. It's the accumulated losses since Day 1.

What the debt actually is, is difficult to ascertain. The latest management accounts, as pointed out on here, had no Balance Sheet.

[doddsy]

[QUOTE=doddsy;4628140]


I'm pretty sure its a straight £ 30 million trading loss, but they had a £ 22 million share issue cushion to start with and that's all gone.

They need to get their income up or their costs down, a bit like ourselves and every other club in the country.

I'm no accountant as I said previously but the 22 mill cushion takes the heat off greatly. I was'nt aware of that.

:thumbsup:

[doddsy]

It's not a debt. It's the accumulated losses since Day 1.

What the debt actually is, is difficult to ascertain. The latest management accounts, as pointed out on here, had no Balance Sheet.

:aok:

[greenginger]

[QUOTE=greenginger;4628147]

I'm no accountant as I said previously but the 22 mill cushion takes the heat off greatly. I was'nt aware of that.

:thumbsup:


Of course, Big Hands got his big hands on some of the cushion before it reached RIFC.

[JeMeSouviens]

Hunners of numbers for CWG:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/business/company-results-forecasts/rangers-football-club-ltd-reports-7604504#rLVP5E3eyi88euhM.97

(Warning: may contain traces of Hun).

[Moulin Yarns]

Hunners of numbers for CWG:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/business/company-results-forecasts/rangers-football-club-ltd-reports-7604504#rLVP5E3eyi88euhM.97

(Warning: may contain traces of Hun).




The Rangers Football Club Ltd (TRFCL) has reported an 11 per cent increase in operating losses to £9.04 million for the 2015 year to June 30.

The company, which notes it principal activities are operating a professional football club in Scotland and its commercial activities, notes debts to its parent company Rangers International Football Club Plc (RIFC) also rose 16 per cent to £18.1 million (2014: £15.6 million).

Read more at http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/business/company-results-forecasts/rangers-football-club-ltd-reports-7604504#6vQzk0R5mSjYSkTE.99

A loss of £9m and debt owed to themselves of £18m!! not pretty :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

Hunners of numbers for CWG:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/business/company-results-forecasts/rangers-football-club-ltd-reports-7604504#rLVP5E3eyi88euhM.97

(Warning: may contain traces of Hun).

These aren't new figures.

They were published last year (November?). The DR has picked up on them because they have been submitted to Companies House.

The Daily Record. First with the, uh, old news.....:greengrin

[doddsy]

These aren't new figures.

They were published last year (November?). The DR has picked up on them because they have been submitted to Companies House.

The Daily Record. First with the, uh, old news.....:greengrin

At first glance it appears very dodgy indeed. A club that owes 18 mill to it's parent company which is itself 29 mill in debt. Sounds very similar to the Hearts situation under Romanov. Debt piled upon debt which will ultimately never be repayed and we all know what happened with Romanov. Looks extremely suspicious. I am no accountant as I said previously but the Parent co setup seems a particular avenue to neverendum debt.

[CropleyWasGod]

At first glance it appears very dodgy indeed. A club that owes 18 mill to it's parent company which is itself 29 mill in debt. Sounds very similar to the Hearts situation under Romanov. Debt piled upon debt which will ultimately never be repayed and we all know what happened with Romanov. Looks extremely suspicious. I am no accountant as I said previously but the Parent co setup seems a particular avenue to neverendum debt.

My problem is that these accounts are almost 9 months old.

Given how much has happened since then, they're almost worthless in trying to establish the current picture.

Edit... the £29m is not the parent company's debt. It's the football club's debt within 12 months, of which £18m is due to the parent company.

[Ozyhibby]

Is there a balance sheet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Is there a balance sheet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but it's 9 months old. These are the same accounts that were published a few months ago. There's nothing new in them.

[Ozyhibby]

Yes, but it's 9 months old. These are the same accounts that were published a few months ago. There's nothing new in them.

Thought so. I take it it does not show how the Hong Kong money has been lent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[doddsy]

My problem is that these accounts are almost 9 months old.

Given how much has happened since then, they're almost worthless in trying to establish the current picture.

Edit... the £29m is not the parent company's debt. It's the football club's debt within 12 months, of which £18m is due to the parent company.

I appreciate it must be a bit tiresome correcting me a good bit but i'm grateful for enlightening me as I am as you can see no accountant so thank you.

It appears they have set up a group collection of companies just like Romanov did. Entirely legal and the group's overall debt is taken as a whole instead of a normal football club being in hawk to an individual bank. The individual debts of the companies are shared across the group. Seems very similar to the Romanov situation but then as I keep saying I am no accountant and I am merely speculating and will trust in others to keep enlightening us.

[CropleyWasGod]

Thought so. I take it it does not show how the Hong Kong money has been lent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nah.

That's what was so dodgy about the 6 months accounts that they published. Unaudited, with no Balance Sheet....

[CropleyWasGod]

I appreciate it must be a bit tiresome correcting me a good bit but i'm grateful for enlightening me as I am as you can see no accountant so thank you.

It appears they have set up a group collection of companies just like Romanov did. Entirely legal and the group's overall debt is taken as a whole instead of a normal football club being in hawk to an individual bank. The individual debts of the companies are shared across the group. Seems very similar to the Romanov situation but then as I keep saying I am no accountant and I am merely speculating and will trust in others to keep enlightening us.

Tiresome, no. Challenging, yeah :greengrin

It's dissimilar to Romanov, in that there is no bank debt. Any debt is due to external "investors". Whilst the June 2015 accounts don't look too bad, they mask the fact that cash was low in relation to debts becoming due.

As Ozy says, the money from Hong Kong, and elsewhere, has come in since then. How that has been dealt with, what the repayment terms are, and how it affects current liquidity... we can't know, since they won't let us see a fricking Balance Sheet.

I'll say it again, though.... winning the case against Green must have been a relief to them. That could have been a game-changer, but I reckon they'll limp on now until ST time.

[Kato]

It's dissimilar to Romanov, in that there is no bank debt.

Thing with Romanov there wasn't even really a bank, just a cash launderette he called "Ukio".

[doddsy]

Tiresome, no. Challenging, yeah :greengrin

It's dissimilar to Romanov, in that there is no bank debt. Any debt is due to external "investors". Whilst the June 2015 accounts don't look too bad, they mask the fact that cash was low in relation to debts becoming due.

As Ozy says, the money from Hong Kong, and elsewhere, has come in since then. How that has been dealt with, what the repayment terms are, and how it affects current liquidity... we can't know, since they won't let us see a fricking Balance Sheet.

I'll say it again, though.... winning the case against Green must have been a relief to them. That could have been a game-changer, but I reckon they'll limp on now until ST time.

Exellent. Yes at some point they are banking on a new share issue which the investers will be rewarded when the dust settles over the years ahead with new bank facilities and credit available. The income will be vastly improved by then and in calmer waters with new mugs sorry investers ready to plough in more money. They are playing the long game however there may be very choppy waters to still be negotiated in MA and CW in particular.

Green could still appeal to a higher court no?

[CropleyWasGod]

Exellent. Yes at some point they are banking on a new share issue which the investers will be rewarded when the dust settles over the years ahead with new bank facilities and credit available. The income will be vastly improved by then and in calmer waters with new mugs sorry investers ready to plough in more money. They are playing the long game however there may be very choppy waters to still be negotiated in MA and CW in particular.

Green could still appeal to a higher court no?

Not sure if he could afford to.

Even if he does, it won't affect the short-term. They'll have started ST sales by then. That's why the timing of that case could have been so difficult for them.

[doddsy]

Not sure if he could afford to.

Even if he does, it won't affect the short-term. They'll have started ST sales by then. That's why the timing of that case could have been so difficult for them.

Yes as in readies available. Exellent CWG.:flag:

[Moulin Yarns]

Exellent. Yes at some point they are banking on a new share issue which the investers will be rewarded when the dust settles over the years ahead with new bank facilities and credit available. The income will be vastly improved by then and in calmer waters with new mugs sorry investers ready to plough in more money. They are playing the long game however there may be very choppy waters to still be negotiated in MA and CW in particular.

Green could still appeal to a higher court no?

They might have to spend some money themselves to buy up Mike Asley' shares.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/mike-ashley-could-be-forced-to-sell-rangers-shares-reports-1-4079001

Unless HSL want to buy some :wink:

[doddsy]

They might have to spend some money themselves to buy up Mike Asley' shares.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/mike-ashley-could-be-forced-to-sell-rangers-shares-reports-1-4079001

Unless HSL want to buy some :wink:

Dave King and the SFA would be very happy at this news.

[high bee]

They might have to spend some money themselves to buy up Mike Asley' shares.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/mike-ashley-could-be-forced-to-sell-rangers-shares-reports-1-4079001

Unless HSL want to buy some :wink:

Seems like grasping at straws by the Scotsman. It says MA owns 8.92% and the football league won't let an owner have more than 10% in another team but his stake in their retail operation may force the league to act. There's no quotes to indicate the football league have even hinted at this.

[h185forever]

will they have to produce a balance sheet at some point ?

[CropleyWasGod]

They might have to spend some money themselves to buy up Mike Asley' shares.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/mike-ashley-could-be-forced-to-sell-rangers-shares-reports-1-4079001

Unless HSL want to buy some :wink:

The defence, of course, is that MA doesn't own the shares in RFC. It's actually MASH.

I'm not sure if that's the same with Newcastle.

[CropleyWasGod]

will they have to produce a balance sheet at some point ?

Only for their year-end accounts..... or before then, if it suits them :)

[greenginger]

http://johnjamessite.com/

JJ has found some discrepancies between the RIFC and the TRFC accounts.

There are differences in the totals for the same period, but whether there is anything sinister is another matter.

[CropleyWasGod]

http://johnjamessite.com/

JJ has found some discrepancies between the RIFC and the TRFC accounts.

There are differences in the totals for the same period, but whether there is anything sinister is another matter.

It's possible that he has ignored the effect of inter-company transactions. Those should be ignored in group accounts.

Eg. TRFC has sales of £100m, RIFC of £100m. However, RIFC has included in its £100m, £50m to TRFC.

Total group sales are therefore £150m.

Etc etc.

I have asked him about that... and also asked him "don't you think the auditors might pick up on any such discrepancies?"

[greenginger]

The turnover in TRFC and RIFC vary in Broadcast rights and other income headings.

There were similar, although smaller variations in the 2014 accounts.

I don't think JJ has unearthed anything to cause a Sevco meltdown.

[hibs0666]

The turnover in TRFC and RIFC vary in Broadcast rights and other income headings.

There were similar, although smaller variations in the 2014 accounts.

I don't think JJ has unearthed anything to cause a Sevco meltdown.

Nothing new there then.

[doddsy]

It would appear that they have indeed gone down a somewhat similar route as per the Ubig Ukio situation in so much as readies supplied by the Parent as way of loans or similar will not be subject to re-payment. This has the added benefits of being main creditor if things went belly up similar to the Jambos avoiding liquidation with a CVA approved.

Seems those down Govan way have been either watching and learning from the wily Romanov or King CW CG and all the rest were already well versed on the avoidance of dropping down economic black holes when it goes tits up. It seems they know all the accountancy dodges.

There are those who know the Law and those who know how to avoid it if you get my drift.

:cb

[CropleyWasGod]

It would appear that they have indeed gone down a somewhat similar route as per the Ubig Ukio situation in so much as readies supplied by the Parent as way of loans or similar will not be subject to re-payment. This has the added benefits of being main creditor if things went belly up similar to the Jambos avoiding liquidation with a CVA approved.

Seems those down Govan way have been either watching and learning from the wily Romanov or King CW CG and all the rest were already well versed on the avoidance of dropping down economic black holes when it goes tits up. It seems they know all the accountancy dodges.

There are those who know the Law and those who know how to avoid it if you get my drift.

:cb

It's fairly common for football clubs to have a parent company.....us, for example.

And, yes, the loans ARE repayable.... perhaps on less onerous terms than to a bank, but repayable nonetheless. Like ours.

[doddsy]

It's fairly common for football clubs to have a parent company.....us, for example.

And, yes, the loans ARE repayable.... perhaps on less onerous terms than to a bank, but repayable nonetheless. Like ours.

Yes I agree with you CWG in so much that it has become inevitable football clubs have become businesses as well as clubs who simply play football. It means they have to become very clever in the way business works. Still people like King Murray Whyte Romanov etc sail very close to the wind would'nt you agree? Stick in the craws of the more honest business community.

[Ozyhibby]

It's fairly common for football clubs to have a parent company.....us, for example.

And, yes, the loans ARE repayable.... perhaps on less onerous terms than to a bank, but repayable nonetheless. Like ours.

There is a chance they are on a lot more onerous terms as well. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

There is a chance they are on a lot more onerous terms as well. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just checked, and there is no mention of any repayment terms. That suggests to me that there is no interest, and it's a "soft loan".

How the HK money is dealt with, though, we can only speculate....

[doddsy]

Just checked, and there is no mention of any repayment terms. That suggests to me that there is no interest, and it's a "soft loan".

How the HK money is dealt with, though, we can only speculate....

Seems King was right as to there being people behind the scenes with deep pockets and willing to fund a long game. Of course they will require reward at some point in some manner however by that time the football club will be on a much sounder footing.

On a moral note there is still many questions to be answered as to title stripping and how the sfa with LNS acted behind the scenes which at first glance seems particularly skewed.

[doddsy]

Just read 'Bomber Brown' and others are making moves to re-enact the fans groups as one organisation called wait for it - the 1872 club.

I know I've put on record while I know the Rangers were liquidated however still more or less the same club due to stadium, strips etc etc but dearie me that seems a bit ott. Shows a bit arrogance? Maybe others will disagree.

[Eyrie]

Just read 'Bomber Brown' and others are making moves to re-enact the fans groups as one organisation called wait for it - the 1872 club.

I know I've put on record while I know the Rangers were liquidated however still more or less the same club due to stadium, strips etc etc but dearie me that seems a bit ott. Shows a bit arrogance? Maybe others will disagree.

That must be to make sure no-one confuses them with Sevco 2012, who are a new club.

[JeMeSouviens]

Just read 'Bomber Brown' and others are making moves to re-enact the fans groups as one organisation called wait for it - the 1872 club.

I know I've put on record while I know the Rangers were liquidated however still more or less the same club due to stadium, strips etc etc but dearie me that seems a bit ott. Shows a bit arrogance? Maybe others will disagree.

All the relentless 140+ years and 1872 pish does is underline how sensitive they are about the fact they let their old club die. They know, and they know we know. :wink:

[Ryan69]

Do financial FairPlay rulings not apply to The Rangers?
If not...why not?

[Moulin Yarns]

Do financial FairPlay rulings not apply to The Rangers?
If not...why not?

Because they are a new club and don't have the 'history'


sorry CWG, I couldn't resist :wink:

[Ryan69]

Because they are a new club and don't have the 'history'


sorry CWG, I couldn't resist :wink:

I thought it was todo with your spending being far more than their turnover...so they do have history on this

[Ozyhibby]

Do financial FairPlay rulings not apply to The Rangers?
If not...why not?

We don't have any financial fair play rules in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

We don't have any financial fair play rules in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have licensing requirements for clubs, which include financial and accounting rules.

However, for those clubs wishing to play in UEFA competition, their FFP rules apply.

[CropleyWasGod]

Because they are a new club and don't have the 'history'


sorry CWG, I couldn't resist :wink:

It's interesting that, in the SFA's list of club licences (dated March 16), both they and Hearts are shown as having "Entry level" licences.

We're Gold, of course......

[Kato]

Just read 'Bomber Brown' and others are making moves to re-enact the fans groups as one organisation called wait for it - the 1872 club.


I think it's in honour of the £1,872 the Old Rangers owed Brown when they kicked the bucket.

[Ozyhibby]

We have licensing requirements for clubs, which include financial and accounting rules.

However, for those clubs wishing to play in UEFA competition, their FFP rules apply.

Do the licensing requirements have any FFP element to them? Given Sevco have run a £10m deficit on a £12-16m turnover every year for 4 years now it can't be very strict if it does?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Do the licensing requirements have any FFP element to them? Given Sevco have run a £10m deficit on a £12-16m turnover every year for 4 years now it can't be very strict if it does?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The licensing requirements haven't been updated since 2012. I know that it's the SFA's intention to adopt the UEFA model in due course, but there's no word on that.

They include conditions about Accounts and Audits, but nothing about numbers as yet.

Edit... bullocks. It was updated in 2015

[Ozyhibby]

The licensing requirements haven't been updated since 2012. I know that it's the SFA's intention to adopt the UEFA model in due course, but there's no word on that.

They include conditions about Accounts and Audits, but nothing about numbers as yet.

They won't bring it in till they know Sevco will be able to comply. Governance in Scottish football is a disgrace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

They won't bring it in till they know Sevco will be able to comply. Governance in Scottish football is a disgrace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On the face of it, Rangers don't comply with the UEFA requirements. If they win the Cup, they may be refused entry to the Europa League.

[jgl07]

On the face of it, Rangers don't comply with the UEFA requirements. If they win the Cup, they may be refused entry to the Europa League.
But they only seem to apply the tests to teams already in Europe. Liverpool would have failed FFP in 2012-13 but they were not tested as they were not in Europe Competition in 2011-12. They were tested in 2013-14 but by then had passed. he same thing applied to Monaco.

[CropleyWasGod]

But they only seem to apply the tests to teams already in Europe. Liverpool would have failed FFP in 2012-13 but they were not tested as they were not in Europe Competition in 2011-12. They were tested in 2013-14 but by then had passed. he same thing applied to Monaco.

As far as I understand it, if RFC were to apply for a licence for next season, it would initially be refused. It's nothing to with FFP;it's to do with the Audit Report on their latest accounts.

There are various ways they might get round that, which i'm still trying to understand.... :greengrin

) If the auditor’s report has, in respect of going concern, either an emphasis of
matter or a qualified ‘except for’ opinion, the licence must be refused, unless
either:
i) a subsequent audit opinion without going concern emphasis of matter or
qualification is provided, in relation to the same financial year; or
ii) additional documentary evidence demonstrating the licence applicant’s
ability to continue as a going concern until at least the end of the licence
season has been provided to, and assessed by, the licensor to his
satisfaction. The additional documentary evidence includes, but is not
necessarily limited to, the information described in Article 52 (Future
financial information).

[Bostonhibby]

We have licensing requirements for clubs, which include financial and accounting rules.

However, for those clubs wishing to play in UEFA competition, their FFP rules apply.
They probably don't want to win the Scottish cup then[emoji6]

[SuperAllyMcleod]

They probably don't want to win the Scottish cup then[emoji6]

They will want to beat Celtic though - let's hope we get them in the final! [emoji4]

[GreenLake]

They will want to beat Celtic though - let's hope we get them in the final! [emoji4]

I would rather play Celtic where we will have a one man advantage of 12 against 11. Celtic will have 10 men and the referee and we will have 11 men and Leigh Griffiths.

[Waxy]

I would rather play Celtic where we will have a one man advantage of 12 against 11. Celtic will have 10 men and the referee and we will have 11 men and Leigh Griffiths.

I'm sure Leigh Griffiths will face us many times and score a few goals against us.We know he'll feel gutted but £&@& happens.

[Hibby Kay-Yay]

I would rather play Celtic where we will have a one man advantage of 12 against 11. Celtic will have 10 men and the referee and we will have 11 men and Leigh Griffiths.

Minus Stokes and Henderson though!

[CropleyWasGod]

Minus Stokes and Henderson though!

Do we actually know this?

It seems to be generally assumed, but do we know such a clause is in the loan agreements? After all, we didn't have one for Callum Booth when Raith and us were in different divisions.

[Ozyhibby]

Do we actually know this?

It seems to be generally assumed, but do we know such a clause is in the loan agreements? After all, we didn't have one for Callum Booth when Raith and us were in different divisions.

Stubbs confirmed it when we had a chance of Celtic in league cup final.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Stubbs confirmed it when we had a chance of Celtic in league cup final.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, ok, missed that. Cheers.

(can they wear masks and pretend to be someone else?)

[Geo_1875]

Ah, ok, missed that. Cheers.

(can they wear masks and pretend to be someone else?)

Stokes could wear a Garry O'Connor mask and pretend to be a striker :wink:

[GreenLake]

I'm sure Leigh Griffiths will face us many times and score a few goals against us.We know he'll feel gutted but £&@& happens.

I had a hope he might miss their last penalty then run off celebrating with the Hibs team.

[Moulin Yarns]

I had a hope he might miss their last penalty then run off celebrating with the Hibs team.

Then be invited to lift the cup?!

[GreenLake]

Then be invited to lift the cup?!

You read my mind.:greengrin

[doddsy]

As far as I understand it, if RFC were to apply for a licence for next season, it would initially be refused. It's nothing to with FFP;it's to do with the Audit Report on their latest accounts.

There are various ways they might get round that, which i'm still trying to understand.... :greengrin

) If the auditor’s report has, in respect of going concern, either an emphasis of
matter or a qualified ‘except for’ opinion, the licence must be refused, unless
either:
i) a subsequent audit opinion without going concern emphasis of matter or
qualification is provided, in relation to the same financial year; or
ii) additional documentary evidence demonstrating the licence applicant’s
ability to continue as a going concern until at least the end of the licence
season has been provided to, and assessed by, the licensor to his
satisfaction. The additional documentary evidence includes, but is not
necessarily limited to, the information described in Article 52 (Future
financial information).

I think

i) refers to obtaining another qualified opinion that does not include a 'going concern'-'emphasis of matter' in other words a contradictive opinion that shows clean bill of health.

and

ii) refers to having readies available to see out the terms of the full licence timescale audited by the licensor as said 'to his satisfaction' with proof provided by the applicant probably by way of bank or other credit documents.

Just my unqualified opinion of course.

[ballengeich]

I think

i) refers to obtaining another qualified opinion that does not include a 'going concern'-'emphasis of matter' in other words a contradictive opinion that shows clean bill of health.

and

ii) refers to having readies available to see out the terms of the full licence timescale audited by the licensor as said 'to his satisfaction' with proof provided by the applicant probably by way of bank or other credit documents.

Just my unqualified opinion of course.

Regarding eligibility, could there also be a problem arising from unpaid taxes? Of course, that would not be a difficulty if it's not the same club as the one based at Ibrox prior to 2012:greengrin

[doddsy]

Regarding eligibility, could there also be a problem arising from unpaid taxes? Of course, that would not be a difficulty if it's not the same club as the one based at Ibrox prior to 2012:greengrin


'Bomber' Brown would disagree with you on that point!

[CropleyWasGod]

I think

i) refers to obtaining another qualified opinion that does not include a 'going concern'-'emphasis of matter' in other words a contradictive opinion that shows clean bill of health.

and

ii) refers to having readies available to see out the terms of the full licence timescale audited by the licensor as said 'to his satisfaction' with proof provided by the applicant probably by way of bank or other credit documents.

Just my unqualified opinion of course.

On the first. Their latest audit report DOES have an "emphasis of matter" paragraph that relates to Going Concern. That can't be changed.

On the second, I think (would hope) UEFA would want an independent opinion rather than RFC's own submission.

[CropleyWasGod]

Regarding eligibility, could there also be a problem arising from unpaid taxes? Of course, that would not be a difficulty if it's not the same club as the one based at Ibrox prior to 2012:greengrin

If the current club/company has unpaid taxes, then absolutely.

I can't see how UEFA would deny them a licence because the previous company didn't pay.... otherwise that would be a permanent ban. :greengrin (indeed, that would apply to Hearts as well....)

[doddsy]

On the first. Their latest audit report DOES have an "emphasis of matter" paragraph that relates to Going Concern. That can't be changed.

On the second, I think (would hope) UEFA would want an independent opinion rather than RFC's own submission.

You are a voice of substance on such matters CWG. I just have a little experience in attempting to simplify jargon such as the paragraphs you referred to. You are a wealth of knowledge on these matters Sir.

:flag:

[CropleyWasGod]

You are a voice of substance on such matters CWG. I just have a little experience in attempting to simplify jargon such as the paragraphs you referred to. You are a wealth of knowledge on these matters Sir.

:flag:

Cheers.

I went to school with a Hibby called Dodds(y). Did you grow up in Portobello in the 60's and 70's?

[doddsy]

Cheers.

I went to school with a Hibby called Dodds(y). Did you grow up in Portobello in the 60's and 70's?

No I grew up in Stockbridge. Knew a few guys who went to Porty High though, really good guy's.

[ballengeich]

If the current club/company has unpaid taxes, then absolutely.

I can't see how UEFA would deny them a licence because the previous company didn't pay.... otherwise that would be a permanent ban. :greengrin (indeed, that would apply to Hearts as well....)

My suggestion was tounge in cheek, but UEFA do have rules about unpaid tax and using a change in company structure to shed debt. Sevco fans have been claiming that UEFA recognise them as the same club as before - it would be nice that if they had to admit to being new in order to play in UEFA competition.

[grunt]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-lose-ebt-side-letters-7631674#qbef8TEAXZ3ihsfb.97


Rangers lose EBT side letters appeal as lawlords order £250,000 fine to be paid to SPFL

THE Ibrox side were ruled to have gained no sporting advantage by Lord Nimmo Smith but the oldco was fined - which the newco will now need to pay.

A TRIO of lawlords have ordered Rangers (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/all-about/rangers-fc) to fork out £250,000 after they lost their long running legal dispute with the SPFL (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/all-about/scottish-professional-football-league). A senior SPFL source has revealed the Ibrox club have been told to pay the penalty originally handed down to oldco Rangers after an inquiry by Lord Nimmo Smith in February 2013 (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-fined-250000-independent-commission-1735244).

Nimmo Smith’s commission, established by the SPL after the financial collapse of Rangers four years ago, found them guilty of a failure to declare EBT side letters during the reign of Sir David Murray.
However, Nimmo Smith also ruled Rangers gained no sporting advantage from the contentious tax avoidance scheme and he did not strip any titles won during the decade in question from 2000. (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/judge-rules-rangers-can-keep-1736850)

Rangers appealed the fine last year (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-lose-appeal-against-250k-4978810) but an independent SFA tribunal, made up of three High Court judges, have now found in favour of Scottish league bosses. Rangers newco, under Charles Green, were asked to accept liability for the £250,000 fine as part of the controversial five way agreement that led to the award of a licence to play in the Third Division in the summer of 2012.

Rangers fans will be angered at being landed with another legacy bill and, in particular, the doggedness of the SPFL in demanding it be paid, even though it was originally handed to oldco. However, the SPFL insist newco Rangers gave the undertaking they would cover oldco’s costs and former chairman David Somers and chief executive Graham Wallace even engaged in talks to suggest ways of paying it.

All bets were off, however, when the disgraced former board were replaced by the new regime last year, led by Dave King, and he carried out a thorough review of all the club’s outstanding legal cases. The SPFL insider revealed there is still an appeal route open to Rangers via the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but it would be a lengthy and expensive process and Hampden bosses are confident a line will be drawn under the matter.

Gers chairman King could now sanction a cheque for the payment or, more likely, the SPFL will take the £250,000 from the £474,750 prize money Rangers are due to receive if, as expected, they win the Championship in the coming weeks.

Rangers last night declined to comment, but it’s understood they are furious over alleged breaches of confidentiality on the news they have lost.

[CentreLine]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-lose-ebt-side-letters-7631674#qbef8TEAXZ3ihsfb.97

Interesting to see that The Rangers felt they were entitled to confidentiality over the loss of this case. Very much in the public interest that it be known but it still looks very like the propoganda machine tried to censor the information. From the comment in the article it looks like the corrupt elements in the SPFL agreed to a confidentiality clause?

[Keith_M]

No I grew up in Stockbridge. Knew a few guys who went to Porty High though, really good guy's.


Wow, an upper-class Hibee!




:greengrin

[doddsy]

Wow, an upper-class Hibee!




:greengrin

Pleasing to be referred to as 'upper-class'. However I don't think Broughton High School ranks as being up there with the George Watson's or Edinburgh Academy.

:greengrin

[doddsy]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-lose-ebt-side-letters-7631674#qbef8TEAXZ3ihsfb.97

I think what irks Dave King and fellow rangers people is that they are by paying this fine contradicting their wrongful submissions that they are still exactly the same club pre-liquidation of oldco. They are publicly being seen to be having to deal with the fall-out of the disastrous financial earthquake they endured entirely by their own greed and folly.

This is exactly why they were so keen to maintain a shroud of silence on the issue however it was clearly not worthy of being kept from the public.

[Brunswickbill]

Used to be a working class school, albeit a "senior secondary" when it was in McDonald Rd. Dunno about it when it was hijacked to Comely Bank.

[doddsy]

Used to be a working class school, albeit a "senior secondary" when it was in McDonald Rd. Dunno about it when it was hijacked to Comely Bank.

You are correct Brunswickbill as it was on the site of the Primary School prior to Comely Bank. It went to full Comprehensive status at Comely Bank. Not a particularly academic one when I was there. But others may have different opinions of course.

[greenginger]

No I grew up in Stockbridge. Knew a few guys who went to Porty High though, really good guy's.


I see in last night's news Porty School are having an open day on 4th June for all past pupils.

I started my 4th year when the tower block was opened , so I'd better look in before the wrecking ball gets started.

[doddsy]

I see in last night's news Porty School are having an open day on 4th June for all past pupils.

I started my 4th year when the tower block was opened , so I'd better look in before the wrecking ball gets started.

Yes of course they're building the new school on the piece of land that was designated for public good/use only on Milton Road. Be you're last chance to have a look around greenginger. Nostalgia eh.

[greenginger]

Yes of course they're building the new school on the piece of land that was designated for public good/use only on Milton Road. Be you're last chance to have a look around greenginger. Nostalgia eh.


Yep, never crossed the door since I left in 1967.

[doddsy]

With the RIFC paying out a fine on behalf of Oldco and the fact they are 'Livid' when anyone claims they are a 'new' club, would'nt it be very interesting indeed if a creditor of Oldco sued Newco? After all they are 'adamant' they are the same club and are being held to account for a fine on Oldco!

If it was me I would take them up on their insistence they are still the same club and see what the court states. It's a no-brainer. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

With the RIFC paying out a fine on behalf of Oldco and the fact they are 'Livid' when anyone claims they are a 'new' club, would'nt it be very interesting indeed if a creditor of Oldco sued Newco? After all they are 'adamant' they are the same club and are being held to account for a fine on Oldco!

If it was me I would take them up on their insistence they are still the same club and see what the court states. It's a no-brainer. :greengrin
The fine wasn't on behalf of Oldco. It was part of the 5 way agreement that the Newco would accept the findings of the EBT tribunal, and that Newco would be liable. Hence it's Newco's debt.

No creditor of Oldco can sue anyone for their debt.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Brunswickbill]

With the RIFC paying out a fine on behalf of Oldco and the fact they are 'Livid' when anyone claims they are a 'new' club, would'nt it be very interesting indeed if a creditor of Oldco sued Newco? After all they are 'adamant' they are the same club and are being held to account for a fine on Oldco!

If it was me I would take them up on their insistence they are still the same club and see what the court states. It's a no-brainer. :greengrin

It's the ageement that clubs have to pay debts owed after admin / insolvency to other clubs/players to allow the offending club to continue to play. Other debtors can gtf. The gunts had to do this as well. RIPFC had the gall to claim that they didn't have to pay the fine. Good to see that they have been held to account. £125,000 costs in addition IIRC.

[doddsy]

It's the ageement that clubs have to pay debts owed after admin / insolvency to other clubs/players to allow the offending club to continue to play. Other debtors can gtf. The gunts had to do this as well. RIPFC had the gall to claim that they didn't have to pay the fine. Good to see that they have been held to account. £125,000 costs in addition IIRC.

This was a debt owed by Newco issued because of Oldco's usage of EBT's. The fine is surely owed by Oldco not Newco. The five way agreement is a legal anomaly. If the fine is paid by Newco on because of Oldco's usage of dodgy EBT's then that is a linkage and I would be looking for answers if I was a stiffed creditor of Oldco. It is a legal anomaly that Newco is paying a fine levied on Oldco's EBT usage which was a major issue of them becoming insolvent in the first place.

[Brunswickbill]

This was a debt owed by Newco issued because of Oldco's usage of EBT's. The fine is surely owed by Oldco not Newco. The five way agreement is a legal anomaly. If the fine is paid by Newco on because of Oldco's usage of dodgy EBT's then that is a linkage and I would be looking for answers if I was a stiffed creditor of Oldco. It is a legal anomaly that Newco is paying a fine levied on Oldco's EBT usage which was a major issue of them becoming insolvent in the first place.

Other clubs have paid their "football debt" eg Dunfermline and Dundee. Questionable morality- you can stiff other creditors but you have to stump up to the football community. The difference with RIPFC is that they also wanted to stiff the SFA/SPFL. Leopard spots etc.

[grunt]

This was a debt owed by Newco issued because of Oldco's usage of EBT's. The fine is surely owed by Oldco not Newco. The five way agreement is a legal anomaly. If the fine is paid by Newco on because of Oldco's usage of dodgy EBT's then that is a linkage and I would be looking for answers if I was a stiffed creditor of Oldco. It is a legal anomaly that Newco is paying a fine levied on Oldco's EBT usage which was a major issue of them becoming insolvent in the first place.
Doesn't work that way.

[doddsy]

Other clubs have paid their "football debt" eg Dunfermline and Dundee. Questionable morality- you can stiff other creditors but you have to stump up to the football community. The difference with RIPFC is that they also wanted to stiff the SFA/SPFL. Leopard spots etc.

How was a fine issued for prior to liquidation for usage of a shadowy EBT tax scheme a 'football debt'?

It's a fair question Brunswickbill.:aok:

[grunt]

How was a fine issued for prior to liquidation for usage of a shadowy EBT tax scheme a 'football debt'?

It's a fair question Brunswickbill.:aok:I'm guessing it's a football debt because it's a fine levied by the football authorities for a football related misdemeanour (LNS "inquiry") and not for something under UK law.

[doddsy]

Doesn't work that way.

Why not? It's a very fair argument.

[CropleyWasGod]

This was a debt owed by Newco issued because of Oldco's usage of EBT's. The fine is surely owed by Oldco not Newco. The five way agreement is a legal anomaly. If the fine is paid by Newco on because of Oldco's usage of dodgy EBT's then that is a linkage and I would be looking for answers if I was a stiffed creditor of Oldco. It is a legal anomaly that Newco is paying a fine levied on Oldco's EBT usage which was a major issue of them becoming insolvent in the first place.

The 5 way agreement laid down the conditions for RFC being granted an SFA licence. One of those was that all football debts would be honoured, including any sanction that the SFA/SPFL might impose for EBT use.

The new Rangers regime, under Charles Green, accepted that. IIRC, they also accepted the findings of the tribunal that set the fine (I may have my timings out on that one). It was Dave King that refused to pay the fine, and appealed it. IMO, the judgement yesterday was the only one they could come to, since Green et al had signed that agreement.

Paying football debts to ensure continuing football licences is an anomaly, as you say, but it is one that has never been challenged by any liquidator. Why would they? Reducing the amount of creditors by the amount of football debts actually increases the remaining creditors' share of the pot. It's therefore not in a liquidator's interests to challenge it.

[doddsy]

I'm guessing it's a football debt because it's a fine levied by the football authorities for a football related misdemeanour (LNS "inquiry") and not for something under UK law.

Evading tax is not a football debt. Try telling the taxman that one!