In view of the new club/old club debate, that'll be New Douglas Park.Quote:
Originally Posted by davy malcolm
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Printable View
In view of the new club/old club debate, that'll be New Douglas Park.Quote:
Originally Posted by davy malcolm
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
IIRC, Charlotte Fakes is due in Court himself soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibee87
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
I'm not sure Hibs were "disbanded" in 1891 (that would also imply a "definite end"), but they couldn't have been liquidated as they weren't a company then. I think the term "legal entity" itself is murky (to me anyway!), but Hibs were essentially a Church team in the early days, so perhaps they were an "entity" which later became a "legal entity".Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Hope you didn't forget to go to the O2 tonight. Good gig and I am wondering where the dhol drummer got those shoes.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
'The' CharlotteFakes account is suspended. This account in use now seems to use a capital 'i' for the l. Time will no doubt tell if it is a phoenix or a dud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That's the one... :wink:
If Martin didn't walk in your example then, de facto, he endorsed the decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
He's the editor.
Was barry, eh? :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Like I say, your argument simply doesn't follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. ****gy
"Subscription cancelledQuote:
Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee
Your subscription has been cancelled. You will continue to have access until Wednesday 24th February 2016."
no longer a Herald subscriber
I think he's harking back to the days of 100% employment and personal integrity.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
That's a reasonable point. The editor of The Herald is already overseeing a paper which, like The Scotsman, is dying on its arse. He gets a call from upstairs on an editorial point, complies with it and doesn't walk? That somehow means he 'endorses' the decision? Today, it's a non-argument. Fantasy stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo_1875
Depends how strictly you look to define 'endorse'. Wider meaning is just perhaps putting your name to something (eg endorsing a cheque) which the editor has effectively done by allowing the apology to be published while staying in post.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
I would argue Thommo did much the same when he continued to allow nonsense to appear under his name while taking cash from the Direly Rancid. At least Thommo had his poor mum to think about, in mitigation.
I'm thinking back to the days of not having it both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo_1875
Integrity is a matter of what someone does when there's a conflict between personal principles and corporate decisions. Integrity is a matter for an editor.
I once had a long, and quite fierce exchange of views with Magnus Linklater, when he was Scotsman Editor. He made it quite clear that he took responsibility for what was printed in his paper - no matter how disingenuous that was. I don't know what has changed.
If Llewelin disagrees with the publication of the apology whether he resigns or not is a matter of integrity. That's up to him. It doesn't change the fact that he is responsible for the publication of the apology because he is the editor of the newspaper. He cannot remain as editor and claim the apology is nothing to do with him.
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...e059f62574.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good article here, including Spiers' original message.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/hullo-h...he-bully-boys/
It also includes an example of just how tiny that tiny minority is. [Warning: video may contain traces of Fenian blood.]
https://youtu.be/dBTsCP9zLm4
Perhaps the parties involved with The Rangers International Football Club should asked to provide the court with their definition of "tiny minority"?
...yes,that's what i heard last nightQuote:
Originally Posted by O'Rourke3
A very great deal has changed, especially in Scotland. You must know this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. ****gy
I don't wholly reject the point you're trying to make, I'm saying it's completely anachronistic and fantastic when the current state of print media and levels (or lack of therein) of employment in journalism, especially in Scotland, are examined.
The argument you present almost comes across as a little quaint - it's at least 20 years out of date, especially when you mention Magnus Linklater (whose tenure as editor of TS ended 22 years ago); I went to school with one of his sons (not the mental one)...
...which, IMO, backs up the argument that the "club" continues. If it's an idea that exists in the mind of its supporters, that idea still exists, no matter the legal status of the company that operates it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The tiny minority was so small, I couldn't see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Herriot
I actually don't care much about the old club new club stuff but it annoys them so much I'll never stop using the word Sevco. [emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
What I do care about is the stripping of the titles for cheating. Until that happens there will never be peace for the SFA.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To be fair, in the Middle East, it's not just common for journalists and editors to resign over such things, but they tend to leave the region. Although it's more common for them to be sacked before it gets to that stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
I was sacked by ITP in Dubai and had a new, vastly superior job within four days - at double my ITP salary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilla Black
That's not really relevant to the central point though - an editor not resigning over editorial influence from above does not represent 'endorsement'. Not in the Middle East, and especially not in Scotland.
Caught Off the Ball on the radio on the way home - Cosgrove was talking about the Huns latest O Halloran bid - saying how derisory the offer was, was based on not only being paid in installments but also if the Huns qualified for the Champions League!! Hunbelievable.
Let's keep this in the spotlight.
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2016/01...ilure-exposed/
There wasn't any thought of Hibs being disbanded back then. Hibs ran into trouble with the lease of ER, which led to the purchase of the land where the ground is now. At the same time the CYMS suspended "all sporting activity" due to political views held by it's members. As soon as that and the issue of where to play Hibs were "resuscitated" (the word used in the letters to various club members.)Quote:
Originally Posted by portycabbage
Is it any wonder them and that lot over at the PBS are known as 'Brothers' ?? Over on 'Fudback', one of them's posted a fanciful idea to ensure they win the league ??. Can't be bothered going into details but it involves 10,000 of them paying £150 EACH so they can get a decent enough squad that will do it - simple, eh .......................Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Brazil
STILL the fanciful ideas, STILL the huge amounts of money and STILL 'Reality' avoids them - yup, there's absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between both !!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
Try suggesting the 10,000 Fudbackers should each pay £ 10,000 each and payback the £ 100 million or so Vlad blew on them.
O'Halloran now expected to sign. Good signing, but our defence coped with him no bother at all at the weekend.
Think the Yams should definitely bankrupt themselves to give Levein what he wants.
After all, if the year ends in a 6, the Double is on!
Does it signal a thawing in relations between The Rangers and the other Scottish clubs that Paul Hanlon is allowing O'Halloran to climb out of his back pocket to go to Ibrox and sign for the Gers?Quote:
Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current...0-ff0000d74aa7
The Sevco Six back in High Court in Edinburgh tomorrow. Preliminary hearing only but might find out if there is a squealer amongest them.
This is the bit that really sticks in my throat with them. Two years on from their owners stealing ordinary people's savings, putting local businesses under financial strain, "borrowing" from charities all to pay players to win football matches. Despite this they do not show any shame, embarrassment or even one iota of contrition. They just get back on the "big team" bandwagon.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
They really are disgusting and the media love in with them is shameful at best. can you imagine the outcry if we or the other team from the "wrong side" of the church did this?
Pathetic comment to suggest that there are sectarian reasons behind this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
How else do u explain the media giving them pats on the back despite what they did and we get sneared and laughed at?Quote:
Originally Posted by ACLeith
I would like to know your answer, but please don't make it a pathetic one.
"Exists only in the mind" is not exactly great support for a clubs continuing existence! And how does a company "operate" something that is only an idea in the minds of fans? In my mind, Third Lanark have just bought Messi and Ronaldo, so it must be true that they're the Champions League winners!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
You ask imagine the outcry if it was us (taking out the pathetic sectarian reference)? It would be the same as the outcry over Third Lanark, Livi, Airdrie, Motherwell or Dundee (twice) - ie none. Sports journos just aren't interested (or perhaps capable of dealing with) the intracacies of the financial fall out of football clubs going to the wall. It's seen through the frame of sporting success and failure and the impact on the fans who rally round to save the club they love. Just like the Hands Off Hibs campaign was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
As AC said - it is pathetic to see this as a sectarian issue.
It ties in with my argument that a football club, unlike most businesses, is an emotional construct. None of us support Hibs for anything other than emotional reasons. To us, and most football fans, the notion of "the club" is not the stands, the balance sheet, the Board or even the current team. It's an indefinable thing which exists, as has been said, "in the mind".Quote:
Originally Posted by portycabbage
I'll say it again. Had the Rangers story happened to us, I'm sure that we would have been claiming that we were the same club.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
There are many different groups who have behaved appallingly over their demise; Edinburgh Council over Council Tax (and safety certificate), Heriot Watt over unpaid fees and yes the media - not just EEN, but national as well - who I agree, gloss over their actions. Their sympathy may be partly to do with a dodgy foreigner coming in and damaging/destroying one of our biggest clubs (let's face it they are, just like us), maybe partly they are regarded as an "Establishment" team. Not because they are a so-called "Proddy" team, as you imply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
The anti-Hibs bias in the media is more to do with seeing one of the traditional "big 4" teams in the country get into difficulty, playing-wise. And maybe also that we took a great delight (me included!) in seeing them obviously going down 2 years ago due to malpractice and then finding it happened to us for football reasons. We have started to change media comments though due to how we have performed this season, it will take a while longer with some in the media (RG).
Every fan I know, of whatever team and that includes Hearts - wants to get rid of sectarian filth from our game, trying to dredge up more of it with regard to a non-sectarian club and support like ours is wrong in so many ways.
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberal Hibby
Hearts have marketed their revival very well, and the media have covered it uncritically. It's an easy story; likewise our implosion. Laziness and lack of interest rather than prejudice.
Got to agree. The whole Rangers saga absolutely stinks and I hate the bigoted hate spewed by a large portion of their support. They will always be my least favourite club in Scotland. But to try to pretend that they don't exist is rather childish (quite funny sometimes) but childish none the less.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
[QUOTE=Liberal Hibby;4570101]You ask imagine the outcry if it was us (taking out the pathetic sectarian reference)? It would be the same as the outcry over Third Lanark, Livi, Airdrie, Motherwell or Dundee (twice) - ie none. Sports journos just aren't interested (or perhaps capable of dealing with) the intracacies of the financial fall out of football clubs going to the wall. It's seen through the frame of sporting success and failure and the impact on the fans who rally round to save the club they love. Just like the Hands Off Hibs campaign was.
As AC said - it is pathetic to see this as a sectarian issue.[/QUOTE
That's right just accept it as shoddy journos.
Just keep your ears open on Sunday to the songs being sung, then listen for the deafening silence from the media about it. No religious issues at all in Scotland or the media....aye right.
Until people start properly challenging this and ignore the liberal (I believe what I am fed) silent majority, then it will go on for ever. It's only been going on for 100s of years after all.
A lot of the media delight in our demise is to do with Petrie and his poor public relations. He treats them like dirt so it's hardly surprising that they laughed as we tumbled.Quote:
Originally Posted by ACLeith
Leeann has improved relations with the press but there is a way to go.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Campbell Ogilvie and David Self-sufficient Southern are not dodgy foreigners. Well I know for a fact they're not foreigners. They got an easy time in the media while everybody else could see what was happening. No media outlet cried foul when self-sufficiency became insolvency the day after the season finished and Dundee were relegated in place of them. They get an easy ride for some reason and I know what I think it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by ACLeith
Hearts went into administration almost a month after the season ended, not the day after.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo_1875
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Officially into admin. They stopped paying everybody the day after the league was completed.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Yes but wasn't that the cut-off date after which they could avoid relegation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I totally get the argument that, emotionally, The Rangers is a continuation of all that has gone before.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Doesn't change the fact that, legally and financially, they were created in 2012. That is why their shrieks about punishment and demotion are unfounded.
No-one's denying there aren't issues about religious sectarianism in Scotland - but it is a mighty leap to go from that to say Hearts are being protected by a compliant media because they're a protestant institution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
:top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Well we would have been wrong. Our attachment to the club might be sentimental/emotional but a football club is still a real tangible entity, either as a sports club for members (as they almost all started out) or incorporated as a limited company. If they have incorporated and are liquidated, as per Third Lanark or the old Airdrie, they cease to be. Nobody questioned that or came up with any alternative way of looking at it until the SFA and SPFL were staring down the barrel of what they perceived as a short term black hole in their finances due to losing Rangers and with them, the Old Firm cash cow.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
In the real world, the old Rangers is dead and the new Rangers is a new club, whatever fictional fudge the SFA/SPFL come up with.
Today's Sevco Six hearing postponed until tomorrow.
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/
Thats's why I'm with CWG on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomoseven
Legally and financially Hibs were created on 11 April 1903.
We were still a professional football club for ten years before that and an amateur church club from 1875 to 1891.
Hearts went bust in 1905 and were bought over by a New Company and re-registered.
Wrong. The members' club, Hibernian, was incorporated as a limited company. It is the same financial and legal entity.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
Edit: hmmm, you're more right than I thought, actually (apols). Here is an explanation:
http://www.morton-fraser.com/knowled...ciations-facts
If we were a professional club before 1903, then we would have had legal personality, as unincorporated associations can't employ staff. There's nothing to stop amateur clubs becoming professional ones, but when something becomes a business, then it can go out of business.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
Don't know what the law was back then, but unincorporated associations can employ staff. Virtually anyone, or any body, can be an employer.Quote:
Originally Posted by portycabbage
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
If we were an unincorporated association prior to 1903 we could not have gone out of business as we were not a " business ".
Just because we stopped playing football for a few months the unincorporated association continued as long as some of those who acted as the association remained active.
It was the same association that became incorporated in 1903.
Between 1893 and April 1903 we were most certainly both a professional football club which paid players and staff and a business.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Prior to 1893 we were an amateur club that didn't pay players (cough!:greengrin)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
But if we were unincorporated it must have been the committee members as individuals who paid the players.
Like I say, an unincorporated organisation can be an employer.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
What the law was back then, though.... no idea. Ask JonnyBoy. :greengrin
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
According to this, unincorporated associations cannot employ staff.
http://www.morton-fraser.com/knowled...ciations-facts
They're wrong, which is a bit scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
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
I bow to your superior knowledge on this one. :aok:
Cheers.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
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.
That's how shocking our game/SPFL is - MA having to actually need lawyers to prove THIS point !!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
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???
Oi, leave me out of this :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I hoped I might be able to slip that one in without you noticing :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Jonnyboy
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 CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
i remember my old man telling me decades ago that it was harry swan that put a stop to it, which makes sense really as ET was a player/manager...not really his business was it :dunno:
I got that info looking through old EEN's. In a 1970's interview with Eddie he claimed he saw money going down the swanney with these freebies being handed out so asked Tom Hart to stop the practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
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:
Sorry, popped out for half an hour. Question now answered I see :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Shirley it was nun of his business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
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
- 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)
To be honest he should have done this after the shellacking he got at the first hearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
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.
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 BSEJVT
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
"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.Quote:
Originally Posted by portycabbage
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-)Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
"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.Quote:
Originally Posted by portycabbage
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
It had become too much of a habit?Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLake
Can charities not be companies or associations though?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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
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
"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
No going over supreme court rulings on role of judicial review re statutory tribunals
3 retweets1 like
Reply
Retweet
3
Like
1
More
Counsel for Ashley says SFA decision was one " no reasonable tribunal could have arrived at"
9 retweets3 likes
Reply
Retweet
9
Like
3
More
Going through precedents again. Will spare you all the details.
2 retweets1 like
Reply
Retweet
2
Like
1
More
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
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by portycabbage
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSmith
Just use my link to twitter as my MacBook Air is giving me problems with hibs.net - started when I updated to El-Capitano :(
Apologies chaps. I'm having to work this week.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
'kin part - timer.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
[emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/...te-supporters/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To sum up a little:
Derek Llambias was approached by Rangers board at the time to act as a consultant and taken on after proving to be good value - not an Ashley plant therefore, Ashley not influencing Rangers.
All good fun :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
:thumbsup:
Severe lack of interest in today's court activities evidenced on this thread.
Quote:
Judge asks O'Neil "Are you saying we should identify the notion of Rangers Football Club as a philosophical idea?"
Forgot about it! off to twitter a jolly well go .. :)
Judge "I find it hard not to think in legal terms, we are in a court. We are not here for our skill as metaphysicians"
love it!
'The Board also promised the manager he would have access to funds in the January transfer window if he felt players were available to bring in early and improve the overall squad in advance of next season. The manager has taken advantage of this opportunity and will also now commence the identification of players to further improve the squad during the close season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
....... by signing LOAN players !!. And still the mongol-hordes don't tipple.......... definitely the dumbest f***s in football !!!!