Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

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

---

According to this, unincorporated associations cannot employ staff.


http://www.morton-fraser.com/knowled...ciations-facts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

According to this, unincorporated associations cannot employ staff.


http://www.morton-fraser.com/knowled...ciations-facts

---

They're wrong, which is a bit scary.

I would prefer SCVO's view:- http://www.scvo.org.uk/setting-up-a-...d-association/

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

They're wrong, which is a bit scary.

I would prefer SCVO's view:- http://www.scvo.org.uk/setting-up-a-...d-association/

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

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

---

Cheers.:greengrin

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

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

---

Oi, leave me out of this :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonnyboy

Oi, leave me out of this :greengrin

---

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

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

Any thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

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

Any thoughts?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

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

Any thoughts?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

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

---

Shirley it was nun of his business.

Ashley halts legal action against sevco.
http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/142..._with_Rangers/
Wonder if that means his action against the SFA is off for tomorrow? Probably yes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

You need to read these upside down :greengrin



James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 3m3 minutes agoAlso this month, Mike Ashley is suing the SFA over the fine he received last year over "dual ownership" which is also in Edinburgh

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Ashley halts legal action against sevco.
http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/142..._with_Rangers/
Wonder if that means his action against the SFA is off for tomorrow? Probably yes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BSEJVT

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

---

I don't know if he's vindictive, but he's just spent £29m on transfer fees at Newcastle. I wonder, if DK hadn't upset him so much, whether he might have funded transfers at RFC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

They're wrong, which is a bit scary.

I would prefer SCVO's view:- http://www.scvo.org.uk/setting-up-a-...d-association/

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by portycabbage

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

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

---

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

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by portycabbage

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

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

---

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

Not sure what else to say on UA's

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

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

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreenLake

Shirley it was nun of his business.

---

It had become too much of a habit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

Not sure what else to say on UA's

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

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

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

---

Can charities not be companies or associations though?

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

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

Probably right about the hijack thing though!

Its Started:

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman

• James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 8m8 minutes ago
  Counsel for Ashley agrees that he has to go over a "high bar" to succeed in having court overturn SFA decision.
  4 retweets2 likes
  Reply
  
  Retweet
  4
  
  
  
  Like
  2
  
  More
  
  
  
  
  
  
• https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...0f_bigger.jpegJames Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 15m15 minutes ago
  "No substantial differenice in English and Scots law" in these matters counsel for Ashley says quoting from supreme court decision
  3 retweets0 likes
  Reply
  
  Retweet
  3
  
  
  
  Like
  
  
  More
  
  
  
  
  
  
• https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...0f_bigger.jpegJames Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 19m19 minutes ago
  No going over supreme court rulings on role of judicial review re statutory tribunals
  3 retweets1 like
  Reply
  
  Retweet
  3
  
  
  
  Like
  1
  
  More
  
  
  
  
  
  
• https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...0f_bigger.jpegJames Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 23m23 minutes ago
  Counsel for Ashley says SFA decision was one " no reasonable tribunal could have arrived at"
  9 retweets3 likes
  Reply
  
  Retweet
  9
  
  
  
  Like
  3
  
  More
  
  
  
  
  
  
• https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...0f_bigger.jpegJames Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 27m27 minutes ago
  Going through precedents again. Will spare you all the details.
  2 retweets1 like
  Reply
  
  Retweet
  2
  
  
  
  Like
  1
  
  More
  
  
  
  
  
  
• https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...0f_bigger.jpegJames Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 35m35 minutes ago
  Counsel for Ashley says "We are not here to discuss the merits of the complaint" instead issue is did they have jurisdiction over his client
  5 retweets4 likes
  Reply
  
  Retweet
  5
  
  
  
  Like
  4
  
  More
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  

Are we reading bottom to top again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by portycabbage

Probably right about the hijack thing though!

---

Indeed.

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

Where is Ozzy when needed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrSmith

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

Where is Ozzy when needed?

---

It's welcome. Please continue :agree: