It would be helpful to have sight of the argument the FA and Premier League presented as to how Football Creditors should be treated differently from ordinary creditors. Seems a certain anomaly.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Printable View
It would be helpful to have sight of the argument the FA and Premier League presented as to how Football Creditors should be treated differently from ordinary creditors. Seems a certain anomaly.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm sure you could find it online. There's certainly been plenty written about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by doddsy
IIRC, the Exeter City case was the one where HMRC challenged it.
From memory, it was accepted by the Courts that, without the FC Rule, clubs would fail as a result of other clubs being unable to pay them. A domino-effect would result, leaving the game in disarray. However, don't take my word of it.... the Court transcript will be out there.
Cheers. :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
They were not treated any differently in the insolvency event, it was afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by doddsy
There is nothing to stop a third party covering the losses of some parties after an insolvency event. Some been for reimbursed the cash that Hearts stole from the poppy people.
The SFA insisted on The Rangers paying oldco's football debts as a condition of them taking the vacant place in the SFL. The Rangers agreed to do this. This is a valid contract.
The SFA knew for a fact Newco were not liable for any of Oldco's debts, football one's or otherwise. Ballengeich explains it very well in that it was merely the SFA seeking linkage of Old Club and New Club. It is simply that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Think you have misunderstood his post. Also don't think that you have researched the football creditors rules,as I suggested.Quote:
Originally Posted by doddsy
The SFA applied those rules in the Rangers case, as they did with Hearts, Dundee and Livi.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
As they say back of the net !Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The key word is 'liability'.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It is a fact of law that Newco is not, never will be, never was, 'liable', for any of Oldco's debts/fines/actions.
The contract agreed with Charles Green and the SPL would'nt stand up on appeal if DK had been serious in challenging it.
It is a spurious contract as it was as you say a 'Voluntary' one not a 'Liability'.
A fact of law? Which law? The one that was established by the case that HMRC raised against the FA, and lost? Or another one?Quote:
Originally Posted by doddsy
And...DK did appeal against the tribunal decision. He lost.
I don't think that you want to take me on on the meaning of the word "liability ".[emoji6]
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Newco is not, never will be, never was, 'liable', for a single debt/fine/action by Oldco. That is a fact of 'Company Law'.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Just for the record, I am not 'taking anyone on' CWG,
What part of Company Law?Quote:
Originally Posted by doddsy
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
I would be more inclined to offer credit if I suspected that honour and dignity were the reasons that some debts were paid. Sadly I remain convinced that it is more total and utter embarrassment that was the driving force for invoices like the one from the poppy fund to be settled.Quote:
Originally Posted by doddsy
I’m with CWG.
SPFL Rule I38 states
“If any Club defaults in making payment of any sum or sums due to the Company and/or to another Club the Board shall be entitled to apply any sums which, including in terms of Rules and/ or the Articles, would otherwise be payable to the defaulting Club by the Company in discharge of any debt due by such Club in default to the Company and/or such other Club in such manner as the Board shall determine.”
This has been applied to clubs that went into administration but remained as the same entity, Hearts, Dundee, Dunfermline for example. It seems to me perfectly reasonable for the SPFL to have said to SEVCO that, if they wanted to be readmitted as RIFC, then they would have to accept that this rule would apply to them. They agreed to this condition in the 5 way agreement. If they hadn’t agreed to the terms of the 5 Way Agreement they might not exist as a football club in the SPFL. They have contested it through the appeal process of the SPFL and have been found to be liable for payment of the fine.
However they still have the option of appealing to The Court of Arbitration for Sport so if RIFC think that they have a case they can take it further let’s wait and see. FIFA likes to keep fitba business out of the national courts (I wonder why) but in the final event GASL could take it even further, he clearly has experience of such legal institutions.
Don’t see the point of Hibs netters falling out over this.
I'm not falling out with fellow Hibs netters Brunswickbill. I still think I am entirely correct to say if it did appear before a Court of Law it would be dismissed as Newco is not liable for Oldco. However this particular opinion seems to be particularly controversial so I am going to leave it at that for now. It is still my opinion and it is not going to be changed so I hope others will respect that position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunswickbill
:greengrin
I respect your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by doddsy
However :-
The English legal system
The Scottish legal system
The FA
The SFA
The administrators and liquidators of every insolvent Scottish and English club over the last 15 or so years.
..all have the opposite opinion to you.
I'm not a lawyer, but I know what would be more persuasive to me.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Thank you CWG for respecting my position.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
On the basis that the oldco company is in liquidation how is the newco company in any way responsible for the oldco companies debts/actions?
It would be nice to be enlightened please.
The SFA and SPFL are membership clubs, like a golf club.Quote:
Originally Posted by doddsy
If you want to be a member you abide by the rules.
I you want to be a member of the SFA and SPFL then you agree to be bound by, amongst others, the football debts rule.
No other rules or laws currently contradict this.
Not everyone agrees with this, as stated HMRC being one, but at present that's the way things are.
It's responsible for the football debts, which has been established by case law (the HMRC case in the Exeter administration that I mentioned earlier).Quote:
Originally Posted by doddsy
Those have been paid AFAIK.
It's also responsible for the fine on Oldco. It's not clear to me whether that falls under the description of football debt. (The SFA doesn't define them. The FA does, but they're not clear). However, Newco did undertake to pay that fine. That undertaking has been found to be legal, and the fine payable, by the Court.
Other than those debts, Newco has no responsibility for the debts of Oldco.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Administration is not liquidation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
They may have agreed to pay it in order to satisfy the SPL however Newco was not initially liable.
Just pointing out some contentious points CWG.
It's irrelevant that it was administration. The case was pursued by HMRC to establish the legality of football debts. They lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by doddsy
The principle of football debt was therefore enshrined in case law. That will continue until such times as someone else puts up a better case and has that overturned.
As a result of that case law, Newco's football debt is due by Oldco.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Fair enough, however the footall debts rules may be incompatible with bankruptcy/liquidation company law and are there to be challenged in a court of law if DK had been serious as to challenging them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
He did.Quote:
Originally Posted by doddsy
He lost.
Just as HMRC did.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Fair enough, unfortunately I seem to have found myself defending DK's position on trying to get out of forking out readies. It is not something I am proud of so I will leave it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
:flag:
I will over the next week or two when I have the time of course look over the aspects of the case you refer to CWG. Not with the aim of proving anyone wrong or I'm right or any bs. Just simply to have a look at the basis of this interesting matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Cheers Doddsy.:thumbsup:
Interesting as the discussion on legality may be, I think that it would be interesting to see a record of the appeal. What "documents and actions" from the SPFL would lead RIFC to claim "that the SPFL has waived all and any right it may have had to insist upon payment under the clause, thereby
holding the Club harmless in relation to the sanctions. This is disputed by the SPFL." If you are looking for a conspiracy then it seems to me that you have the makings of one here.
I'm sure there will be a Court transcript out there somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunswickbill
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Isn't it an SFA Tribunal albeit comprising 3 High Court judges. So I doubt if the proceedings will be public. Hope I'm mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Yeah, you're right. So many cases etc etc :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Brunswickbill
One would have hoped, though, in the interests of transparency....:rolleyes:
This is the worst John Grisham novel ever (and that's saying something).
Really enjoyed this exchange but you're not like a dog with a bone rather like a dog that thinks it has a bone :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by doddsy
Conflating two things to give the King and Sevco an undeserved 'blow' job :wink: