Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Caversham Green]

Let's not forget they have a new registration at companies house, that's why they can't use the oldco name. The company registration is more important than the SFA registration. They are a new entity, and are registered at company house as such. :aok: Sevco 5088.

The oldco have changed their name to something like RFC 2012 and Sevco have changed their name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd.

[CropleyWasGod]

Let's not forget they have a new registration at companies house, that's why they can't use the oldco name. The company registration is more important than the SFA registration. They are a new entity, and are registered at company house as such. :aok: Sevco 5088.

Not the case. The name was changed on 31 July.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/44a542721e8866a06ce137235ca1f6d9/compdetails

[LeighLoyal]

Not the case. The name was changed on 31 July.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/44a542721e8866a06ce137235ca1f6d9/compdetails




date of incorporation 8/3/12.



Hope you enjoy the trip north tomorrow. :confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

date of incorporation 8/3/12.



Hope you enjoy the trip north tomorrow. :confused:

Not sure of the points you're making.

Yes, Sevco were incorporated on 8 March. Subsequently, and I am saying this again, they 1. bought the Rangers name, and 2. changed their name to The Rangers Football Club Limited.

As for your second comment...... I have no plans for a trip north tomorrow.

[johnrebus]

Let's not forget they have a new registration at companies house, that's why they can't use the oldco name. The company registration is more important than the SFA registration. They are a new entity, and are registered at company house as such. :aok: Sevco 5088.



Have asked these questions before, but no-one seems to know the answers.


If this is a 'Newco' Rangers, then why is there still talk of history, cups, titles, stars on jerseys etc. etc? There is no history, it is a new club. They cannot ditch the things (debt) they don't want, and keep the parts (cups etc) they do.

Who owns Ibrox and Murray Park?

Who are the investors in the CG consortium? (So much for SFA 'due diligence' on the admittance of a new club).

What part is Craig Whyte still playing in all of this?

What happened to the investigation of D&P for alledged 'conflict of interest'?

Why no word of Ticketus for the last five or six weeks?



As the seasons starts, it seems that the media call is, 'well thats the fitba started and the Gers are back, lets forget about the smell of **** and the occasional elephant in the room'.




:bitchy:

[CropleyWasGod]

Have asked these questions before, but no-one seems to know the answers.


If this is a 'Newco' Rangers, then why is there still talk of history, cups, titles, stars on jerseys etc. etc? There is no history, it is a new club. They cannot ditch the things (debt) they don't want, and keep the parts (cups etc) they do. See my comments about the brand above. Arguably, they bought them. However, it is an argument that will probably never be settled; in many ways, it is probably irrelevant.

Who owns Ibrox and Murray Park? I am still hanging off that fence, but coming down on the side that says one of Green's companies. BDO will find out.

Who are the investors in the CG consortium? (So much for SFA 'due diligence' on the admittance of a new club). There is a report this morning of two "billionaires" investing. Presumably, the due diligence process is one that is returned to periodically... every year, I think?

What part is Craig Whyte still playing in all of this? Collecting debts.:cb

What happened to the investigation of D&P for alledged 'conflict of interest'? It will be ongoing. IMO, no need for that to be made public until it is completed.

Why no word of Ticketus for the last five or six weeks? They are a creditor like any other. Don't know that they have any other involvement



As the seasons starts, it seems that the media call is, 'well thats the fitba started and the Gers are back, lets forget about the smell of **** and the occasional elephant in the room'.




:bitchy:

Some answers above.

[LeighLoyal]

Have asked these questions before, but no-one seems to know the answers.


If this is a 'Newco' Rangers, then why is there still talk of history, cups, titles, stars on jerseys etc. etc? There is no history, it is a new club. They cannot ditch the things (debt) they don't want, and keep the parts (cups etc) they do.

Who owns Ibrox and Murray Park?

Who are the investors in the CG consortium? (So much for SFA 'due diligence' on the admittance of a new club).

What part is Craig Whyte still playing in all of this?

What happened to the investigation of D&P for alledged 'conflict of interest'?

Why no word of Ticketus for the last five or six weeks?



As the seasons starts, it seems that the media call is, 'well thats the fitba started and the Gers are back, lets forget about the smell of **** and the occasional elephant in the room'.




:bitchy:



Let's also forget that they 'the Rangers of old, oldco = newco says Orcpley :agree: have been allowed to sign players when they have an outstanding football debt of £3m owed to other clubs, oldco= newco he says, but the SFA don't want to hinder such a bunch of cheats in any way. Let's leave all the debts behind and carry on like nothings changed except league status. Maybe Orcpley, sorry Cropley :rolleyes: is right in one sense: they are the same rotten to the core, cheat institution, old sc um = new. All this Sevco stuff is just made up by Timothy and diddy's. In the meantime let's take the Sevorc coach to Peterhead.

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m158/poguetherogue/Sevco2Peterhead.png

[CropleyWasGod]

Let's also forget that they 'the Rangers of old, oldco = newco says Orcpley :agree: have been allowed to sign players when they have an outstanding football debt of £3m owed to other clubs, oldco= newco he says, but the SFA don't want to hinder such a bunch of cheats in any way. Let's leave all the debts behind and carry on like nothings changed except league status. Maybe Orcpley, sorry Cropley :rolleyes: is right in one sense: they are the same rotten to the core, cheat institution, old sc um = new. All this Sevco stuff is just made up by Timothy and diddy's. In the meantime let's take the Sevorc coach to Peterhead.

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m158/poguetherogue/Sevco2Peterhead.png

You seem to be suggesting that I am a Hun.

If I am, I must congratulate myself on the length of my deep-cover, and congratulate you on blowing that cover after such a long mission. Ten years on Hibs.net, I think?

That apart, at various points on this thread, I and my older and wiser mentor, Cav, have attempted to defuse some of the (understandable) emotional stuff surrounding the Huns. I am not normally one to say "show us yer medals", but we have done that on the basis of a combined 50-60 years' experience in our industry. I can't say that our interpretation of events has always been 100% correct, but it is always based on legal and commercial reality and experience, rather than emotion and wish-fulfilment.

Normally, if I am accused of incompetence at work, I have Professional Indemnity Insurance to fall back on. Being accused of being a Hun is something that even PII won't cover.

A simple withdrawal of your vile calumny will suffice. :wink:

[The Falcon]

Let's also forget that they 'the Rangers of old, oldco = newco says Orcpley :agree: have been allowed to sign players when they have an outstanding football debt of £3m owed to other clubs, oldco= newco he says, but the SFA don't want to hinder such a bunch of cheats in any way. Let's leave all the debts behind and carry on like nothings changed except league status. Maybe Orcpley, sorry Cropley :rolleyes: is right in one sense: they are the same rotten to the core, cheat institution, old sc um = new. All this Sevco stuff is just made up by Timothy and diddy's. In the meantime let's take the Sevorc coach to Peterhead.




This is just stupid.

[Wotherspiniesta]

Sickening watching Ian Blacks interview right now. Being shown around Ibrox by Luke Shanley who's saying " What does it feel like being part of a massive club like Rangers"

Is it just me? Newsflash! That's not who you've signed for Ian! That club no longer exists. You've joined a 3rd division team.

Hope a part timer goes in two footed on that little cokeheid.

[johnrebus]

Let's also forget that they 'the Rangers of old, oldco = newco says Orcpley :agree: have been allowed to sign players when they have an outstanding football debt of £3m owed to other clubs, oldco= newco he says, but the SFA don't want to hinder such a bunch of cheats in any way. Let's leave all the debts behind and carry on like nothings changed except league status. Maybe Orcpley, sorry Cropley :rolleyes: is right in one sense: they are the same rotten to the core, cheat institution, old sc um = new. All this Sevco stuff is just made up by Timothy and diddy's. In the meantime let's take the Sevorc coach to Peterhead.

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m158/poguetherogue/Sevco2Peterhead.png



Personally I would rather Hun FC had dissapeared for ever, but have to concede that it is probably a good thing that such as CWG attempt to reel us all in on occasion......,


However, to suggest that he is in any way one of the them, shows that you have not being paying attention over the last six months.


A graceful apology would probably be the best thing.




:cb

[Lucius Apuleius]

Let's also forget that they 'the Rangers of old, oldco = newco says Orcpley :agree: have been allowed to sign players when they have an outstanding football debt of £3m owed to other clubs, oldco= newco he says, but the SFA don't want to hinder such a bunch of cheats in any way. Let's leave all the debts behind and carry on like nothings changed except league status. Maybe Orcpley, sorry Cropley :rolleyes: is right in one sense: they are the same rotten to the core, cheat institution, old sc um = new. All this Sevco stuff is just made up by Timothy and diddy's. In the meantime let's take the Sevorc coach to Peterhead.

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m158/poguetherogue/Sevco2Peterhead.png

You are coming on here abusing a well respected Hibs supporter FH. Not good form. He is passing on professional knowledge. Methinks your days here will be numbered. Mr Cropley does not need me or anyone else to fight his corner and I see his answer to you is magnanimous to say the least. Little bit of advice from a Townie, drop it.

[down-the-slope]

Let's also forget that they 'the Rangers of old, oldco = newco says Orcpley :agree: have been allowed to sign players when they have an outstanding football debt of £3m owed to other clubs, oldco= newco he says, but the SFA don't want to hinder such a bunch of cheats in any way. Let's leave all the debts behind and carry on like nothings changed except league status. Maybe Orcpley, sorry Cropley :rolleyes: is right in one sense: they are the same rotten to the core, cheat institution, old sc um = new. All this Sevco stuff is just made up by Timothy and diddy's. In the meantime let's take the Sevorc coach to Peterhead.

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m158/poguetherogue/Sevco2Peterhead.png

:rolleyes: Crops has more posts on this thread than you have in total....who do we know more about

'Why be thought a fool when you can open your mouth (bash your key board) and remove all possible doubt'

[ballengeich]

have been allowed to sign players when they have an outstanding football debt of £3m owed to other clubs, oldco= newco he says,

Contradicting yourself FH. The football debt was run up by the old Rangers so if the new club has no relationship to the old Rangers it has no liability for the old club's debt. The rest of your post is not worth commenting on.

[LeighLoyal]

Contradicting yourself FH. The football debt was run up by the old Rangers so if the new club has no relationship to the old Rangers it has no liability for the old club's debt. The rest of your post is not worth commenting on.


It's Cropley that says oldco = newco pal. If so they shouldn't be allowed to sign players with £3m still owed to member clubs. Try and read what is being said. :rolleyes:

[LeighLoyal]

You are coming on here abusing a well respected Hibs supporter FH. Not good form. He is passing on professional knowledge. Methinks your days here will be numbered. Mr Cropley does not need me or anyone else to fight his corner and I see his answer to you is magnanimous to say the least. Little bit of advice from a Townie, drop it.


It was said tongue in cheek, but he is bigging up The Rangers as being Rangers, I.E no change. So I will be banned because I don't agree with a 'well respected' reg over the status of The Rangers FC. Hmmm, I kind of see why this place is quiet.

[johnrebus]

It was said tongue in cheek, but he is bigging up The Rangers as being Rangers, I.E no change. So I will be banned because I don't agree with a 'well respected' reg over the status of The Rangers FC. Hmmm, I kind of see why this place is quiet.


You will not be banned, that is not the point.


The hole is big enough, stop digging.


:shhhsh!:

[cocopops1875]

It's Cropley that says oldco = newco pal. If so they shouldn't be allowed to sign players with £3m still owed to member clubs. Try and read what is being said. :rolleyes:

Cropley is stating actual facts from a subject he seems to know a fair bit about:wink: you on the other hand seem to be missing more than the point

[Mikey]

Let's also forget that they 'the Rangers of old, oldco = newco says Orcpley :agree: have been allowed to sign players when they have an outstanding football debt of £3m owed to other clubs, oldco= newco he says, but the SFA don't want to hinder such a bunch of cheats in any way. Let's leave all the debts behind and carry on like nothings changed except league status. Maybe Orcpley, sorry Cropley :rolleyes: is right in one sense: they are the same rotten to the core, cheat institution, old sc um = new. All this Sevco stuff is just made up by Timothy and diddy's. In the meantime let's take the Sevorc coach to Peterhead.

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m158/poguetherogue/Sevco2Peterhead.png

There's absolutely no need for that. CWG has done nothing but post facts in this thread and if you don't agree with those facts there's nothing he can do about it.

[ballengeich]

It's Cropley that says oldco = newco pal. If so they shouldn't be allowed to sign players with £3m still owed to member clubs. Try and read what is being said. :rolleyes:

So do you think they should not have been asked to repay these debts? Also, if the dual contract investigation finds that Rangers had been fielding ineligible players for years, should the new company be exempt from any football penalties going forward - fines, point deductions etc?

[Lucius Apuleius]

It was said tongue in cheek, but he is bigging up The Rangers as being Rangers, I.E no change. So I will be banned because I don't agree with a 'well respected' reg over the status of The Rangers FC. Hmmm, I kind of see why this place is quiet.

Rangers are going to be Rangers no matter how much you, me or Crops likes it. Live with it. You are not disagreeing with him, you were abusing him, learn the difference then trot back. This place is quiet?????? Wow, just wow.

[Kojock]

date of incorporation 8/3/12.



Hope you enjoy the trip north tomorrow. :confused:

WTF :rolleyes: FH have you been using strong glue in an unventilated room. Both Crops and Cavs well informed and educated input on this thread has been a pleasure to read and appreciated by everyone on here. For you to come out with a comment like that is way out of order and you should hang your head in shame.

[Spike Mandela]

I think poor CWG and Cav have become victims of people's disgust at the machinations and dirty dealings of the business fraternity. They have both expertly guided us through the administration/liquidation process and their insight has been invaluable on this thread.

The bad taste it has left in peoples mouth when Rangers have avoided massive debt yet with a little tweek to the name can carry on as if nothing has happened and with new owners getting valuable assets at a knockdown price is not CWG's fault. However I'm sure it riles folk when he informs us that "it's all done perfectly legally",and "it's common business practice".

This is not CWG condoning it but merely telling it how it is.

Still as we sit here with Rangers on radio and tv, buying more players than any club in Scotland and arrogantly spouting in every interview how they won't accept this or that , it is clear that yet again administration has allowed a poorly run, indebted, cheating football club to simply get away with it and the business sector is treating us all like mugs again.

[sleeping giant]

It was said tongue in cheek, but he is bigging up The Rangers as being Rangers, I.E no change. So I will be banned because I don't agree with a 'well respected' reg over the status of The Rangers FC. Hmmm, I kind of see why this place is quiet.

Total plum :idiot:

You have to be on the wind up:lolyam:

[Kaiser1962]

It was said tongue in cheek, but he is bigging up The Rangers as being Rangers, I.E no change. So I will be banned because I don't agree with a 'well respected' reg over the status of The Rangers FC. Hmmm, I kind of see why this place is quiet.


Rangers (the football club) was owned lock, stock by Craig Whytes company (Wavetower) which subsequently changed its name to Rangers FC Group Limited. Rangers (the football club) were the property of Whytes Rangers FC Group Limited and were sold as such.

Similarily Hibernian FC were owned by a company called Forth Investments and while the parent went bust, Hibernian FC continued, as they and their assetts were bought independently by STF, and are now owned by Hibernian Holdings Ltd.

The reasons both parent companies folded was radically different but, I suspect, the reasons both football clubs survived are, technically, the same.


Edit; Interestingly STF paid around £3.35m for Hibs in 1991 and Chuckie pays £5.5m for Rangers 21 years later. (CWG?)

[Hibercelona]

The reasons both parent companies folded was radically different but, I suspect, the reasons both football clubs survived are, technically, the same.

Rangers haven't survived though.

[Beefster]

Mike Ashley to buy <10% of Sevco, loan them up to 9 Newcastle players and take over their replica strip selling, according to the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19225698

[Kaiser1962]

Rangers haven't survived though.


So what did the administrators sell to Sevco?

I though he bought the "goodwill and intellectual property rights" ?

[Billy Whizz]

Mike Ashley to buy <10% of Sevco, loan them up to 9 Newcastle players and take over their replica strip selling, according to the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19225698

Is there not a FIFA rule that you can't be an owner of 2 clubs?

[BarneyK]

Is there not a FIFA rule that you can't be an owner of 2 clubs?

He wouldn't be the owner, he'd be a shareholder.

[robinp]

Is there not a FIFA rule that you can't be an owner of 2 clubs?

Only in the same country or league if i remember correctly.

[magpie1892]

The Boumsong thing was a bit strange.

Not sure if I've got the details right, but it went something like: Newcastle and Rangers were both alerted to Boumsong's avaiability. The Newcastle manager (Gullitt?) wasn't interested but Rangers snapped him up for little or nothing. Six months later Newcastle paid Rangers an enormous amount of money for Boumsong - their old manager had been sacked and replaced by Graeme Souness.

According to the BBC report, Souness received a 'loan' from the Rangers EBT scheme a long time after he ceased to be an employee of Rangers. Unconnected I'm sure :fibber:.

Robson was manager of NUFC at the time. NUFC (and Liverpool, and loads of other EPL clubs) were alerted by Boumsong's agent (the odious Willie Mackay) to his availability with him running down his Auxerre contract. Robson and one of his staff went to see Boumsong a few times in France and decided he was no better than what we had, so we left it.

Fast forward six months. Robson sacked, Souness new NUFC boss and Boumsong arrives from Ipox with £8m going the other way for a player who looked to be of a similar standard to Sol Bamba.

The Boumsong sale stank at the time and still does, but it happened after the EBT payment to Souness (a decade after his leaving RFC under a cloud... hmm.)

[LeighLoyal]

Sevco still waiting for their first league win. So much for winning every game as the carrots on Clyde predicted. :thumbsup:




http://z5.ifrm.com/5902/57/0/e5032433/e5032433.gif

[Hibercelona]

So what did the administrators sell to Sevco?

I though he bought the "goodwill and intellectual property rights" ?

As far as i'm aware, they've sold them the rights to use their name and their badge.

They can't however sell their history and acheatments.

[LeighLoyal]

As far as i'm aware, they've sold them the rights to use their name and their badge.

They can't however sell their history and acheatments.


Exactly my point to venerable and respected Cropley. They cannot sell the past, it dies with the soon to be dead old company. The newco, incorporated 2012, hasn't got a league win never mind titles.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's Cropley that says oldco = newco pal. If so they shouldn't be allowed to sign players with £3m still owed to member clubs. Try and read what is being said. :rolleyes:

That is not what I said. "Try and read what is being said."

[cocopops1875]

Exactly my point to venerable and respected Cropley. They cannot sell the past, it dies with the soon to be dead old company. The newco, incorporated 2012, hasn't got a league win never mind titles.

Agree in theory, however looks like a hun, acts like a hun, talks like a hun and cheat like a hun the sad fact is they are still THE HUNS

[WhileTheChief..]

We are forever telling folk that it is the fans that make the club. The board are just custodians, players come and go, we are the club etc etc. If that's the case for Hibs then it equally applies to Rangers.

As someone said earlier, they play in the same stadium, same strips and same fans. Same vile club as far as I'm concerned.

[Siralbertkidd]

Take it there is no Rule about wearing the stars on therangers strips then, even if they have won eff all.

Think seven stars would look good on our jerseys.....

[The Falcon]

As far as i'm aware, they've sold them the rights to use their name and their badge.

They can't however sell their history and acheatments.

Forgive me for being thick but how then did Hibs, Motherwell and Dundee keep their histories intact?

[Northernhibee]

Only Fat Sally could have Sevco running fifth in a one horse race :greengrin :lolrangers:

[Spike Mandela]

Forgive me for being thick but how then did Hibs, Motherwell and Dundee keep their histories intact?

None of them were liquidated as far as I am aware. Hibs weren't even in administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)

[Kaiser1962]

None of them were liquidated as far as I am aware. Hibs weren't even in administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)

Rangers are not liquidated yet. They will, at least the parent company will, when liquidators are appointed. Hibs did enter administration, briefly, in 1991 which allowed STF to split the football club from the parent company, Forth Investments who were, like Rangers FC group will be, liquidated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0pcQsAf8oM

Two minutes in STF explains.

[Hibercelona]

Forgive me for being thick but how then did Hibs, Motherwell and Dundee keep their histories intact?

As Spike said, none of these clubs have ever faced liquidation. (Although Hibs have been in Administration, but were saved when placed into Receivership).

The real Rangers haven't yet been liquidated, but will be soon enough. There can't be 2 Rangers, therefore the Rangers in DIV3 aren't and never will be the real Rangers.

They'll take the exact same ugly form as the original Rangers, but will never be the original Rangers by law.

[The Falcon]

As Spike said, none of these clubs have ever faced liquidation. (Although Hibs have been in Administration, but were saved when placed into Receivership).

The real Rangers haven't yet been liquidated, but will be soon enough. There can't be 2 Rangers, therefore the Rangers in DIV3 aren't and never will be the real Rangers.

They'll take the exact same ugly form as the original Rangers, but will never be the original Rangers by law.


I am sorry again but what is the difference between the administrators for Rangers FC Group, who are about to be liquidated, selling Rangers and their assets to Charles Green and the administrators for Forth Investments, who were about to be liquidated, selling Hibs and their assets to Tom Farmer?

[CropleyWasGod]

I am sorry again but what is the difference between the administrators for Rangers FC Group, who are about to be liquidated, selling Rangers and their assets to Charles Green and the administrators for Forth Investments, who were about to be liquidated, selling Hibs and their assets to Tom Farmer?

We kept our history all right, including the Sc*tt"sh C*p record. :rolleyes:

Seriously, though... I can't remember the exact facts of our experience. However, if they are as you say, there is no difference.

[Hibercelona]

I am sorry again but what is the difference between the administrators for Rangers FC Group, who are about to be liquidated, selling Rangers and their assets to Charles Green and the administrators for Forth Investments, who were about to be liquidated, selling Hibs and their assets to Tom Farmer?

The vast majority of debt in which Forth Investments were in, was due to a chain of pubs that they owned and not the club. When they sold Hibernian to STF, the vast majority of debt was no longer the clubs problem as they were no longer connected with the chain of pubs. The club accounts no longer had any ties with the accounts of the pubs.

The only debt that Hibs needed to take care of was a small overdraft that belonged to the club itself in the clubs own account. STF took care of it with ease. The club wasn't in any danger of being liquidated when STF took ownership.

Rangers are a completely different case as the huge figure ran up was a result of them vastly overspending. The massive debt figure belongs in their account, not in the accounts of any other companies that the Whyte may have owned.

I'm sorry if I haven't explained that too well. I'm sure somebody else would be able to explain it better.

[Dashing Bob S]

The vast majority of debt in which Forth Investments were in, was due to a chain of pubs that they owned and not the club. When they sold Hibernian to STF, the vast majority of debt was no longer the clubs problem as they were no longer connected with the chain of pubs. The club accounts no longer had any ties with the accounts of the pubs.

The only debt that Hibs needed to take care of was a small overdraft that belonged to the club itself in the clubs own account. STF took care of it with ease. The club wasn't in any danger of being liquidated when STF took ownership.

Rangers are a completely different case as the huge figure ran up was a result of them vastly overspending. The massive debt figure belongs in their account, not in the accounts of any other companies that the Whyte may have owned.

I'm sorry if I haven't explained that too well. I'm sure somebody else would be able to explain it better.

Have nothing to offer or add to this debate. Just wanted post 666 on a Rangers thread.

[Dashing Bob S]

Have nothing to offer or add to this debate. Just wanted post 666 on a Rangers thread.

Whoops...page 666, not post. Will try again later.

[Hibercelona]

We kept our history all right, including the Sc*tt"sh C*p record. :rolleyes:

Seriously, though... I can't remember the exact facts of our experience. However, if they are as you say, there is no difference.

Theres no difference because you can't remember the facts. :wink:

Hibs weren't in a huge amount of debt when STF took over, most of the debt belonged to a chain of pubs that were owned by Forth Investments. When Hibs were sold to STF, the debt that belonged to the chain of pubs were soley their problem and had nothing to do with Hibs.

With the Rangers situation however, the huge amount of debt owed, it owed BY THEM. Its their debtm its in their account, not the debt of any other companies that Whyte may have owned. It Rangers debt and their debt alone.

Thats the difference here.

Hibs never went anywhere near liquidation when STF took over. Rangers however are being liquidated, because the massive amount of debt is owed by them.

They can sell assets to Sevco, but they can't however sell their history or awards. They're a sinking ship.

[CropleyWasGod]

Theres no difference because you can't remember the facts. :wink:

Hibs weren't in a huge amount of debt when STF took over, most of the debt belonged to a chain of pubs that were owned by Forth Investments. When Hibs were sold to STF, the debt that belonged to the chain of pubs were soley their problem and had nothing to do with Hibs.

With the Rangers situation however, the huge amount of debt owed, it owed BY THEM. Its their debtm its in their account, not the debt of any other companies that Whyte may have owned. It Rangers debt and their debt alone.

Thats the difference here.

Hibs never went anywhere near liquidation when STF took over. Rangers however are being liquidated, because the massive amount of debt is owed by them.

They can sell assets to Sevco, but they can't however sell their history or awards. They're a sinking ship.

If that's what happened, then there is still no difference IMO. The company (including the pubs and the football club) was close to liquidation. It sold on the assets that the Newco wanted, in the same way that RFC sold on the assets that Sevco wanted.

The company that owned Hibs Football Club was liquidated, in the same way that the company that owned Rangers Football Club will be. The reasons for insolvency may have been different, but the outcomes are the same.

[Hibercelona]

If that's what happened, then there is still no difference IMO. The company (including the pubs and the football club) was close to liquidation. It sold on the assets that the Newco wanted, in the same way that RFC sold on the assets that Sevco wanted.

The company that owned Hibs Football Club was liquidated, in the same way that the company that owned Rangers Football Club will be. The reasons for insolvency may have been different, but the outcomes are the same.

I understand what you're saying. But different circumstances equate to different results.

Hibs weren't "transferred" to STF, they were taken over by him, which is something quite different.

Going by your logic, Hibs or any other club could simply sell their own history to any other club if that club wished to buy it from them. It can't happen.

[CropleyWasGod]

I understand what you're saying. But different circumstances equate to different results.

Hibs weren't "transferred" to STF, they were taken over by him, which is something quite different.

Going by your logic, Hibs or any other club could simply sell their own history to any other club if that club wished to buy it from them. It can't happen.

I am not talking about the history. That's an argument which, as I said earlier today, will rage on... and is, IMO, an academic one.

I am, though, talking about the assets... the players, the properties, the club names. There is no difference in the two situations. The Newco in each situation bought/took over those from the OldCo.

[LeighLoyal]

If that's what happened, then there is still no difference IMO. The company (including the pubs and the football club) was close to liquidation. It sold on the assets that the Newco wanted, in the same way that RFC sold on the assets that Sevco wanted.

The company that owned Hibs Football Club was liquidated, in the same way that the company that owned Rangers Football Club will be. The reasons for insolvency may have been different, but the outcomes are the same.


Farmer did not buy the club after an insolvency event. He took a controlling interest in the club and reorganised it from there. No relation at all to the liquidation of Rangers FC due to FOOTBALL RELATED DEBTS, the company that was incorporated in 1899 to be the same entity as the Ibrox club, and it's sale of assets to Sevco. But do keep bigging up Sevco 5088, aka The Rangers, incorporated 2012, as being the exact same as Rangers FC by all means.

[CropleyWasGod]

Farmer did not buy the club after an insolvency event. He took a controlling interest in the club and reorganised it from there. No relation at all to the liquidation of Rangers FC due to FOOTBALL RELATED DEBTS, the company that was incorporated in 1899 to be the same entity as the Ibrox club, and it's sale of assets to Sevco. But do keep bigging up Sevco 5088, aka The Rangers, incorporated 2012, as being Rangers FC by all means.

There is no need for your continued abuse. What I will "big-up", as you put it, is the law and my opinion based on 32 years experience, 24 of which have been in my own practice.

[Kaiser1962]

Theres no difference because you can't remember the facts. :wink:

Hibs weren't in a huge amount of debt when STF took over, most of the debt belonged to a chain of pubs that were owned by Forth Investments. When Hibs were sold to STF, the debt that belonged to the chain of pubs were soley their problem and had nothing to do with Hibs.

With the Rangers situation however, the huge amount of debt owed, it owed BY THEM. Its their debtm its in their account, not the debt of any other companies that Whyte may have owned. It Rangers debt and their debt alone.

Thats the difference here.

Hibs never went anywhere near liquidation when STF took over. Rangers however are being liquidated, because the massive amount of debt is owed by them.

They can sell assets to Sevco, but they can't however sell their history or awards. They're a sinking ship.

Hibs debts in 1990 were £4.5m and, at the time, the football club was in trouble.

I cant see that how the debt is accumulated as being important. Hibernian FC are intrinsically linked to HFC Holdings and should Holdings find itself in trouble then the football club will be sold. If its purely a case of making money to repay debt it may be that the assets realise more money when seperated and if so, they will be sold as such. I would add that Holdings is not in trouble, as far as I know, and is unlikely to be as long as the group retains the support of Tom Farmer.

[Hibercelona]

I am not talking about the history. That's an argument which, as I said earlier today, will rage on... and is, IMO, an academic one.

I am, though, talking about the assets... the players, the properties, the club names. There is no difference in the two situations. The Newco in each situation bought/took over those from the OldCo.

Fair enough. I haven't been reading on this thread over the past few days so haven't read some of the older comments on the debate.

Rangers can sell all of their assets to Sevco, but that doesn't make Sevco Rangers. It's the history that makes the club, not the assets.

Sevco will never be the old Rangers, regardless of how much they appear to be on the surface.

[marinello59]

Farmer did not buy the club after an insolvency event. He took a controlling interest in the club and reorganised it from there. No relation at all to the liquidation of Rangers FC due to FOOTBALL RELATED DEBTS, the company that was incorporated in 1899 to be the same entity as the Ibrox club, and it's sale of assets to Sevco. But do keep bigging up Sevco 5088, aka The Rangers, incorporated 2012, as being the exact same as Rangers FC by all means.

That is rather more than unfair. Throughout this whole sorry saga it's been good to read the viewpoints of several posters on here who have a real handle on what the hell it all means. CWG has done a suberb job of making some of the legal ins and outs understandable and even interesting to duffers like me. You may not like to hear something that doesn't fit in with your view of the world but there is no need for the digs you are giving out here.

[CropleyWasGod]

Fair enough. I haven't been reading on this thread over the past few days so haven't read some of the older comments on the debate.

Rangers can sell all of their assets to Sevco, but that doesn't make Sevco Rangers. It's the history that makes the club, not the assets.

Sevco will never be the old Rangers, regardless of how much they appear to be on the surface.

Sevco are no more.:wink: They are now The Rangers Football Club Limited.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/460f898b546a0e5700751fb11660ffd0/compdetails

[Kaiser1962]

I understand what you're saying. But different circumstances equate to different results.

Hibs weren't "transferred" to STF, they were taken over by him, which is something quite different.

Going by your logic, Hibs or any other club could simply sell their own history to any other club if that club wished to buy it from them. It can't happen.

Actually we were. STF bought Hibs from the recievers in the same way and manner that Charles Green bought Rangers from Duff and Phelps. For Sevco 5088 Ltd read HFC Holdings Ltd.

[Hibercelona]

Actually we were. STF bought Hibs from the recievers in the same way and manner that Charles Green bought Rangers from Duff and Phelps. For Sevco 5088 Ltd read HFC Holdings Ltd.

Charles Green didn't buy Rangers. He bought the rights to use their name and badge, thats all.

You can't buy a company and simply leave their account behind.

If Green had bought Rangers, he would have needed to take everything that comes with Rangers, including the debt in their account.

Thats why Sevco will never be Rangers, because they don't own everything accociated with Rangers (most notably their accounts).

When STF took over Hibs, he took the lot, including the clubs accounts.

You can't take part of a company, then add it to a new company and pass it off as the old company.

[LeighLoyal]

Charles Green didn't buy Rangers. He bought the rights to use their name and badge, thats all.

You can't buy a company and simply leave their account behind.

If Green had bought Rangers, he would have needed to take everything that comes with Rangers, including the debt in their account.

Thats why Sevco will never be Rangers, because they don't own every accociated with Rangers (most notably their accounts).

When STF took over Hibs, he took the lot, including the clubs accounts.

You can't take part of a company, then add it to a new company and pass it off as the old company.



:aok:

[hibs0666]

Charles Green didn't buy Rangers. He bought the rights to use their name and badge, thats all.

You can't buy a company and simply leave their account behind.

If Green had bought Rangers, he would have needed to take everything that comes with Rangers, including the debt in their account.

Thats why Sevco will never be Rangers, because they don't own every accociated with Rangers (most notably their accounts).

When STF took over Hibs, he took the lot, including the clubs accounts.

You can't take part of a company, then add it to a new company and pass it off as the old company.

The most important thing about a club is its support, not some arcane discussion written in legalese. Of course the football club continues to survive because that is what is in the hearts and minds of their support.

Like it or not this continues to be rangers football club. Whether or not it is wrapped in a new business entity only scratches at the essence of a football club.

[CropleyWasGod]

Charles Green didn't buy Rangers. He bought the rights to use their name and badge, thats all.

You can't buy a company and simply leave their account behind.

If Green had bought Rangers, he would have needed to take everything that comes with Rangers, including the debt in their account.

Thats why Sevco will never be Rangers, because they don't own everything accociated with Rangers (most notably their accounts).

When STF took over Hibs, he took the lot, including the clubs accounts.

You can't take part of a company, then add it to a new company and pass it off as the old company.


He didn't, though. He didn't take over the loss-making part of the company.

[The Falcon]

Charles Green didn't buy Rangers. He bought the rights to use their name and badge, thats all.

You can't buy a company and simply leave their account behind.

If Green had bought Rangers, he would have needed to take everything that comes with Rangers, including the debt in their account.

Thats why Sevco will never be Rangers, because they don't own everything accociated with Rangers (most notably their accounts).

When STF took over Hibs, he took the lot, including the clubs accounts.

You can't take part of a company, then add it to a new company and pass it off as the old company.

So he also took on the £4.5m debt that was in the football club?

[CropleyWasGod]

The most important thing about a club is its support, not some arcane discussion written in legalese. Of course the football club continues to survive because that is what is in the hearts and minds of their support.

Like it or not this continues to be rangers football club. Whether or not it is wrapped in a new business entity only scratches at the essence of a football club.

No argument with this.

[Kaiser1962]

Charles Green didn't buy Rangers. He bought the rights to use their name and badge, thats all.

You can't buy a company and simply leave their account behind.

If Green had bought Rangers, he would have needed to take everything that comes with Rangers, including the debt in their account.

Thats why Sevco will never be Rangers, because they don't own everything accociated with Rangers (most notably their accounts).

When STF took over Hibs, he took the lot, including the clubs accounts.

You can't take part of a company, then add it to a new company and pass it off as the old company.

That is exactly what Farmer did.

[Hibercelona]

He didn't, though. He didn't take over the loss-making part of the company.

The losses belonged to the chain of pubs that were connected with Hibernian FC.

STF simply cut the pubs loose, along with their debt.

Leaving Hibs with nothing more than a small overdraft contained in their own account.

I don't know whats so difficult to understand here.

[CropleyWasGod]

The losses belonged to the chain of pubs that were connected with Hibernian FC.

STF simply cut the pubs loose, along with their debt.

Leaving Hibs with nothing more than a small overdraft contained in their own account.

I don't know whats so difficult to understand here.

I understand it very well. You said that STF "took the lot." But he didn't. Of the company that owned Hibs, he only took the football club.

[Kaiser1962]

The losses belonged to the chain of pubs that were connected with Hibernian FC.

STF simply cut the pubs loose, along with their debt.

Leaving Hibs with nothing more than a small overdraft contained in their own account.

I don't know whats so difficult to understand here.

Football Club debts in June 1990 were £4.5m. Hibernian Football Club, in June 1990, did not own the stadium.

The Inn debts were with a firm called Hibernian Leisure and they (Avon Inns and the Sports Centre) were owned, along with ER, by a company called Hibernian Land and Property Limited.

[Hibercelona]

I understand it very well. You said that STF "took the lot." But he didn't. Of the company that owned Hibs, he only took the football club.

He took the whole of "Hibernian FC".

[CropleyWasGod]

He took the whole of "Hibernian FC".

...which is not "the lot".

[LeighLoyal]

I understand it very well. You said that STF "took the lot." But he didn't. Of the company that owned Hibs, he only took the football club.




STF took the football club in its entirety, unlike Green who just took the bits of the Rangers corpse he liked. The English pubs had nothing to do with Hibs other than some umbrella scheme that Duff dreamed up. If you're suggesting we were inextricably linked to Duff's nefarious businesses then no, we were not. It was unwound without any break in our history. Unlike Sevco.

[Kaiser1962]

STF took the football club in its entirety, unlike Green who just took the bits of the Rangers corpse he liked. The English pubs had nothing to do with Hibs other than some umbrella scheme that Duff dreamed up. If you're suggesting we were inextricably linked to Duff's nefarious businesses then no, we were not. It was unwound without any break in our history. Unlike Sevco.

I wasnt aware of this. Which parts of Rangers did he not take?

Avon Inns was intended to provide a regular cash flow, outwith the normal revenue streams, to support the football club and both Avon Inns and Hibernian FC were part of the same company.

[CropleyWasGod]

I wasnt aware of this. Which parts of Rangers did he not take?

Avon Inns was intended to provide a regular cash flow, outwith the normal revenue streams, to support the football club and both Avon Inns and Hibernian FC were part of the same company.

Apparently, he tried not to take Clubfoot, but that was a deal-breaker. :greengrin

[Hibercelona]

...which is not "the lot".

What are you getting at exactly? :confused:

He bought Hibernian FC, not bits and pieces, but the whole thing.

When the club went into recievership in 1991, the reciever sold Hibernian FC + Easter Road Stadium to STF, but held on to the pubs where the vast majority of the debt lied anyway.

Leaving STF with Hibernian FC + Easter Road Stadium + a very small overdraft.

The Rangers situation is nothing like the above. To try and compare the 2 is ridiculous.

[CropleyWasGod]

What are you getting at exactly? :confused:

He bought Hibernian FC, not bits and pieces, but the whole thing.

When the club went into recievership in 1991, the reciever sold Hibernian FC + Easter Road Stadium to STF, but held on to the pubs where the vast majority of the debt lied anyway.

Leaving STF with Hibernian FC + Easter Road Stadium + a very small overdraft.

The Rangers situation is nothing like the above. To try and compare the 2 is ridiculous.

I am getting at the fact that STF bought the football club and its related assets from its former owners, who were insolvent. CG has done the same. That is what the original question from The Falcon centred on.

[1875godsgift]

I am getting at the fact that STF bought the football club and its related assets from its former owners, who were insolvent. CG has done the same. That is what the original question from The Falcon centred on.

But we hadn't defrauded the tax-payer out of approx £150 million and cheated our way to umpteen titles though.

[TrinityHibs]

Did anyoe else notice this is the page of the beast?

[Lucius Apuleius]

Did anyoe else notice this is the page of the beast?

200????? :wink:

[Hibs07p]

Did anyoe else notice this is the page of the beast?

I've not seen Craig Thomsons' name on this page. :confused::wink:

[joe breezy]

Duff & Phelps themselves say the company and the club are being liquidated on their documents so that does for me.

In reality though they are still Rangers albeit The Rangers.
Same colours, same strip, same stadium, same fans, same songs.

I no longer see that as hugely important.
If they'd really 'died' as arguably they should they wouldn't be facing any 'punishments' for the oldco actions such as dual contracts through the EBT scheme.

[Caversham Green]

Allow me to stick my oar in on the Hibs debate.

The difference between Hibs and Rangers is about the corporate structure. In Hibs case it was Forth Invetments that went into receivership (IIRC 'administration' didn't actually exist at that time, and receivership was less lenient on the debtor company, but I digress). The receiver sold Hibernian Football Club as a going concern to Tom Farmer - I thought the club owned ER at that point and it was split after the event, but I may be wrong there. As a unit, the club was viable but in debt, my understanding is that the club's debts were settled in full.

In the huns case it is the club that went into administration - the holding company (The Rangers FC Group Ltd AKA Wavetower Ltd) did not. The administrators sbsequently dismantled the club, sold the asset from it to Sevco and advised the creditors to whistle. Hibs were never dismantled in this way.

THe difference can be seen in that the date of incorporation of Hibs was 11 April 1903 while the club now known by some as Rangers was incorporated on 29 May 2012.

[YehButNoBut]

Looks like Mike Ashley (Newcastle owner) is to invest in Rangers, a deal which will result in Rangers getting Newcastle players on loan (before the end of the month of course)

http://www.footballtradedirectory.com/news/2012/august/rangers-new-era-begins-with-mega-deal.html

Rangers new era begins with mega deal on horizon

Rangers began life in SFL Division Three with a 2-2 draw against Peterhead but it also off the field that the club's fortunes need to be rebuilt.

Chief Executive is looking for new investment and it is reported Mike Ashley is prepared to invest. The Scottish FA is set ratify the move on the condition Ashley owns no more than 10% of Rangers and has no personal role in running the club.

It is understood that as part of the deal Rangers will be able to loan up to nine Newcastle players. Ashley's Sports Direct firm will then take over Rangers' replica kit merchandising operation from JJB Sports for the club. JJB Sports and Rangers entered a 10-year merchandising contract in 2006, when the Glasgow club received an initial payment of £18m with a guaranteed minimum annual royalty of £3m.

Negotiations are under way with JJB Sports to end their retailing contract. Any Newcastle players moving to Rangers would need to do so before the end of this month, when a year-long signing embargo comes into place for the Scottish Division Three club.

Under the terms of the agreement with Newcastle, Rangers are also likely to play the Magpies in a friendly who Ashley bought for £134m in 2007.

[ballengeich]

It is understood that as part of the deal Rangers will be able to loan up to nine Newcastle players.

Up to nine? Not this season as the following SFL rule applies :-

123.2.5 The Board shall not during a season approve more than four temporary
transfers to any one club at any one time. Of these, no more than one such
transfer at any one time shall involve a player who has reached the age of
21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year. The maximum number of
temporary transfers allowed to any club in a season shall not exceed five,
of which not more than two shall involve players who have reached the age
of 21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year.

I'm trying to remember the name of a Newcastle reserve who was very successful in Scotland a few years ago. Ah I've got it - Alan O'Brien! A few of his calibre should help Rangers no end

[hibs0666]

Did anyoe else notice this is the page of the beast?

You called? :wink:

[LeighLoyal]

Allow me to stick my oar in on the Hibs debate.

The difference between Hibs and Rangers is about the corporate structure. In Hibs case it was Forth Invetments that went into receivership (IIRC 'administration' didn't actually exist at that time, and receivership was less lenient on the debtor company, but I digress). The receiver sold Hibernian Football Club as a going concern to Tom Farmer - I thought the club owned ER at that point and it was split after the event, but I may be wrong there. As a unit, the club was viable but in debt, my understanding is that the club's debts were settled in full.

In the huns case it is the club that went into administration - the holding company (The Rangers FC Group Ltd AKA Wavetower Ltd) did not. The administrators sbsequently dismantled the club, sold the asset from it to Sevco and advised the creditors to whistle. Hibs were never dismantled in this way.

THe difference can be seen in that the date of incorporation of Hibs was 11 April 1903 while the club now known by some as Rangers was incorporated on 29 May 2012.



Thanks for 'dismantling' Cropley's somewhat spurious opinion that Hibs are on the same page as Sevco 2012.

[WhileTheChief..]

The receiver sold Hibernian Football Club as a going concern to Tom Farmer - .

Exactly.

Really annoys me that somehow folk are beginning to believe that we went into administration before STF bought us. Even some of us believe it now :confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

Thanks for 'dismantling' Cropley's somewhat spurious opinion that Hibs are on the same page as Sevco 2012.

You have misquoted me again.

1. The question was asked how the situations differed.

2. I said that my recollection of the Hibs situation was hazy but, if the facts were as the poster put them, then there was no difference.

3. the facts clearly weren't, according to Cav, who has cleared up the mechanics. As ever, we are grateful.

4. I have never said that "Hibs are on the same page as Sevco 2012."

5. there is no company known as Sevco 2012. Sevco 5088(might have the exact number wrong) bought the assets of RFC. Sevco (Scotland) is the company which is now known as The Rangers Football Club Limited.

[CropleyWasGod]

Exactly.

Really annoys me that somehow folk are beginning to believe that we went into administration before STF bought us. Even some of us believe it now :confused:

For the avoidance of doubt, the company that owned the football club was in receivership. As Cav said, the term "administration" didn't exist.

[WhileTheChief..]

Does that not mean that the Club itself was ok?

I mean it had its problems but it never stopped trading, changed its name or anything remotely similar to the Rangers situation.

Also, I don't recall any creditors being left out of pocket in the way that happened at Dundee, Livingston etc.

I'm claiming the moral high ground for the Hibs on this one. We did nothing wrong :greengrin

[WindyMiller]

Up to nine? Not this season as the following SFL rule applies :-

123.2.5 The Board shall not during a season approve more than four temporary
transfers to any one club at any one time. Of these, no more than one such
transfer at any one time shall involve a player who has reached the age of
21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year. The maximum number of
temporary transfers allowed to any club in a season shall not exceed five,
of which not more than two shall involve players who have reached the age
of 21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year.

I'm trying to remember the name of a Newcastle reserve who was very successful in Scotland a few years ago. Ah I've got it - Alan O'Brien! A few of his calibre should help Rangers no end



I also think that the Magpies' football chiefs would be wanting their players playing at a higher level than SFL3.

They'd be better prepared in the SPL or Divisions 2 or 3 in England.

[Kaiser1962]

Allow me to stick my oar in on the Hibs debate.

The difference between Hibs and Rangers is about the corporate structure. In Hibs case it was Forth Invetments that went into receivership (IIRC 'administration' didn't actually exist at that time, and receivership was less lenient on the debtor company, but I digress). The receiver sold Hibernian Football Club as a going concern to Tom Farmer - I thought the club owned ER at that point and it was split after the event, but I may be wrong there. As a unit, the club was viable but in debt, my understanding is that the club's debts were settled in full.

In the huns case it is the club that went into administration - the holding company (The Rangers FC Group Ltd AKA Wavetower Ltd) did not. The administrators sbsequently dismantled the club, sold the asset from it to Sevco and advised the creditors to whistle. Hibs were never dismantled in this way.

THe difference can be seen in that the date of incorporation of Hibs was 11 April 1903 while the club now known by some as Rangers was incorporated on 29 May 2012.


The basis for the arguments that the situation is diifferent appears to be that Rangers owed money and Hibs did not,which is untrue, OR that Rangers owed more money than Hibs, OR that STF bought the "accounts", I surmise this to mean that Farmer took on the £4.5m debt, which he didnt. Neither has Green.

I believe that the amount of money owed is immaterial to the argument as it dosent really matter whether its £4.5m (Hibs) £9.1m (Motherwell) or Rangers (any amount that comes into their head) If a company is insolvent its insolvent. The amount dosent really matter, although who the money is owed to may (Taxman? Does he still have first dibs?)

Things may be different because of the structure and set up of the companies or it may be that the laws have changed in the intervening 21 years but, to my mind, the process was very similar. While all Hun Groups debts related to the football club, Edinburgh Hibernian PLC's (as we were in 1990 prior to briefly "rebranding" as Forth Investments in March 1991) was spread over the group.

If Rangers FC do not exist this, according to Paul McConville (cited below), is a choice excercised by Charles Green because it suits his agenda.

Paul McConville's thought on the matter here

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/why-rangers-fc-continues-even-in-newco-and-why-this-is-no-use-to-ceo-green/

[Keith_M]

The part that confuses me most about the whole thing is that some of you seem to be on page 666 but it says 500 on my browser.


Explain that, all you smarty pants accountants!


:wink:





p.s. Could you PLEASE stop calling him Mister Charles Green, it's Monsiuer Charles Vert, I'll have you know! The previous name was just a misunderstanding.

[CropleyWasGod]

The part that confuses me most about the whole thing is that some of you seem to be on page 666 but it says 500 on my browser.


Explain that, all you smarty pants accountants!


:wink:





p.s. Could you PLEASE stop calling him Mister Charles Green, it's Monsiuer Charles Vert, I'll have you know! The previous name was just a misunderstanding.

Q. what is 1 plus 1?

A. what would you like it to be?

[Keith_M]

Q. what is 1 plus 1?

A. what would you like it to be?


No, I work in computing so the answer is normally considered to be 10.


There are 10 types of people in this world, those that understand binary and those that don't :greengrin

[magpie1892]

I also think that the Magpies' football chiefs would be wanting their players playing at a higher level than SFL3.

They'd be better prepared in the SPL or Divisions 2 or 3 in England.

That depends. We have two strikers (Xisco and Nile, er, Ranger) who we'd like to get shot of ASAP so a loan to hun with them covering part wages would suit both parties. There's others that fall into this category as well: no future at all at NUFC but costing us money and good enough for hun.

[joe breezy]

Nile Ranger could do a job at Hibs from what I've seen - not a lot to be fair

[Caversham Green]

The basis for the arguments that the situation is diifferent appears to be that Rangers owed money and Hibs did not,which is untrue, OR that Rangers owed more money than Hibs, OR that STF bought the "accounts", I surmise this to mean that Farmer took on the £4.5m debt, which he didnt. Neither has Green.

I believe that the amount of money owed is immaterial to the argument as it dosent really matter whether its £4.5m (Hibs) £9.1m (Motherwell) or Rangers (any amount that comes into their head) If a company is insolvent its insolvent. The amount dosent really matter, although who the money is owed to may (Taxman? Does he still have first dibs?)

Things may be different because of the structure and set up of the companies or it may be that the laws have changed in the intervening 21 years but, to my mind, the process was very similar. While all Hun Groups debts related to the football club, Edinburgh Hibernian PLC's (as we were in 1990 prior to briefly "rebranding" as Forth Investments in March 1991) was spread over the group.

If Rangers FC do not exist this, according to Paul McConville (cited below), is a choice excercised by Charles Green because it suits his agenda.

Paul McConville's thought on the matter here

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/why-rangers-fc-continues-even-in-newco-and-why-this-is-no-use-to-ceo-green/

The corporate structure point is an important one though. Since they incorporated as reigning Scottish Cup holders in 1903 Hibs have had many owners. Forth Investments were just another one of those owners and also operated in other business fields. It was FI that went bust because of those other activities and they had to sell the club to go some way to appeasing their creditors - from the club's point of view it simply had another owner. A similar situation could arise across the city if UBIG went bust and sold the yams - the club wouldn't change only the owners would. It's different with Rangers because it was the footballing activity that couldn't sustain itself and the club had to close down. It was the club's assets that were sold on a break-up basis, not the club as a going concern. As far as civil law is concerned they are a new entity, Hibs are not.

The Scottish football rules cloud the issue because they consistently refer to clubs, without specifying their legal identity - in law a football club is not a separate entity from the company that operates it but the football rules are ambivalent in that respect. The authorities have further clouded the issue by treating Sevco as neither one nor the other, so in the end it all boils down to opinion. IMHO they should have decided one way or the other (continuation or new club), made their decision clear and stuck with that decision throughout. My preference would have been to treat Sevco as a completely new company as UEFA do (hence the three year 'ban') but either way would have been more satisfactory than the current mess.

[magpie1892]

Nile Ranger could do a job at Hibs from what I've seen - not a lot to be fair

The thing about Ranger is that he could do a job just about anywhere - he's got the lot - but he's a total waster.

[CropleyWasGod]

The corporate structure point is an important one though. Since they incorporated as reigning Scottish Cup holders in 1903 Hibs have had many owners. .

So, to be clear....... the current Hibs have never won the Scottish Cup? :greengrin

:tin hat:


However, that begs a question.... Cav, you're old enough to answer it..... what were we before we incorporated? Unincorporated association or something like that?

[KdyHby]

From today's Press and Journal -


Police probe trouble at Blue Toon’s big match
By Rebecca Buchan

Published: 13/08/2012

RANGERS Football Club are at the centre of a police investigation this morning after supporters caused trouble during the team’s Division Three debut at Peterhead.

Officers are appealing for information after several smoke flares were set off at Balmoor Stadium on Saturday.

The Glasgow giant’s fans also sang sectarian songs, leading to one arrest last night.

However, the trouble did not cast a shadow over what was arguably the greatest result in the Buchan club’s history.

[BarneyK]

tsk tsk, referring to Rangers as that Buchan club wont go down too well

:greengrin

[Caversham Green]

So, to be clear....... the current Hibs have never won the Scottish Cup? :greengrin

:tin hat:


However, that begs a question.... Cav, you're old enough to answer it..... what were we before we incorporated? Unincorporated association or something like that?

And the current Rangers have never won a game within 90 minutes - I could live with that TBH.

Passing by the ageist slur (and don't think I didn't notice the first one) the late nineteenth and early twentieth century seems to have been a time when a lot of clubs incorporated - or more accurately took limited company status. That was about the time that modern company law started taking root as well, so one probably produced the other. I would guess before then they were charities or mutual/friendly society type organisations like some social clubs are today. I know Hibs started life as a charity, but I couldn't tell you the history of their changes in status - Jonnyboy knows that stuff.


We will let the amateurs in now and again.....:greengrin

I'm going to delete a few of my earlier posts now...

[green glory]

Seems Leggo was the 'journalist' who threatened Alex Thomson. No shocks then.

https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/235034632918286336

[stoobs]

New blog from Alex Thomo too...

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rangers-confluence-interest/2511

[Ozyhibby]

http://www.dundeeunitedfc.co.uk/index.asp?tm=2&nid=4286&cd=2012

Dundee Utd say they have not been paid. Charlie wouldn't be lying would he.

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.dundeeunitedfc.co.uk/index.asp?tm=2&nid=4286&cd=2012

Dundee Utd say they have not been paid. Charlie wouldn't be lying would he.

As Robert Duvall said in Apocalypse Now, "Charlie don't lie....."


Oh, wait.... that was "Charlie don't surf."

:rolleyes:

[Spike Mandela]

http://www.dundeeunitedfc.co.uk/index.asp?tm=2&nid=4286&cd=2012

Dundee Utd say they have not been paid. Charlie wouldn't be lying would he.

Yet again mainstream media publish claims of payments being made without the most basic of journalistic investigations being made.

How hard could it be to pick up phone to Scottish clubs and ask if they had been paid as Rangers claimed? Pathetic.

[ronaldo7]

http://www.dundeeunitedfc.co.uk/index.asp?tm=2&nid=4286&cd=2012

Dundee Utd say they have not been paid. Charlie wouldn't be lying would he.

I think Charlie bhoy said the cash was placed with the SFA. Maybe they are just sitting on it for a while:cb

[ballengeich]

I think Charlie bhoy said the cash was placed with the SFA. Maybe they are just sitting on it for a while:cb

I read somewhere that the SFA had returned the cheque and told Green to deal directly with the clubs owed the money. Probably he'll do that once he's finished brewing tea for the hordes (if only he'd thought of bringing five loaves and two fishes). The season ticket money should at least have sorted any short-term cashflow problems.

[hail1875hail]

legendary thread?

Congrats:greengrin

[BarneyK]

I think Charlie bhoy said the cash was placed with the SFA. Maybe they are just sitting on it for a while:cb

Just resting in their account, perhaps... :greengrin

[marti1875]

Did anyone see Charlie Greene's quite strange posturing/acting display for the unwashed hordes queuing to buy season tickets ? Think it was on the STV News at 6pm.

If ever there was a case of completely playing to the cameras and the brainless, gullible orcs standing there then this was it!
Just telling them what they wanted to hear, going off on yet another tangent about the SFA/SPL and yet again claiming they've got a hidden agenda against him blah blah blah.....:blah:

Just smacks of complete utter desperation to see him standing there in his shirt and tie, in the pissing down rain slavering on and on....i bet if the cameras weren't there he'd be nowhere to be seen!

[s.a.m]

Just resting in their account, perhaps... :greengrin

:greengrin


We need a smilie for these gratuitous Father Ted references.:greengrin

[LeighLoyal]

Did anyone see Charlie Greene's quite strange posturing/acting display for the unwashed hordes queuing to buy season tickets ? Think it was on the STV News at 6pm.

If ever there was a case of completely playing to the cameras and the brainless, gullible orcs standing there then this was it!
Just telling them what they wanted to hear, going off on yet another tangent about the SFA/SPL and yet again claiming they've got a hidden agenda against him blah blah blah.....:blah:

Just smacks of complete utter desperation to see him standing there in his shirt and tie, in the pissing down rain slavering on and on....i bet if the cameras weren't there he'd be nowhere to be seen!


100% spot on. Obvious this act is to ingratiate himself with the brain damaged zombie horde, via the compliant weegia, and sell as many Sevco books as possible. They are lapping this act up a treat by all accounts. This Yorkshire spiv in his cheap suit and the queue of zombie hordes make a beautiful sight.

[JeMeSouviens]

Just smacks of complete utter desperation to see him standing there in his shirt and tie, in the pissing down rain slavering on and on....i bet if the cameras weren't there he'd be nowhere to be seen!

Expect a new orange away strip any day now. :rolleyes:

(... but everybody else are the bigots. Aye, good one Chuck.)

[Liberal Hibby]

:greengrin


We need a smilie for these gratuitous Father Ted references.:greengrin

There's nothing gratuitous about Father Ted!

[blueisthecolour]

Expect a new orange away strip any day now. :rolleyes:

(... but everybody else are the bigots. Aye, good one Chuck.)

White with orange, not tangerine like the last one, dont see anyone having a problem afterall queens park also had an orange top;-)

[Barney McGrew]

White with orange, not tangerine like the last one, dont see anyone having a problem afterall queens park also had an orange top;-)

Maybe, but in their case I'm sure they didn't do it to pander to backwards lowlifes who still live in the seventeenth century.

[Saorsa]

Maybe, but in their case I'm sure they didn't do it to pander to backwards lowlifes who still live in the seventeenth century.:agree:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b168/jamie1971/hunsmarch3.jpg

[Hibs07p]

White with orange, not tangerine like the last one, dont see anyone having a problem afterall queens park also had an orange top;-)

What last one? Surely this is the first one? A Newco with a new shirt, unless you want to accept ALL of the history including ALL debt. :confused:

[Baldy Foghorn]

White with orange, not tangerine like the last one, dont see anyone having a problem afterall queens park also had an orange top;-)

Why have orange in your kits?? Oh silly me, its to do with a certain battle hundreds of years ago, and silly men with sashes and bowler hats....New team, no debts, same bigotted cretins.....Horrible, vile institution, I wish Ipox was flattened and your corrupt bigotted team had died for good.....

[Cropley10]

I am sorry again but what is the difference between the administrators for Rangers FC Group, who are about to be liquidated, selling Rangers and their assets to Charles Green and the administrators for Forth Investments, who were about to be liquidated, selling Hibs and their assets to Tom Farmer?

It is not possible to sell the SPL share nor membership of the SFA. That is held by a business, in this case Rangers Football Club Ltd. That business did nothing other than operate as a football club. It wasn't a holding company and if you were a shareholder in that business then you owned the Club.

After it went into admin it pretended to attempt a CVA. When this failed this signalled the end of Rangers Football Club Ltd corporately and therefore the end of their membership of the SPL and SFA.

Charles Green couldn't buy the share and membership, together with other bits and bobs he got for a song.

Sir Tom of Farmer prevented Hibernian from the same fate as Rangers FC; being liquidated and its assets sold. The key difference is Rangers debts and liabilities were too large to overcome, so the business (of being a football club) ended whereas Hibs weren't and the business could be restructured and the share retained.

[greenginger]

It is not possible to sell the SPL share nor membership of the SFA. That is held by a business, in this case Rangers Football Club Ltd. That business did nothing other than operate as a football club. It wasn't a holding company and if you were a shareholder in that business then you owned the Club. <BR><BR>After it went into admin it pretended to attempt a CVA. When this failed this signalled the end of Rangers Football Club Ltd corporately and therefore the end of their membership of the SPL and SFA. <BR><BR>Charles Green couldn't buy the share and membership, together with other bits and bobs he got for a song. <BR><BR>Sir Tom of Farmer prevented Hibernian from the same fate as Rangers FC; being liquidated and its assets sold. The key difference is Rangers debts and liabilities were too large to overcome, so the business (of being a football club) ended whereas Hibs weren't and the business could be restructured and the share retained.<BR><BR>I think the big difference in Hibs Football Club's problems was is was'nt the football part of the business that ran up the huge debts. They were incurred by the crazy pubs estate Rowland forced on Hibs PLC.<BR>The football club was a viable business and Tom Farmer " bought " the Club from the PLC liquidators Arthur Anderson. The remainder of the PLC were then liquidated.

[Jim44]

The papers are full of Newco getting a 40k+ crowd at their diddy league match at Ipox tomorrow. They're saying it's an embarrassment for the SPL which had a combined total of 40k at the weekend. What a stupid viewpoint to take of a statistic which is merely circumstantial and utterly meaningless. Hardly worth commenting on, I know, but I wonder how long it's going to take before the media realise that Newco are in reality a nonentity (a big one admittedly) operating in a minor and unimportant backwater ( with all due respect to the SFL clubs) which holds no interest for most of us.

[Baldy Foghorn]

The papers are full of Newco getting a 40k+ crowd at their diddy league match at Ipox tomorrow. They're saying it's an embarrassment for the SPL which had a combined total of 40k at the weekend. What a stupid viewpoint to take of a statistic which is merely circumstantial and utterly meaningless. Hardly worth commenting on, I know, but I wonder how long it's going to take before the media realise that Newco are in reality a nonentity (a big one admittedly) operating in a minor and unimportant backwater ( with all due respect to the SFL clubs) which holds no interest for most of us.

The papers love sucking up to the Old Firm, whilst knocking everyone else....You only have to see papers after an old firm match, and they get 8 page pull outs, whilst other teames are lucky to get a page.....

As for the TV/Radio, they crank it up another level.....

[Part/Time Supporter]

The papers are full of Newco getting a 40k+ crowd at their diddy league match at Ipox tomorrow. They're saying it's an embarrassment for the SPL which had a combined total of 40k at the weekend. What a stupid viewpoint to take of a statistic which is merely circumstantial and utterly meaningless. Hardly worth commenting on, I know, but I wonder how long it's going to take before the media realise that Newco are in reality a nonentity (a big one admittedly) operating in a minor and unimportant backwater ( with all due respect to the SFL clubs) which holds no interest for most of us.

Got to love the logic of the Laptop Loyal. New Huns having a large crowd is an embarrassment to themselves. It raises the question of how a club with such a large support base and resources could get into such a mess in the first place.

[grunt]

Got to love the logic of the Laptop Loyal. New Huns having a large crowd is an embarrassment to themselves. It raises the question of how a club with such a large support base and resources could get into such a mess in the first place.Good point. One which should be shouted loud from every SPL fans forum.

[CropleyWasGod]

Good point. One which should be shouted loud from every SPL fans forum.

... which it has been in our case and, one would presume, in the case of every other SPL club.

The problem, as ever, is that the MSM aren't saying it.

[EVENTUALLY]

The papers are full of Newco getting a 40k+ crowd at their diddy league match at Ipox tomorrow. They're saying it's an embarrassment for the SPL which had a combined total of 40k at the weekend. What a stupid viewpoint to take of a statistic which is merely circumstantial and utterly meaningless. Hardly worth commenting on, I know, but I wonder how long it's going to take before the media realise that Newco are in reality a nonentity (a big one admittedly) operating in a minor and unimportant backwater ( with all due respect to the SFL clubs) which holds no interest for most of us.


Lets see how many are trudging along to Ibrox in December and January when money is tighter, weather is lousy and the poor opposition will be providing shootie in practise and nil entertainment value.

[CropleyWasGod]

The papers are full of Newco getting a 40k+ crowd at their diddy league match at Ipox tomorrow. They're saying it's an embarrassment for the SPL which had a combined total of 40k at the weekend. What a stupid viewpoint to take of a statistic which is merely circumstantial and utterly meaningless. Hardly worth commenting on, I know, but I wonder how long it's going to take before the media realise that Newco are in reality a nonentity (a big one admittedly) operating in a minor and unimportant backwater ( with all due respect to the SFL clubs) which holds no interest for most of us.

Unfortunate fact of life, of course, is that the Huns support (actual and armchair) still represent a large part of the readership of the red-tops. Therefore, in those terms, it has to be business as usual to protect their market.

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.dundeeunitedfc.co.uk/index.asp?tm=2&nid=4286&cd=2012

Dundee Utd say they have not been paid. Charlie wouldn't be lying would he.

More on this.http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/rangers-at-loggerheads-with-spl-over-cup-tie-money-owed-to-dundee-united-1-2468629

[joe breezy]

Not sure if the article has been posted but Daily Record making a big fuss about the possibility of Rangers breaking a record for a bottom tier attendance (even though in Brazil there are 4th tier attendances of over 50 000)

Anyway, here's a wee song to celebrate

http://i.imgur.com/32LXj.jpg

[LeighLoyal]

Orcs on Radio Snyde moaning about Black being boo'd at ER because he plays for some team allegedly called The Rangers 2012, don't think so somehow. Who cares about them? Don't miss the sc um and don't want them back! :aok:

[Kaiser1962]

<BR><BR>I think the big difference in Hibs Football Club's problems was is was'nt the football part of the business that ran up the huge debts. They were incurred by the crazy pubs estate Rowland forced on Hibs PLC.<BR>The football club was a viable business and Tom Farmer " bought " the Club from the PLC liquidators Arthur Anderson. The remainder of the PLC were then liquidated.

More accurately it wasnt ONLY the football club which ran up huge debts. The football club, in 1990, had debts of £4.5m (http://sport.scotsman.com/hibernianfc/Mercer-Merger-20-years-on.6334773.jp) A year later and the football club debts had somehow risen to £7m (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article1144477.ece) when it went into receivership. It is a fair observation that Hibs "receivership" was engineered as it enabled Farmer to seperate the FC and the ground from the parent,which was now Forth Investments. Mercer had been trying to acquire 76.1% of Edinburgh Hibernian PLC (who we had bought the shares in).

Also it ended a stalemate between Farmer and Rowland, who was reluctant to sell his shares to Farmer as he was holding out for nearer the 40p that Mercer (long gone by this time) had originally offered as part of his £6.2m "merger". While Rowland pretty much wiped the floor with David Duff (although we should never forget that Duff did not sell at the crucial time, at a hefty financial cost to himself) both he, and Mercer, were found wanting against Farmer. Mercer realised this early enough and subsequently left Rowland to find out for himself.

While brighter and more informed posters than I are saying this was different from the Rangers situation the process, to me at least, appears to be very similar. Perhaps Farmer was a bit smarter than the Hun's?

[CropleyWasGod]

This'll cheer them up.... Lord Nimmo-Smith is back :greengrin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19300338

The guy Flint is a heavy hitter too.... plenty experience in sports law.

[Hibs Class]

This'll cheer them up.... Lord Nimmo-Smith is back :greengrin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19300338

The guy Flint is a heavy hitter too.... plenty experience in sports law.


Good news - confident that those guys will reach the right decision based on the evidence and will ignore/withstand any other extraneous influence.

[ballengeich]

This'll cheer them up.... Lord Nimmo-Smith is back :greengrin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19300338

The guy Flint is a heavy hitter too.... plenty experience in sports law.

Do you have an opinion on whether Sevco can be held liable for any offences committed by the previous company in this sphere? If the dual contract investigation finds that Rangers were fielding unregistered players and should have points deducted, then it's possible that they should have been relegated in 11 successive seasons. In that circumstance, it seems to me that removing titles from the old company's record would be an utterly inadequate punishment for their misdeeds.

I hope that the agreement signed to allow The Rangers to take Rangers' SFA membership includes a clear clause which would mean that the new company could receive appropriate punishment for the old company's sins. However, I don't expect that to be so. The dispute about the payment due to Dundee United indicates that the agreement was drawn up in haste without adequate attention to precision. The priority of the football authorities was to have some manifestation of Rangers back in the Scottish game for the current season without losing too much face in the short term. More money for lawyers in the future I fear.

[Kaiser1962]

Do you have an opinion on whether Sevco can be held liable for any offences committed by the previous company in this sphere? If the dual contract investigation finds that Rangers were fielding unregistered players and should have points deducted, then it's possible that they should have been relegated in 11 successive seasons. In that circumstance, it seems to me that removing titles from the old company's record would be an utterly inadequate punishment for their misdeeds.

I hope that the agreement signed to allow The Rangers to take Rangers' SFA membership includes a clear clause which would mean that the new company could receive appropriate punishment for the old company's sins. However, I don't expect that to be so. The dispute about the payment due to Dundee United indicates that the agreement was drawn up in haste without adequate attention to precision. The priority of the football authorities was to have some manifestation of Rangers back in the Scottish game for the current season without losing too much face in the short term. More money for lawyers in the future I fear.

The whole thing needs clarification from the authorities. Sevco are expecting to pay the "football debts" with Oldhun's money from finishing second in the SPL yet deny any liability for any of Oldhun's wrongdoings and chicanery.

It appears they are trying to get it both ways, to suit their agenda.

[CropleyWasGod]

Do you have an opinion on whether Sevco can be held liable for any offences committed by the previous company in this sphere? If the dual contract investigation finds that Rangers were fielding unregistered players and should have points deducted, then it's possible that they should have been relegated in 11 successive seasons. In that circumstance, it seems to me that removing titles from the old company's record would be an utterly inadequate punishment for their misdeeds.

I hope that the agreement signed to allow The Rangers to take Rangers' SFA membership includes a clear clause which would mean that the new company could receive appropriate punishment for the old company's sins. However, I don't expect that to be so. The dispute about the payment due to Dundee United indicates that the agreement was drawn up in haste without adequate attention to precision. The priority of the football authorities was to have some manifestation of Rangers back in the Scottish game for the current season without losing too much face in the short term. More money for lawyers in the future I fear.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm on that fence again :greengrin

Even if I was, I'd be rubbing my hands in anticipation of some tasty legal argument, like you say.

I was my understanding that taking responsibility for the double-contract issue was a condition of the SFA licence. Equally, I reckon that that was the SFA's and SPL's intention, despite what some conspiracy-theorists might suggest. I don't think they're smart enough to deliberately draw up something that appears watertight, but actually isn't.

That all said, I am not sure about this whole investigation. If the ultimate sanction is stripping of titles (is it? or is expulsion possible?), what difference does that actually make to anybody, other than to provoke academic pub arguments? If this were the States, the aggrieved clubs would be suing the hell out of the Huns.... but I can't see that happening here.

I might have a different opinion (or be on a different fence) once the DUFC stuff plays out. :cb

[ballengeich]

I was my understanding that taking responsibility for the double-contract issue was a condition of the SFA licence. Equally, I reckon that that was the SFA's and SPL's intention, despite what some conspiracy-theorists might suggest. I don't think they're smart enough to deliberately draw up something that appears watertight, but actually isn't.

That all said, I am not sure about this whole investigation. If the ultimate sanction is stripping of titles (is it? or is expulsion possible?), what difference does that actually make to anybody, other than to provoke academic pub arguments? If this were the States, the aggrieved clubs would be suing the hell out of the Huns.... but I can't see that happening here.



For me this is the essence of future developments. Stripping of titles doesn't inflict any future financial penalty on Green's The Rangers. In fact he'll be delighted if that happens, especially if the verdict is announced around the time next season's tickets go on sale (assuming both he and the club last that long), as it'll be another string to his "agenda" bow. The question is whether the investigation will be able to impose any punishments that affect The Rangers in the future.

My fear is not that the SFA/SPL have deliberately drawn up a less than watertight document, but that they have signed up to something which is inaccurate and ambiguous because of their overriding fear of the financial consequences of Rangers not being present this season. As you remark, lawyers will be salivating at the prospects of a lengthy fight over fines, points deductions and other punishments up to expulsion which the investigating body might feel appropriate in future.

I'm not so certain that Celtic might not sue for loss of earnings.

[CropleyWasGod]

For me this is the essence of future developments. Stripping of titles doesn't inflict any future financial penalty on Green's The Rangers. In fact he'll be delighted if that happens, especially if the verdict is announced around the time next season's tickets go on sale (assuming both he and the club last that long), as it'll be another string to his "agenda" bow. The question is whether the investigation will be able to impose any punishments that affect The Rangers in the future.

My fear is not that the SFA/SPL have deliberately drawn up a less than watertight document, but that they have signed up to something which is inaccurate and ambiguous because of their overriding fear of the financial consequences of Rangers not being present this season. As you remark, lawyers will be salivating at the prospects of a lengthy fight over fines, points deductions and other punishments up to expulsion which the investigating body might feel appropriate in future.

I'm not so certain that Celtic might not sue for loss of earnings.

Were that to happen, and they were successful, that would kill off the Huns for good. Whilst CFC say they don't need them, most of the rest of us aren't so sure that they're being entirely truthful. :cb

[magpie1892]

Fat Sally on Football Focus just now saying that Rangers were going to get the 'third, if not second highest average attendances in the UK' this season.

Really? Assume Man U top the pile, you're going to get a higher average than all of Arsenal, Celtc and Newcastle?

You can't get the 52,000 that I will be joining at SJP later today into Ipox for one thing.

[Kaiser1962]

Fat Sally on Football Focus just now saying that Rangers were going to get the 'third, if not second highest average attendances in the UK' this season.

Really? Assume Man U top the pile, you're going to get a higher average than all of Arsenal, Celtc and Newcastle?

You can't get the 52,000 that I will be joining at SJP later today into Ipox for one thing.

Rangers had an average of 46,324 which put them behind ManU (75,387), Arsenal (60,000), Celtic (50,904), Newcastle (49,935) and ManC (47,044) last season.

[magpie1892]

Rangers had an average of 46,324 which put them behind ManU (75,387), Arsenal (60,000), Celtic (50,904), Newcastle (49,935) and ManC (47,044) last season.

From BBC online: "Rangers chief executive Charles Green on BBC Radio Scotland: "To see the turnaround to me and my group has been amazing. I understand they (the fans) have been suspicious. To see the stadium like this, when only Arsenal can get a bigger crowd in Britain, is amazing."

It's obviously catching! That you Charlie is overlooking what will be a bigger crowd at SJP this late afternoon is like getting a knockback from a really tidy lassie and telling her: 'I wasn't really interested anyway'.

[Ozyhibby]

this attendance nonsense is not the point. Nobody said they were not a big club, just that they were a bunch of cheating bar stewards.

[Kaiser1962]

These guys appear to have done some sums as to the cost to each club of Rangers (very poor) manipulation of the tax system. They come up with three amounts, a maximum, a weighted amount and a minimum cost. The source may be a bit suspect but, however, their figures for Hibs are;

maximum £34.8m
weighted £8.4m
minimum £3.6m

Would folk, generally, be in favour of the club suing Rangers?

Rest of the figures are here http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=9104

[Biggie]

this attendance nonsense is not the point. Nobody said they were not a big club, just that they were a bunch of cheating bar stewards.

Exactly...nauseating listening to them spout absolute pish...they just don't get it.

[Onion]

this attendance nonsense is not the point. Nobody said they were not a big club, just that they were a bunch of cheating bar stewards.

:top marks They just don't get it - thick as ****.

[Jim44]

McCoist, with his TV experience and background, seems to think he talks with authority and gravitas, when in reality, he is a very ignorant, stupid person. I know it was in the DR, but apparently he has made noises about the possibility of 'them' snubbing the SPL in three years time, to teach them a lesson. :rolleyes:

[LeighLoyal]

The Rangers con does seem to be working a treat, stole £140m, liquidated as a result, but still called "Rangers FC" and allowed the oldco registration by a compliant, weak SFA. They will always be Sevco from now on to me. Rangers died. UEFA know they died and that's why they are banned from Europe. A shame for them that Messrs Regan and Ogilivie don't run UEFA isn't it! Plague and pestilence is too good for all these DOBS.

[CropleyWasGod]

These guys appear to have done some sums as to the cost to each club of Rangers (very poor) manipulation of the tax system. They come up with three amounts, a maximum, a weighted amount and a minimum cost. The source may be a bit suspect but, however, their figures for Hibs are;

maximum £34.8m
weighted £8.4m
minimum £3.6m

Would folk, generally, be in favour of the club suing Rangers?

Rest of the figures are here http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=9104

Fair and moral to sue? No doubt.

Sensible and practical? Probably not.

I'm not going to get into the amounts themselves. That sort of spreadsheet-porn would keep some of my colleagues in wet dreams for months. :greengrin

So, the practicalities:-

1. how much are Rangers going to be sued for? All of their winnings and profits during the EBT years? Seems fair. The potential earnings of the other clubs? Much more difficult to establish.

2. is it to be a class action, or is it every club for themselves? If the latter, there will be many actions competing with each other. The former seems more sensible, otherwise it just becomes an intractable mess.

3. how is the money to be shared out? Is it to be shared between all SPL clubs during that period? What about clubs RFC put out of the Cups? And clubs they put out of Europe? That sort of negotiation could take months to sort out, during which time TRFC would be taking appropriate (and legitimate) action to protect their assets.

4. once such an action started, TRFC would probably be required to set aside a sum in case they lost. That action, by itself, might be enough to tip them over into insolvency again. Wouldn't be helpful.

5. all of the above would take time.... for which read "cost a lot of money", with no guarantee of success. So... do Hibs spend money on it, at a time when we don't have much spare?

Finally, what happens if BDO are successful in having the property sale reversed, or in recovering the alleged market value? TRFC would have no cash to pay out in the above cases. RFC(IL) would have the cash, but we wouldn't have sued them. Even in the unlikely event that we could recover something from RFC(IL), it would only be a small percentage once the other creditors took their share.

[cabbageandribs1875]

i look forward to the day the buns get their REAL punishment/s :aok:

[grunt]

i look forward to the day the buns get their REAL punishment/s :aok:Don't hold your breath. As far as the media is concerned, Rangers are back. The BBC are treating Rangers' time in SFL3 as an "adventure" in the same way that Enid Blyton's Famous Five had adventures. The BBC Scotland TV news has even amended their football reporting in the news to show the SPL results and then Rangers result on the same screen below the SPL ones. 33,000 Rangers fans have bought season tickets, Rangers are buying players like there's no tomorrow, and the creditors who lost £134m in this footballing scandal have been forgotten. Scottish football is broken beyond repair.

[Mark79]

Don't hold your breath. As far as the media is concerned, Rangers are back. The BBC are treating Rangers' time in SFL3 as an "adventure" in the same way that Enid Blyton's Famous Five had adventures. The BBC Scotland TV news has even amended their football reporting in the news to show the SPL results and then Rangers result on the same screen below the SPL ones. 33,000 Rangers fans have bought season tickets, Rangers are buying players like there's no tomorrow, and the creditors who lost £134m in this footballing scandal have been forgotten. Scottish football is broken beyond repair.

Sums it up nicely. I feel most sorry for the companies/people who got hee haw. They then watch them spending money again like there is no tomorrow. The huns then have the cheek to say they have been treated unfairly??? Wtf. They have treated tgeir creditors extremely unfairly and still exist. Ill bet their are a fair few wee companies that have now gone bust as a consequence. Despise that mob to the core.

[grunt]

Interesting, and clearly stated, take on the Dundee Utd £31k due by Rangers.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1300528-scottish-football-association-the-rangers-football-club-already-making-trouble

Less than a month into the new Scottish soccer season and the SFA’s newest member club is causing trouble. Before I go on, you may consider the repeated use of “Rangers Football Club” and “The Rangers Football Club” unnecessary. This is actually a necessary distinction to make as “Rangers Football Club” is the club formed in 1872, which is no longer a member of the SFA and will soon be liquidated.

“The Rangers FC” is the new name of Sevco Scotland, a consortium fronted by former Sheffield United FC Chief Executive Charles Green, which purchased the assets of Rangers Football Club in June this year. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/11/rangers-charles-green-players-contracts?newsfeed=true) They are two separate, unrelated legal entities, one of which has purchased the real estate of the other. A fiction has emerged amongst Rangers supporters that somehow the “club” and the “company” are separate and that The Rangers Football Club Ltd has purchased Rangers Football Club from Rangers plc. This is emphatically not the case. There is no legal distinction or difference between the club and the company. They are one and the same.
In 1872, Rangers Football Club was a club (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/08/25144513/3). That is, a group of individuals who have come together to form an association with members and are run by a committee. A club’s members pay an annual subscription, and its members are personally liable for any debts incurred by the club. Around the turn of the 20th century, most soccer clubs in the UK incorporated, partly to raise funds and partly to protect members from having to pay debts from their own pockets. Incorporation (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/08/25144513/3) means that the club sells shares in itself, and the new directors are not personally liable for any debts incurred. So it was that in 1899 Rangers Football Club incorporated. Investors bought shares in the club, which changed its legal status from a club to a private company limited by shares. The new investors owned shares in Rangers Football Club, which was now called Rangers Football Club Ltd, the wording which to this day adorns the gates of Ibrox Stadium. There was, and is, no separate company and club.

In the early 1980’s, Rangers Football Club Ltd was floated on the stock market. This involved another change in legal status, from a private limited company to a public limited company. In the UK, the names of public companies are not allowed to end in "Ltd,” or “Limited,” (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/58) so Rangers Football Club Ltd became Rangers plc. As a public company, a controlling interest in Rangers plc could be purchased by anyone with the cash to buy the necessary number of shares and a willing seller. So it was that in 1988 a controlling interest in Rangers plc was purchased by David Murray and Rangers plc became part of Murray International Holdings. Then in 2011, Murray’s shares in Rangers plc were purchased by Wavetower (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/06/rangers-business), owned by Craig Whyte. After completing the purchase, Wavetower adopted the name, “The Rangers FC Group Limited.”
Neither of these takeovers required a transfer of Rangers’ membership of the SFA to the new company who had bought Rangers plc.

Charles Green’s Sevco Scotland (now The Rangers Football Club Ltd) consortium did not buy Rangers plc, the legal entity formed in 1872.
They purchased Ibrox Stadium, the Murray Park training complex and a car park. That is why Rangers’ SFA membership had to be transferred from Rangers Football Club to The Rangers Football Club. You cannot "transfer" something from yourself to yourself! The Rangers FC did not qualify for SFA membership as they do not have the three years’ worth of audited accounts required (http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/sfa-licence-sevco-dont-need-audited-accounts-because-rangers-did-not-produce-them-either/), so in a quirky deal, the SFA agreed to transfer the membership of the now defunct Rangers FC to the company who purchased the assets and business of the old club. As a condition of transferring the membership, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19266049)The Rangers FC had to agree to pay all debts owed to Scottish soccer clubs by the now defunct Rangers FC.

This week, following rumblings of discontent over The Rangers FC signing several players beyond the price range of most SPL clubs, Green announced that The Rangers FC has paid all debts owed by the now defunct Rangers FC. That it seemed, was that. Until yesterday, when Dundee United FC released a statement that, contrary to Green’s announcement, they have still not received their full share of the gate money for the Scottish Cup tie played at Ibrox in February. This statement has sparked a great deal of confusion, with Green claiming that the SPL had earlier agreed to pay the money to Dundee United, which the SPL deny (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19266049).

The dispute hinges on a letter written by the SPL to Rangers FC on May 18, informing Rangers that their prize money from finishing in second place in season 2011-12 would be withheld and distributed to those clubs owed money by the now defunct club.
Green stated (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19266049):

“A letter from the SPL to the club—dated May 18, 2012—stated: ‘The board decided to accede to the application of Dundee United and accordingly, the sum will be withheld from the next sum payable by the SPL Limited to Rangers and the sum will be paid by the SPL Limited to Dundee United.’ Why the SPL have not paid Dundee United the outstanding sum as previously agreed is a question that they need to answer. We wrote to Dundee Utd on Monday explaining the SPL had previously confirmed they would pay it.”
Not strictly true. On May 18, The Rangers Football Club did not exist. It was formed on May 29 (http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/fbb9469cd66180534b51455fdc08cd54/compdetails) (as Sevco Scotland) and did not buy the business and assets of Rangers Football Club until June 14 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/charles-green-consortium-buy-glasgow-883273). So the SPL wrote to Rangers Football Club at a time when it was still a member of the SPL and clinging on to life by its fingertips. Working on the assumption that Rangers Football Club would still be a member of the SPL this season, the SPL agreed that they would withhold prize money from Rangers Football Club and distribute it to its Scottish soccer creditors.
The SPL’s agreement, then, was with Rangers Football Club. No such agreement was made with The Rangers Football Club, which is a different club, and has no right to the prize money won by Rangers FC last season. Following protracted negotiations, The Rangers Football Club was granted Rangers FC’s membership of the SPL with several conditions, one of which was that The Rangers Football Club would pay any money owed by Rangers Football Club to other Scottish clubs. Charles Green and The Rangers Football Club agreed to that condition but are now claiming that they should not have to pay money owed to Dundee United.

The Rangers Football Club appears to be in clear breach of the agreement by which they were granted membership of the SFA. The SFA must now either act to ensure The Rangers Football Club keeps its agreement to pay Rangers FC’s Scottish soccer debt, or lose control of the situation altogether. Whether there exists the will within the SFA to do so remains to be seen.
Breaking its own rules to admit The Rangers Football Club is turning out to be a major mistake by the Scottish Football Association.

[Caversham Green]

Interesting, and clearly stated, take on the Dundee Utd £31k due by Rangers.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1300528-scottish-football-association-the-rangers-football-club-already-making-trouble

A couple of points on that.

The fourth paragraph illustrates the difference between Sevco now and Hibs in the early nineties (ref our earlier debate).
Charles Green’s Sevco Scotland (now The Rangers Football Club Ltd) consortium did not buy Rangers plc, the legal entity formed in 1872.
They purchased Ibrox Stadium, the Murray Park training complex and a car park. In our case STF did buy the legal entity that was formed in 1903 from the receivers of Forth Investments, hence there was a continuation of the club.

On the separation of club and company, the various rules and articles always refer to 'club' rather that 'company' so they could be interpreted as giving clubs a separate identity from their operating companies. I don't believe that was the intention, but I reckon there's a valid legal argument for it and it would really need court proceedings to arrive at a firm conclusion. In any case, as I've said a few times before, they should have taken one interpretation or the other and stuck to it rather than the current quagmire of compromise. The last sentence in the quote is absolutely right.

He's also referred to the SPL when he meant the SFA in the second-last paragraph, but he can be forgiven for that - oh for a single ruling body in this footballing backwater.

[Kaiser1962]

Was just considering as many different ways to upset Chuckie and Fat Sally as possible :greengrin

While it is unlikely to be practical it is clearly going to be considered by some, Vlad would be favourite since it could be argued that, other than Celtic, Hearts have been hit hardest financially. This shows what a difficult job the Independent panel have but they should only be considering the facts and not the potential fall out, which could be quite a bit.

For instance Rangers won four SC's and six LC's in their fiscally enlightened years so would these need to be reversed? If the tribunal finds against Oldhun would there be a case for the clubs who lost these final's challenging to reverse the result if the tribunal dosent? We accept, and can probably prove, that Rangers competitors have suffered financially at the hands of Murray's Tax Scheme we could also ask what about player bonuses? I select finals because undoubtedly thats where the biggest bonuses would have been up for grabs, but this could be extended further to league games.

Whilst I am not a gambler I am sure some of the guys on here would have had a bet one way or the other on the outcome of the big games, what does the bookie do? I genuinely dont know but if it's covered in the bookies favour, which I suspect it might, could this also be challenged?

In a fair and just system these matters would be reconciled to the benefit of the victim's of the sting but we all accept this is unlikely to happen in the real world, while Newhun continue paying over the odds wages and fees whilst simultaneously sticking a digit in the air to everybody else.

Just throwing it out there..........................



Fair and moral to sue? No doubt.

Sensible and practical? Probably not.

I'm not going to get into the amounts themselves. That sort of spreadsheet-porn would keep some of my colleagues in wet dreams for months. :greengrin

So, the practicalities:-

1. how much are Rangers going to be sued for? All of their winnings and profits during the EBT years? Seems fair. The potential earnings of the other clubs? Much more difficult to establish.

2. is it to be a class action, or is it every club for themselves? If the latter, there will be many actions competing with each other. The former seems more sensible, otherwise it just becomes an intractable mess.

3. how is the money to be shared out? Is it to be shared between all SPL clubs during that period? What about clubs RFC put out of the Cups? And clubs they put out of Europe? That sort of negotiation could take months to sort out, during which time TRFC would be taking appropriate (and legitimate) action to protect their assets.

4. once such an action started, TRFC would probably be required to set aside a sum in case they lost. That action, by itself, might be enough to tip them over into insolvency again. Wouldn't be helpful.

5. all of the above would take time.... for which read "cost a lot of money", with no guarantee of success. So... do Hibs spend money on it, at a time when we don't have much spare?

Finally, what happens if BDO are successful in having the property sale reversed, or in recovering the alleged market value? TRFC would have no cash to pay out in the above cases. RFC(IL) would have the cash, but we wouldn't have sued them. Even in the unlikely event that we could recover something from RFC(IL), it would only be a small percentage once the other creditors took their share.

[CropleyWasGod]

Don't hold your breath. As far as the media is concerned, Rangers are back. The BBC are treating Rangers' time in SFL3 as an "adventure" in the same way that Enid Blyton's Famous Five had adventures. The BBC Scotland TV news has even amended their football reporting in the news to show the SPL results and then Rangers result on the same screen below the SPL ones. 33,000 Rangers fans have bought season tickets, Rangers are buying players like there's no tomorrow, and the creditors who lost £134m in this footballing scandal have been forgotten. Scottish football is broken beyond repair.

They haven't, though. Their rights will come back into play once BDO start work.

[CropleyWasGod]

Was just considering as many different ways to upset Chuckie and Fat Sally as possible :greengrin



.......................

.... which is perfectly rational and proper :greengrin

Even now, Mr. BDO will be scouring the message-boards, armed with pad and pencil, looking for suggestions......"oh, that's a decent shout. We'll have that one."

Such a shame Mr. MSM hasn't been doing the same.

[CropleyWasGod]

A couple of points on that.

The fourth paragraph illustrates the difference between Sevco now and Hibs in the early nineties (ref our earlier debate). In our case STF did buy the legal entity that was formed in 1903 from the receivers of Forth Investments, hence there was a continuation of the club.

On the separation of club and company, the various rules and articles always refer to 'club' rather that 'company' so they could be interpreted as giving clubs a separate identity from their operating companies. I don't believe that was the intention, but I reckon there's a valid legal argument for it and it would really need court proceedings to arrive at a firm conclusion. In any case, as I've said a few times before, they should have taken one interpretation or the other and stuck to it rather than the current quagmire of compromise. The last sentence in the quote is absolutely right.

He's also referred to the SPL when he meant the SFA in the second-last paragraph, but he can be forgiven for that - oh for a single ruling body in this footballing backwater.

They also omit one important point which is causing a lot of people the vapours on here, and presumably elsewhere. Along with the physical assets, Sevco also bought the Rangers brand, ie the bit that allows them to call themselves "Rangers" and to wear the same badge.

I know that you know this, Cav, but I am highlighting it for others. :greengrin

[Lucius Apuleius]

They also omit one important point which is causing a lot of people the vapours on here, and presumably elsewhere. Along with the physical assets, Sevco also bought the Rangers brand, ie the bit that allows them to call themselves "Rangers" and to wear the same badge.

I know that you know this, Cav, but I am highlighting it for others. :greengrin

Sorry mate, a lot of people will never accept that as fact, no matter how many feckn times they are told!!!!!

[ballengeich]

In any case, as I've said a few times before, they should have taken one interpretation or the other and stuck to it rather than the current quagmire of compromise.


I think you're correct about this. It's an established theory in maths/logic that if you start with two contradictory premises you can prove absolutely anything. The SFA and SPL have the starting premises that "The Rangers are a continuation of Rangers" and "The Rangers are not a continuation of Rangers". Where you have logical chaos you find rich lawyers.

[CropleyWasGod]

Sorry mate, a lot of people will never accept that as fact, no matter how many feckn times they are told!!!!!

:greengrin

[LeighLoyal]

Green's latest Orc rabble rousing statement calling the SFA "incompetent drunks". For once I agree with the noob. Giving them the oldco registration when they didn't need to and then overlooking the fact they didn't have audited accounts just to get them in the door, yes, they must have been incompetent and drunk. Well done Green. I hope BDO unravel this spiv's dodgy purchase and give him something to really moan about. :aok:

[CropleyWasGod]

Green's latest Orc rabble rousing statement calling the SFA "incompetent drunks". For once I agree with the noob. Giving them the oldco registration when they didn't need to and then overlooking the fact they didn't have audited accounts just to get them in the door, yes, they must have been incompetent and drunk. Well done Green. I hope BDO unravel this spiv's dodgy purchase and give him something to really moan about. :aok:

To be fair to the SFA, it's the SPL that he is levelling the charge at. And, as the article says, either one or the other, not both . :greengrin

[LeighLoyal]

To be fair to the SFA, it's the SPL that he is levelling the charge at.



A technicality surely :greengrin Doesn't change the SFA should never have given him the oldco registration, they are not the same club as UEFA can attest. I still hope BDO unwind his dodgy asset purchase and get justice for the creditors. Forlorn hope maybe, but they have the powers to see it's done.

[grunt]

I still hope BDO unwind his dodgy asset purchase and get justice for the creditors. Forlorn hope maybe, but they have the powers to see it's done.Sadly I fear this will never happen. And if any other Chairman called the SPL drunk or incompetent, they'd be had up on disrepute charges, no? It seems that Rangers are untouchable.

[CropleyWasGod]

Sadly I fear this will never happen. And if any other Chairman called the SPL drunk or incompetent, they'd be had up on disrepute charges, no? It seems that Rangers are untouchable.

Why not?

As for the disrepute charge, he's only just said it. The SPL and SFA offices will be open for business tomorrow :agree:

[The Falcon]

Even now, Mr. BDO will be scouring the message-boards, armed with pad and pencil, looking for suggestions......"oh, that's a decent shout. We'll have that one."





I would like to think so because there are a lot of legitimate points being raised on here, and on other boards and blogs. I can only tolerate their arrogance while living in hope that their greatest pain is yet to come.

[basehibby]

Fair and moral to sue? No doubt.

Sensible and practical? Probably not.

I'm not going to get into the amounts themselves. That sort of spreadsheet-porn would keep some of my colleagues in wet dreams for months. :greengrin

So, the practicalities:-

1. how much are Rangers going to be sued for? All of their winnings and profits during the EBT years? Seems fair. The potential earnings of the other clubs? Much more difficult to establish.

2. is it to be a class action, or is it every club for themselves? If the latter, there will be many actions competing with each other. The former seems more sensible, otherwise it just becomes an intractable mess.

3. how is the money to be shared out? Is it to be shared between all SPL clubs during that period? What about clubs RFC put out of the Cups? And clubs they put out of Europe? That sort of negotiation could take months to sort out, during which time TRFC would be taking appropriate (and legitimate) action to protect their assets.

4. once such an action started, TRFC would probably be required to set aside a sum in case they lost. That action, by itself, might be enough to tip them over into insolvency again. Wouldn't be helpful.

5. all of the above would take time.... for which read "cost a lot of money", with no guarantee of success. So... do Hibs spend money on it, at a time when we don't have much spare?

Finally, what happens if BDO are successful in having the property sale reversed, or in recovering the alleged market value? TRFC would have no cash to pay out in the above cases. RFC(IL) would have the cash, but we wouldn't have sued them. Even in the unlikely event that we could recover something from RFC(IL), it would only be a small percentage once the other creditors took their share.

:agree: This has been the most outrageous scam of the whole episode for me - the fact that Green and his Sevco were allowed to swan in and get Ibrox, Murray Park AND the Rangers Brand ALL for a desultory £5M!!!

This to me is a very clear case indeed of the administrators abusing their position and totally disregarding their primary duty to the creditors. I will be surprised, not to mention angry and disappointed, if the directors of Duff & Phelps do not find themselves facing criminal charges over this, as the tax payer and other creditors have clearly been robbed blind as the administrators bent over backwards to give Zombie Huns FC as trouble free a start to their new life as possible at OUR expense :grr::grr::grr:

PS - who are BDO and how long before this action comes to fruition???

[CropleyWasGod]

:agree: This has been the most outrageous scam of the whole episode for me - the fact that Green and his Sevco were allowed to swan in and get Ibrox, Murray Park AND the Rangers Brand ALL for a desultory £5M!!!

This to me is a very clear case indeed of the administrators abusing their position and totally disregarding their primary duty to the creditors. I will be surprised, not to mention angry and disappointed, if the directors of Duff & Phelps do not find themselves facing criminal charges over this, as the tax payer and other creditors have clearly been robbed blind as the administrators bent over backwards to give Zombie Huns FC as trouble free a start to their new life as possible at OUR expense :grr::grr::grr:

PS - who are BDO and how long before this action comes to fruition???

The administrators will get the chance to justify the sale. They may be able to. I'd like to be in that room.

As for criminal charges, I think that's unlikely. The only criminality that I could even remotely see would be fraud.... but I am struggling to see what they would have gained out of it. Their fees are assured, and I don't see them benefitting from the NewHun scenario.

No, they may have been incompetent (and the jury has yet to report on that), but criminal? Can't see it.

BDO are Binder Dijke Otte, the proposed liquidators of RFC(IA). They haven't been appointed yet. I am surprised they aren't in post yet, but would expect it soon.

[Sylar]

Someone linked this to me earlier and I'm really not sure what to make (if anything) of this:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-830105

[jgl07]

Someone linked this to me earlier and I'm really not sure what to make (if anything) of this:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-830105

Someone is on the loopy juice!

[CropleyWasGod]

Someone linked this to me earlier and I'm really not sure what to make (if anything) of this:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-830105

You could print it out and make a nice hat. :greengrin

I haven't seen the accounts of Scottish Premier League Ltd, so am only going on that report. However, it's a basic rule of Company Law that once a company establishes insolvency, then it must stop trading and the directors should take the appropriate steps to enter either administration or liquidation. Not to do so is an offence (criminal I think), and it renders the directors personally liable for any debts incurred by the company after the date on which insolvency is established.

Insolvency is defined as either where liabilities exceed assets (although it's fair to say that, in some cases, the accounts aren't the best way to establish that), or where a company can't pay its debts as they fall due.

I find it difficult to believe that, if the company is indeed insolvent, no directors have resigned as a consequence and made known their reasons for doing so. Looking at the current SPL Board reproduced below, there are plenty directors who should know their responsibilities.

"The current SPL Board is made up of Ralph Topping (SPL Chairman), Neil Doncaster (SPL Chief Executive), Eric Riley (Celtic FC), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United FC), Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen FC) and Michael Johnston (Kilmarnock FC)."


EDIT.... after all that, I have just seen JGL's considered response, and think he's probably right. :greengrin

[Hibs Class]

Someone linked this to me earlier and I'm really not sure what to make (if anything) of this:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-830105


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uuqry9SMjQM

[ballengeich]

Someone linked this to me earlier and I'm really not sure what to make (if anything) of this:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-830105

Quoting from the article :- "Rangers were denied their rightful place in the SPL". Also, the phrase Prima Facie is misspelled on more than one occasion as Prima Facia (it's a Latin (i.e. Fenian) phrase). I hope that gives you enough information to identify the general direction of the source of the article and allows you to decide how much respect it deserves.

[Northernhibee]

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=235622&st=0

Half time announcer makes joke, Sevco fans descend into racism, sectarianism and hunting down maker of said joke.

:rolleyes:

[Caversham Green]

Someone linked this to me earlier and I'm really not sure what to make (if anything) of this:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-830105

He's right about liabilities exceeding assets by £196k, but what he omits to tell us us that there's just under £4m cash in the bank and debtors of over £3m (£1.4m of which is prepayments and accrued income). On the other hand, over £7m of the creditors is made up of accruals and deferred income - i.e. non-cash debts. I would guess that the majority of that will fall due to member clubs, and the company is not-for-profit. In short, when you consider the details the company doesn't look anywhere near insolvent.

Also, the name Dunwilco (597) Ltd looks to me like a shelf company, so the date of incorporation is irrelevant as is the names of the subscribers to the initial shares (I assume that's what the author is talking about re McCann). The rest of his comments are also irrelevant as the events regarding Celtic in 1994 are ancient history.

Yet more pish and wind from the huns.

[Haymaker]

If you ever need a laugh, rangers media is the place. Full of absolute roasters!

[CropleyWasGod]

He's right about liabilities exceeding assets by £196k, but what he omits to tell us us that there's just under £4m cash in the bank and debtors of over £3m (£1.4m of which is prepayments and accrued income). On the other hand, over £7m of the creditors is made up of accruals and deferred income - i.e. non-cash debts. I would guess that the majority of that will fall due to member clubs, and the company is not-for-profit. In short, when you consider the details the company doesn't look anywhere near insolvent.

Also, the name Dunwilco (597) Ltd looks to me like a shelf company, so the date of incorporation is irrelevant as is the names of the subscribers to the initial shares (I assume that's what the author is talking about re McCann). The rest of his comments are also irrelevant as the events regarding Celtic in 1994 are ancient history.

Yet more pish and wind from the huns.

:agree: Dunwilco was/is the name used by Dundas & Wilson, a firm of solicitors, for their shelf companies.

[Lucius Apuleius]

:agree: Dunwilco was/is the name used by Dundas & Wilson, a firm of solicitors, for their shelf companies.

And there was me thinking it was something to do with Livvy cooncilors.

[CropleyWasGod]

And there was me thinking it was something to do with Livvy cooncilors.

It's Monday morning... you're gonny have to splain that one to me. :greengrin

[Hibs7]

If you look at that hun website you soon see why they should have been thrown out of Scottish football forever. The lowest of the low support Newco.

[Onion]

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=235622&st=0

Half time announcer makes joke, Sevco fans descend into racism, sectarianism and hunting down maker of said joke.

:rolleyes:

Over the last few weeks, I was fearful that RFC would quickly emerge from the lower divisions, cock-a-hoop, debt-free and able to dominate the SPL again (with their twin from across the city). But I'm now increasingly convinced that just won't happen. Their CEO, manager, fans and sympathisers in the media are just incapable of acting like grown ups. Their ignorance, arrogance, lack of remorse and general crass behaviour is just making them more and more hated. Whether it's look at our 45 million fans, look how much money we can spend, Green's drunk SPL comments, McCoist's lack of contrition and the press' complete disrespect for the SPL clubs.... there's not a day goes by without the Huns trying to put the boot in. By the end of this season any remnants of sympathy from other clubs for that bunch will have vanished completely... effectively killing off any chance of them being FASTRACKED back into the SPL.

The irony is that had they just shut the F up, accepted their fate with a degree of decorum, they might have started to build bridges and a bit of support again from the DIV1 and SPL clubs. But I now rest peacefully, knowing that they will continue to gloat and antagonise the rest of the clubs - and all the fans who managed to see them off first time around - to the point where they have NO CHANCE of being allowed back into the top flight ahead of time.

[Lucius Apuleius]

It's Monday morning... you're gonny have to splain that one to me. :greengrin

Dun wil co. Willy Dunn Co.:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Dun wil co. Willy Dunn Co.:greengrin

:doh:

[grunt]

Why not?


Over the last few weeks, I was fearful that RFC would quickly emerge from the lower divisions, cock-a-hoop, debt-free and able to dominate the SPL again (with their twin from across the city). But I'm now increasingly convinced that just won't happen. Their CEO, manager, fans and sympathisers in the media are just incapable of acting like grown ups. Their ignorance, arrogance, lack of remorse and general crass behaviour is just making them more and more hated. Whether it's look at our 45 million fans, look how much money we can spend, Green's drunk SPL comments, McCoist's lack of contrition and the press' complete disrespect for the SPL clubs.... there's not a day goes by without the Huns trying to put the boot in. By the end of this season any remnants of sympathy from other clubs for that bunch will have vanished completely... effectively killing off any chance of them being FASTRACKED back into the SPL.

Sorry CWG, I just noticed that you asked me a question. It's hard to explain it, but Onion's post helps me a bit. I see all the same issues that he does, but I conclude differently. I see all the arrogance, the continued flouting of rules, the press laying down to them, and I conclude that it seems inevitable they will return, debt free and stronger than ever. I doubt that there's enough money in the liquidation to fund any meaningful review by BDO, and I therefore don't see any prospect of a challenge to the sale of the assets to Green & Co. Plus, as every day goes by, it becomes more and more difficult to unwind that transaction. I see no will power in either the SPL or the SFA to go further than some symbolically significant but actually meaningless punishment for the dual contracts issue. Yes they may have some titles stripped, but in the long run, their fans will ignore that and the rest of us don't really care. So nothing will happen, and they will soon be back, debt free and with 40,000 season ticket holders.

I hope I'm wrong.

[grunt]

http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/186158-falkirk-fc-stadium-announcer-suspended-after-rangers-sevco-comment/


A PA announcer for Falkrik FC has been suspended from his job after referring to Rangers as the "Sevco Franchise".
The worker made the comment about the Glasgow club at half-time during Falkirk’s game against Raith Rovers.
On Monday, club chairman Martin Ritchie said an investigation had been launched into the "inappropriate comments about Rangers" made by the Falkirk Stadium announcer.
The comment refers to the previous business name of the newco club, Sevco Scotland, which is the title of the Charles Green-led consortium that purchased the assets of the clubs, that will result in the liquidation of the 'oldco', formerly called The Rangers Football Club plc.
Mr Ritchie added: "We have already apologised to Rangers FC and would now like to apologise to the many Rangers supporters who have been in contact with the club.
"Falkirk FC are treating this incident very seriously and the individual concerned has been suspended from his duties, pending a full investigation by the club."

[Northernhibee]

http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/186158-falkirk-fc-stadium-announcer-suspended-after-rangers-sevco-comment/

:rolleyes:

Sevco fans are the lowest of the low.

Rumours circulating amongst SevcoMedia that if they draw an SPL team in the cup at Ibronx if they get past Falkirk, they'll charge £14 for a programme that contains a voucher to get in for a quid, thinking it means that the other team gets next to nothing on the gate split. Amusing - pretty sure that would make the face value of the ticket £15 still and they'd still have to pay the full whack to the other team. Could be wrong.

Was reading Fat Sally's analysis of the East Stirling game and I'm staggered by his back-patting, "We created a staggering amount of chances" etc.

He's playing the likes of Sandaza, Black, Alexander in division 3. By all means he should have won every game by now and he's not. He's already failed.

It staggers me how simple Sevco fans are. There's no competition for them in D3 (or shouldn't be, thanks Peterhead for a good laugh). It's like playing FIFA on the amateur setting, not fun and just for idiots.

[CropleyWasGod]

Sorry CWG, I just noticed that you asked me a question. It's hard to explain it, but Onion's post helps me a bit. I see all the same issues that he does, but I conclude differently. I see all the arrogance, the continued flouting of rules, the press laying down to them, and I conclude that it seems inevitable they will return, debt free and stronger than ever. I doubt that there's enough money in the liquidation to fund any meaningful review by BDO, and I therefore don't see any prospect of a challenge to the sale of the assets to Green & Co. Plus, as every day goes by, it becomes more and more difficult to unwind that transaction. I see no will power in either the SPL or the SFA to go further than some symbolically significant but actually meaningless punishment for the dual contracts issue. Yes they may have some titles stripped, but in the long run, their fans will ignore that and the rest of us don't really care. So nothing will happen, and they will soon be back, debt free and with 40,000 season ticket holders.

I hope I'm wrong.

That is a concern for me, I have to say. However, given the circumstances, I would expect that one of the first things BDO will do will be to ask D&P to justify the sale. After all, that is where the most value lies for creditors.

That, in itself, won't be too costly. Someone on here (maybe via RTC or the like) told me that it is up to D&P to prove THEIR case, rather than BDO to disprove it.

[bythecringe]

Earlier posts referred to the theoretical possibility of court action against Sevco for damages re playing ineligible players during the financial doping period. I thought this was unlikely but noticed today that West Ham came to an out of court agreement with Sheffield United re Hammers playing an ineligible player - Tevez - and United being relegated as a result. Could the same thing happen here?? I know I forked out circa 10 times £400 for season tickets to watch a rigged league - what costs could the SFL clubs put together?

[LeighLoyal]

Earlier posts referred to the theoretical possibility of court action against Sevco for damages re playing ineligible players during the financial doping period. I thought this was unlikely but noticed today that West Ham came to an out of court agreement with Sheffield United re Hammers playing an ineligible player - Tevez - and United being relegated as a result. Could the same thing happen here?? I know I forked out circa 10 times £400 for season tickets to watch a rigged league - what costs could the SFL clubs put together?



Could very well happen. Since Sevco are claiming to be Rangers FC (same way as if I bought the brand name to Third Lanark and called my pub team "Third Lanark", which includes the liquidated club's 2 Scottish Cups and 3 league titles :confused:) they are laible for all the prize money won by Rangers FC during the cheating that went on 2001-2012 and damages. I assume Celtic will sue for being cheated out of the CL, and many others will see an opp. Rangers then, Rangers now, Rangers forever... Is that a fact Mr Green, well here is my writ.

[bythecringe]

Earlier posts referred to the theoretical possibility of court action against Sevco for damages re playing ineligible players during the financial doping period. I thought this was unlikely but noticed today that West Ham came to an out of court agreement with Sheffield United re Hammers playing an ineligible player - Tevez - and United being relegated as a result. Could the same thing happen here?? I know I forked out circa 10 times £400 for season tickets to watch a rigged league - what costs could the SFL clubs put together?

Forgot to say £24 million out of court settlement.

[Just Alf]

That is a concern for me, I have to say. However, given the circumstances, I would expect that one of the first things BDO will do will be to ask D&P to justify the sale. After all, that is where the most value lies for creditors.

That, in itself, won't be too costly. Someone on here (maybe via RTC or the like) told me that it is up to D&P to prove THEIR case, rather than BDO to disprove it.

This is the interesting bit.... especially as the minutes from a Sevco meeting 2 weeks after the sale have a Sevco director "bigging up" their business acumen to the supporters and stating "the club" was worth £55 million..... wonder how they'll explain that way?

:cb

[linlithgowhibbie]

The Rangers con does seem to be working a treat, stole £140m, liquidated as a result, but still called "Rangers FC" and allowed the oldco registration by a compliant, weak SFA. They will always be Sevco from now on to me. Rangers died. UEFA know they died and that's why they are banned from Europe. A shame for them that Messrs Regan and Ogilivie don't run UEFA isn't it! Plague and pestilence is too good for all these DOBS.


Just my opinion mate but "DOBS" doesn't have any place on this board

[JeMeSouviens]

Earlier posts referred to the theoretical possibility of court action against Sevco for damages re playing ineligible players during the financial doping period. I thought this was unlikely but noticed today that West Ham came to an out of court agreement with Sheffield United re Hammers playing an ineligible player - Tevez - and United being relegated as a result. Could the same thing happen here?? I know I forked out circa 10 times £400 for season tickets to watch a rigged league - what costs could the SFL clubs put together?

I don't think there's any chance of that at all. The SFA and the Scottish media may have crossed its fingers behind its back and tried to swallow the lie that this is the same club but there's no way a court will see them as the same entity. If you don't pay your car loan, its repossessed and I buy it second hand. I don't have to pay your speeding tickets.

[big-mo]

I see that Falkirk have apologised to Rangers for a comment made by their stadium announcer at their game, does anyone know what was said?

[wearethehibs]

The annoucer annoced the Huns score at half time and instead of calling them Rangers he called them Sevco something.

No idea how Rangers found out about it. The announcer has been sacked apparently. A bit of a joke if you ask me.

[YehButNoBut]

Nothing major really, seems a fuss over very little

http://www.falkirkherald.co.uk/sport/falkirk-fc/falkirk-issue-rangers-apology-following-inappropriate-comments-1-2478394

When reading out half-time scores from elsewhere in the country, Dave McIntosh referred to Rangers as ‘Sevco FC’ - a reference to the parent company that reformed the Glasgow giants last month following the club’s widely reported financial struggles.

That prompted a flurry of angry comments from Rangers fans on social media sites, including Twitter and Facebook, after the incident was flagged up on a message board.

McIntosh’s personal website has since been taken offline.

[Gettin' Auld]

The barely literate sevco knuckle-draggers are not too happy. :greengrin

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=235622

[Pretty Boy]

Called them the Sevco franchise and called Ibrox Castle Greyskull apparently.

I fail to see the problem myself.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't think there's any chance of that at all. The SFA and the Scottish media may have crossed its fingers behind its back and tried to swallow the lie that this is the same club but there's no way a court will see them as the same entity. If you don't pay your car loan, its repossessed and I buy it second hand. I don't have to pay your speeding tickets.

I came to the same conclusion, by another route...see above somewhere.

[JeMeSouviens]

they will soon be back, debt free and with 40,000 season ticket holders.

I hope I'm wrong.

I think you're wrong about the debt part. Hibs reckon to make £200/ST. The Huns are charging a good bit less, so say they get £150.

150*40000 = £6M

I reckon their wage bill will take all of that plus any commercial income they can scrape together. Plus they have to find a couple of million to pay OldHun football debts and I'd be amazed if the Greenies aren't loading the £5.5M asset purchase onto the club as debt. Green has had to spend big for D3 (and pander to the worst of the bigots) to get Hun ST holders onside. He has to keep spending this side of any potential share issue and the Hun masses will absolutely demand they try and keep up with Celtc on their return. His hope is the share issue enables him to bail with a tidy profit following the Fergus McCann model. Possible, but far from a given.

I expect them to romp through the lower leagues. Huns love winning no matter how non-existent the opposition. Unless Celtc show a considerable decline in revenue in the meantime though, it's going to be a big step for them to try and go from a squad to walk the lower leagues to squad to challenge for the SPL. The Huns will not accept years of second places, no matter how far ahead they are of 3rd. That could do them a lot more damage than their trip through Ds 3,2 and 1.

[jgl07]

:rolleyes:

Sevco fans are the lowest of the low.

Rumours circulating amongst SevcoMedia that if they draw an SPL team in the cup at Ibronx if they get past Falkirk, they'll charge £14 for a programme that contains a voucher to get in for a quid, thinking it means that the other team gets next to nothing on the gate split. Amusing - pretty sure that would make the face value of the ticket £15 still and they'd still have to pay the full whack to the other team. Could be wrong.


They cannot do that as the visiting team have to agree to any reductions in admission prices from the normal League price.

I suspect that Hibs have to cough up a share of the notional cash for season ticket holders with the cup top-ups.

[JeMeSouviens]

Falkirk's email is post@falkirkfc.co.uk

Just sent them this:

FAO Martin Ritchie re Stadium Announcer

Dear Mr Ritchie,

As a Hibernian supporter, I write to express my disappointment at Falkirk's decision to investigate your stadium announcer and apologise to "Rangers" over announcing their half time score as "Sevco".

Every fan of every other club apart from "Rangers" that I have spoken to is disgusted at the unrepentant, aggressive attitude of Messrs Green, Jardine and McCoist and their repeated snide remarks about or outright confrontational stance towards other Scottish clubs. The owners of the old Rangers FC got them into the mess they're in, nobody else. In fact the rest of Scottish football has bent over backwards to fast track the new club that took over their assets past the other more established potential applicants for the vacant SFL place just to attempt to placate the fans of the defunct club. Perhaps if they showed a bit more gratitude for that, they might receive an iota of sympathy.

Your announcer made a light hearted remark that doubtless offended nobody present at the game. If "Rangers" fans claim to be offended about it now, then perhaps they should develop a little thicker skin because unless their attitude undergoes a remarkable transformation they will not find much goodwill at any ground in Scottish football.

I believe the correct course of action now is for you to immediately reinstate your announcer with a public apology for any distress your hasty action has caused him.

Yours sincerely,

[Moulin Yarns]

Called them the Sevco franchise and called Ibrox Castle Greyskull apparently.

I fail to see the problem myself.

A few years ago, a BBC weather announcer, possibly Kirstie McCabe, got into a spot of bother when referring to the stadium formerly occupied by some team called Rangers as Castle Greyskull. She was shipped of to Devon I think. I also think she was a Killie fan. Possibly still is.

[Northernhibee]

They cannot do that as the visiting team have to agree to any reductions in admission prices from the normal League price.

I suspect that Hibs have to cough up a share of the notional cash for season ticket holders with the cup top-ups.

I think their plan is that the ticket is still £15, but the voucher is worth a £14 deduction.

One of two things happen from that;

The value of the ticket is seen as £1 and Sevco get a charge of bringing the game into disrepute as well as breaking minimum prices.

Or

The value of the ticket is seen as £15 and the voucher has a worth of £14, therefore the share of £15 has to still go to the SPL club.


If this is true, Green is a bigger moron than I thought. They really think they've been hard done by over this. It's incredible.

Take a look as to how they refer to other D3 clubs; arrogant, deluded and full of themselves. They also think that other clubs are "obsessed" with Rangers to the detriment of the support of their own team, whereas people are supporting their teams perfectly well, they're just finding it hilarious to find a team of cheats struggling to beat the likes of Brechin and Peterhead.

[green glory]

I think their plan is that the ticket is still £15, but the voucher is worth a £14 deduction.

One of two things happen from that;

The value of the ticket is seen as £1 and Sevco get a charge of bringing the game into disrepute as well as breaking minimum prices.

Or

The value of the ticket is seen as £15 and the voucher has a worth of £14, therefore the share of £15 has to still go to the SPL club.

If this is true, Green is a bigger moron than I thought. They really think they've been hard done by over this. It's incredible.

Take a look as to how they refer to other D3 clubs; arrogant, deluded and full of themselves. They also think that other clubs are "obsessed" with Rangers to the detriment of the support of their own team, whereas people are supporting their teams perfectly well, they're just finding it hilarious to find a team of cheats struggling to beat the likes of Brechin and Peterhead.

Let's face it. They're just dreaming up new ways of cheating. Unrepentant vermin.

[LeighLoyal]

Falkirk's email is post@falkirkfc.co.uk

Just sent them this:

FAO Martin Ritchie re Stadium Announcer

Dear Mr Ritchie,

As a Hibernian supporter, I write to express my disappointment at Falkirk's decision to investigate your stadium announcer and apologise to "Rangers" over announcing their half time score as "Sevco".

Every fan of every other club apart from "Rangers" that I have spoken to is disgusted at the unrepentant, aggressive attitude of Messrs Green, Jardine and McCoist and their repeated snide remarks about or outright confrontational stance towards other Scottish clubs. The owners of the old Rangers FC got them into the mess they're in, nobody else. In fact the rest of Scottish football has bent over backwards to fast track the new club that took over their assets past the other more established potential applicants for the vacant SFL place just to attempt to placate the fans of the defunct club. Perhaps if they showed a bit more gratitude for that, they might receive an iota of sympathy.

Your announcer made a light hearted remark that doubtless offended nobody present at the game. If "Rangers" fans claim to be offended about it now, then perhaps they should develop a little thicker skin because unless their attitude undergoes a remarkable transformation they will not find much goodwill at any ground in Scottish football.

I believe the correct course of action now is for you to immediately reinstate your announcer with a public apology for any distress your hasty action has caused him.

Yours sincerely,


Good letter mate. I'd no idea they had suspended the guy, absolute disgrace if true but there is a big presence in Falkirk.



On the Sevco / oldco thing. They cannot have their cake and eat it. This is where the issues come in regards court action. Even if it was thrown out it would shatter the establishment myth (LIE!) that nothing has changed at Mordor except the owner.

[hibsbollah]

So Falkirk have suspended their stadium announcer after being deluged by complaints from irate hunnery :rolleyes: i never expect huns to have a sense of humour but still, thats petty.

They should really change their song to 'No one likes us, and we really care. A LOT'.

[LeighLoyal]

Yeah, they do care a lot. They are liars as well as thieves and beggars, every one of them. I've just emailed Falkirk FC as a resident of ten plus years to complain about this fellow's treatment. Shabby to say the least. Their name IS Sevco. Holding company of The Rangers FC 2012 is Sevco 5088. So nothing innaccurate or offensive.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yeah, they do care a lot. They are liars as well as thieves and beggars, every one of them. I've just emailed Falkirk FC as a resident of ten plus years to complain about this fellow's treatment. Shabby to say the least. Their name IS Sevco. Holding company of The Rangers FC 2012 is Sevco 5088. So nothing innaccurate or offensive.

There is no company registered under name of The Rangers FC 2012.

The football club, now registered as The Rangers Football Club Limited but formerly registered as Sevco Scotland Limited, has no holding company. According to Companies House, it has 2 shares in issue, both of which are held by Charles Green.

Sevco 5088 is the company that was used to purchase the assets of RFC (IA). IIRC, those assets were then transferred to Sevco Scotland, now known as The Rangers Football Club Limited.

No matter how many ways you slice it, their name is no longer Sevco.

[JeMeSouviens]

Yeah, they do care a lot. They are liars as well as thieves and beggars, every one of them. I've just emailed Falkirk FC as a resident of ten plus years to complain about this fellow's treatment. Shabby to say the least. Their name IS Sevco. Holding company of The Rangers FC 2012 is Sevco 5088. So nothing innaccurate or offensive.

I realise there's a lot of confusion in this area but "The Rangers FC" is the renamed Sevco Scotland (I think the assets of OldHuns were bought by Sevco 5088 and then transferred to Sevco Scotland).

Rangers FC plc (OldHuns) was not a holding company (the rather obvious clue being it didn't hold shares in any other company), it was Rangers.

Sevco Scotland, now renamed The Rangers FC Ltd is not a holding company either, it is the new Rangers.

The new Rangers owns the assets of the old Rangers but there is no legal connection from one entity to the other.

[Caversham Green]

There is no company registered under name of The Rangers FC 2012.

The football club, now registered as The Rangers Football Club Limited but formerly registered as Sevco Scotland Limited, has no holding company. According to Companies House, it has 2 shares in issue, both of which are held by Charles Green.

Sevco 5088 is the company that was used to purchase the assets of RFC (IA). IIRC, those assets were then transferred to Sevco Scotland, now known as The Rangers Football Club Limited.

No matter how many ways you slice it, their name is no longer Sevco.

And that tells us that the £5.5m paid for the assets of Deadrangers is not share capital. Looks like it's all loan capital, which gives the lie to Compo's claim that the newhuns are debt-free.

[CropleyWasGod]

And that tells us that the £5.5m paid for the assets of Deadrangers is not share capital. Looks like it's all loan capital, which gives the lie to Compo's claim that the newhuns are debt-free.

Good point.

My only reservation would be that further shares may have been issued since that date.

(I can't remember... do you still have to register share issues between Annual Returns? If so, and shares have been issued, maybe the issue hasn't been registered yet, or perhaps CH haven't published it.)

One also wonders how much TRFC Ltd. paid Sevco 5088 for the assets, and how that was financed? :cb

[Caversham Green]

Good point.

My only reservation would be that further shares may have been issued since that date.

(I can't remember... do you still have to register share issues between Annual Returns? If so, and shares have been issued, maybe the issue hasn't been registered yet, or perhaps CH haven't published it.)

One also wonders how much TRFC Ltd. paid Sevco 5088 for the assets, and how that was financed? :cb

I believe you do have to register new share issues, it's only changes in the holders of existing shares that can wait for the Annual Return. It is possible that they just haven't completed the paperwork yet, but that seems a bit dangerous given the circumstances.

I notice there's a mortgage registered with what is now Rangers - I'll be away from tomorrow, so I haven't bothered to get a copy.

[CropleyWasGod]

I believe you do have to register new share issues, it's only changes in the holders of existing shares that can wait for the Annual Return. It is possible that they just haven't completed the paperwork yet, but that seems a bit dangerous given the circumstances.

I notice there's a mortgage registered with what is now Rangers - I'll be away from tomorrow, so I haven't bothered to get a copy.

I saw that, and investigated it further.

It's in relation to the training ground, so we know that that property, at least, is in the name of TRFC Ltd.

You might remember that the Scottish Sports Council had a charge on OldHuns.... I think it was in respect of a grant that they had given them to buy or refit Murray Park. I don't know the terms of the grant, but presumably it was repayable if certain conditions weren't met within a certain time.

This charge names the SSC, so it looks like NewHun took over that particular part of OldHuns liabilities. IIRC, that was the only secured creditor, apart from the infamous pie mortgage.

[PatHead]

I believe you do have to register new share issues, it's only changes in the holders of existing shares that can wait for the Annual Return. It is possible that they just haven't completed the paperwork yet, but that seems a bit dangerous given the circumstances.

I notice there's a mortgage registered with what is now Rangers - I'll be away from tomorrow, so I haven't bothered to get a copy.

Can't see Grren getting away with telling lies. The Scottish press would be all over it. They surely wouldn't let it happen again...........would they?

[Jonnyboy]

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-one/falkirk-suspend-matchday-announcer-over-rangers-sevco-jibes-1-2478375

[3pm]

Suspended. Deary me.

[Saorsa]

Suspended. Deary me.yep, ridiculous, how dare anyone have a laugh at them. :rolleyes:

[surreyhibbie]

Can't believe that the vast majority of Rangers fans wouldn't just laugh it off and give the announcer a two fingered salute and a suitable word or two.


Load of nonsense, and just a bit of banter.

[matty_f]

I absolutely love how the article explains what Castle Greyskull is. :faf:

[VickMackie]

On RM they were going to boycott over it. I hope they reinstate him on 31 August.

[givescotlandfreedom]

Why does the article talk about Rangers? They don't exist anymore.

[frazeHFC]

I love that guy. Justice for Dave!

[jacomo]

"very serious". :faf:

[lucky]

Is it any worse than the cop showing 5-1 with hands to the yams at the recent derby game? Enough Hibbies got wound up over that .

[Hibercelona]

So Falkirk have suspended their stadium announcer after being deluged by complaints from irate hunnery :rolleyes: i never expect huns to have a sense of humour but still, thats petty.

They should really change their song to 'No one likes us, and we really care. A LOT'.

To be fair, its a bit ironic considering some of the moaning on here regarding the yam security guard who ended up getting suspended. That was equally as petty IMO.

Humour seems to be dying more and more in the game these days, its a real shame.

[fatbloke]

Can't believe that the vast majority of Rangers fans wouldn't just laugh it off and give the announcer a two fingered salute and a suitable word or two.


Load of nonsense, and just a bit of banter.

Sadly these days Brian banter is not acceptable. Jeezus half of us would not have made it out of Wallyford Primary without the banter. People need to seriously lighten up there are far worse actions taking place under their noses and yet recent stories re Special Constables and Stadium Announcers totally astound me.

It seems these days that the more criminal your behaviour, the more vile your comments, then the more nobody will say a word. However crack a wee joke or try to have a laugh - and you are sacked, suspended or reprimanded.

What a disgusting wee country we are turning into:boo hoo:

Rant over going to soak in a bath now, 7 a sides tonight taking it's toll:greengrin

[SteveHFC]

McIntosh’s half-time Third Division scores (http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-one/falkirk-suspend-matchday-announcer-over-rangers-sevco-jibes-1-2478375#)round up is believed to have included “the Sevco franchise 2, East Stirling 1”, while “the final score from Castle Greyskull was Sevco franchise, 5 East Stirling 1”.:faf::faf::not worth

[cabbageandribs1875]

The term has long been used as derogatory name for Ibrox. BBC weathergirl Kirsty McCabe was criticised when she used the term in 2006. She had told fans they should “wrap up warm if they’re heading for Castle Greyskull” when Rangers played Livingston


just :faf:


Rangers fans have reacted angrily to what they feel is an insult to their club.

hypocritical shower o sh@yte




“the final score from Castle Greyskull was Sevco franchise, 5 East Stirling 1”


just :faf:


the boys a good un, well done dave :fenlon

[Septimus]

Sounds like Glasgow Rovers or whatever they are called are vying for the nickname "Bairns" now.

[Hibrandenburg]

Sadly these days Brian banter is not acceptable. Jeezus half of us would not have made it out of Wallyford Primary without the banter. People need to seriously lighten up there are far worse actions taking place under their noses and yet recent stories re Special Constables and Stadium Announcers totally astound me.

It seems these days that the more criminal your behaviour, the more vile your comments, then the more nobody will say a word. However crack a wee joke or try to have a laugh - and you are sacked, suspended or reprimanded.

What a disgusting wee country we are turning into:boo hoo:

Rant over going to soak in a bath now, 7 a sides tonight taking it's toll:greengrin
Yep, we're a nation of sour puss'. The grey men have taken over and all colour is being squeezed out of life. As I recall that started in Wallyford :-)

[Moulin Yarns]

Isn't it about time someone started a petition


FREE THE FALKIRK ONE

[SouthMoroccoStu]

Isn't it about time someone started a petition


FREE THE FALKIRK ONE

Agreed

[Beefster]

Is it any worse than the cop showing 5-1 with hands to the yams at the recent derby game? Enough Hibbies got wound up over that .

That was my first thought. Our faux outrage managed to help get a policeman suspended so I'm not sure we should be throwing stones from our glass house.

[Just Alf]

That was my first thought. Our faux outrage managed to help get a policeman suspended so I'm not sure we should be throwing stones from our glass house.

:thumbup:

[Pretty Boy]

Is it any worse than the cop showing 5-1 with hands to the yams at the recent derby game? Enough Hibbies got wound up over that .

This.

If he had made some joke about the Scottish Cup Final a few on here would have been calling for him to be hung, drawn and quartered.

[Bristolhibby]

Difference is he is an announcer, who clearly supports Falkirk and works to an audience.

A copper, is a copper. They need to be above this. That said, a few coppers having a laugh with fans of the team he supports should not have been taken too seriously.

Anyone know any Hibby coppers?

J

[oldbutdim]

There are a couple of Hibs supporting plods who post on the Bounce, so they do exist!
;-)

[Jim44]

Difference is he is an announcer, who clearly supports Falkirk and works to an audience.

A copper, is a copper. They need to be above this. That said, a few coppers having a laugh with fans of the team he supports should not have been taken too seriously.

Anyone know any Hibby coppers?

J


Ask Petrie........ he's in charge of the Hibs coppers. :)

[jacomo]

That was my first thought. Our faux outrage managed to help get a policeman suspended so I'm not sure we should be throwing stones from our glass house.

No, the polis said he was suspended because someone made a complaint. No idea who, and most agree it was an over reaction - just like in this case.

[dangermouse]

What is the world coming too? At the rate this country is going it will soon be mandatory to gag yourself and sit on your hands while attending football matches for fear of offending someone while the crowd control is overseen by robots.

Some people need to get a life.

[Teo10]

We are all falkirk stadium announcer

[Part/Time Supporter]

Is it any worse than the cop showing 5-1 with hands to the yams at the recent derby game? Enough Hibbies got wound up over that .

The fairly obvious difference is that Rangers weren't playing against Falkirk on Saturday. Every Hun that has complained must have heard about this second hand.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

I absolutely love how the article explains what Castle Greyskull is. :faf:

That's the kind of thing that happens when you move up to tick the next age box in surveys Matty ;)

Then you find yourself agreeing with those "nostalgia" emails: You know your a 70s/80s child when...

[MB62]

Is it any worse than the cop showing 5-1 with hands to the yams at the recent derby game? Enough Hibbies got wound up over that .


That was my first thought. Our faux outrage managed to help get a policeman suspended so I'm not sure we should be throwing stones from our glass house.

I would suggest it is slightly different, but can see your point.

One is an announcer at a game that does not involve the club he is having a wee joke at, no one really at the game was going to take offence and it was probably word of mouth that it got back to those involved with Sevco.

The other is an officer of the law, making gestures at the home of the club he is having a joke at, possibly inciting trouble here. If this plod had done that at Swinie in a game v Dundee say, would it really have had the same affect? doubt anybody would have bothered their backside about it.