Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

---

CWG, I have sent you a PM.

I have written an article on The Rangers for an new online football fanzine and would appreciate an expert eye giving it the once over to ensure it's accurate

Cheers

So there's no banter allowed in football anymore? The easily offended in the football grounds will squeeze the last bit of fun out of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joe breezy

CWG, I have sent you a PM.

I have written an article on The Rangers for an new online football fanzine and would appreciate an expert eye giving it the once over to ensure it's accurate

Cheers

---

Ooyah.... let me check that my Professional Indemnity Insurance is up to date first..... :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gatecrasher

So there's no banter allowed in football anymore? The easily offended in the football grounds will squeeze the last bit of fun out of the game.

---

Would be great if all Stadium announcers referred to them as Sevco this weekend in solidarity.

Sort of an "I'm Sparticus" moment, over tannoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Plenty :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Ooyah.... let me check that my Professional Indemnity Insurance is up to date first..... :greengrin

---

Cheers, have emailed it, it's a fairly simple version of events so shouldn't be contentious but just wanted to check :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VickMackie

It's pathetic.

It's the same when a player gestures to the fans everyone starts greeting like bairns.

---

:agree:

It's give and take.

I like to see players having a bit of harmless banter with the fans. It noises them up and creates a better atmosphere.

With the way the rules are set up these days, it seems that players can't have any association with the fans whatsoever. They aren't even aloud to celebrate with their own fans!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by H18SVG

Perhaps a template sent to as many fans websites with a link to a Falkirk contact, get people to counter the complaints.

---

Perhaps it should suggest that non Sevco fans might not be back if they discipline the guy for, basically, doing his job. Put the suggestion on other clubs meassage boards. :dunno:

I think the Falkirk announcer should be transferred to Hibs, would love it if he were to say the same at E/R.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HUTCHYHIBBY

Seriously?

---

Aye, we whine about silly we things like cops and announcers yet tolerate crime etc in our communities and say nowt. Disgusting mibbe a bit strong but ridiculous oh definitely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiberlin

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 :-)

---

John McGlynn and Jim Jefferies are both Wallyford born and bred. OOPS:greengrin

Theres only a small amount of people moan about petty things like tannoy announcers or special constables making gestures, me i couldnae give a flying one, just like most others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish

Plenty :wink:

---

One of them was leading the Sect43 boys astray in Leuven! ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonnyboy

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...ibes-1-2478375

---

It just goes to prove the old Chinese proverb is correct " the most easily offended are the most offensive". The so called fans of this club are unbelievable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

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

---

Had to laugh completly nothing too do with the article

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darrenmcintosh2

Had to laugh completly nothing too do with the article

---

...and what about the comment response a few lines down:

"You sir...appear to have completely lost the plot....It looks like Rangers 1..CMS 0...Hissy fitting hoop fans are falling over themselves to lambast & insult Scotlands biggest club...world record holders...and...most famous...But 50,000 punters cant be wrong....more than every club in Britain bar Arsenal....more than the combines weekend attendances in Scotland...more than Celtic got on the opening day tainted title raiser at parkhead...face it....We are the people."

:crazy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

I seem to remember a copper in the East pissing himself laughing at the fans singing "we are the people" to wind up the Smellies, not really on the same level as the Yam pig, but I still found it funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 .

---

Huge difference.

This guy is a tannoy announcer, these guys are normally supporters of the club that they work for and a few of them do a bit of radio work as well. They are well known for their quips and banter.

A police officer, on the other hand, particularly one that is on duty at the time, is supposed to be completely professional. They are there to keep the peace and ensure that the safety of the public is upheld. Making inflammatory gestures like the clown last week at Easter Road was extremely ill-advised and had the potential to cause a few problems.

I can't believe the two are even being compared to be honest.

It's absolutely ridiculous that this guy has been suspended and if it was me, I would tell them to stick their job and they couldn't suspend me because I resigned.

Seriously, if that is the worst example of misconduct that Falkirk FC has to deal with then they'll be doing well.

Oh and, by the way, I would love nothing more than if Sevco's fans were threatening a boycott of my stadium. I know we're not due to play them again for another three years (unless we get them in the cup) but is there no way that we could arrange for our announcer to throw a few insults at them so that we can get the same treatment?

Nothing would make me happier!

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but it would be a useful summary for those financially/legally illiterate:

To what extent do New Huns have laibility over the debt/tax avoidance/EBT of Old Huns? (appreciate this may be hard to know, but would appreciate a few bullet points of what we do/don't know)

Thanks in advance to anyone (anyone who knows what they are talking about :cb) who answers! :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 .

---

There is a difference between a stadium announcer and a policeman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IndieHibby

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but it would be a useful summary for those financially/legally illiterate:

To what extent do New Huns have laibility over the debt/tax avoidance/EBT of Old Huns? (appreciate this may be hard to know, but would appreciate a few bullet points of what we do/don't know)

Thanks in advance to anyone (anyone who knows what they are talking about :cb) who answers! :greengrin

---

None, basically. That debt rests with the old company.

The directors of the old company may be held personally liable if they are found to have been "wrongfully trading", but that's it. Chucky can do walking away from that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FalkirkHibee

Huge difference.

This guy is a tannoy announcer, these guys are normally supporters of the club that they work for and a few of them do a bit of radio work as well. They are well known for their quips and banter.

A police officer, on the other hand, particularly one that is on duty at the time, is supposed to be completely professional. They are there to keep the peace and ensure that the safety of the public is upheld. Making inflammatory gestures like the clown last week at Easter Road was extremely ill-advised and had the potential to cause a few problems.

I can't believe the two are even being compared to be honest.

It's absolutely ridiculous that this guy has been suspended and if it was me, I would tell them to stick their job and they couldn't suspend me because I resigned.

Seriously, if that is the worst example of misconduct that Falkirk FC has to deal with then they'll be doing well.

Oh and, by the way, I would love nothing more than if Sevco's fans were threatening a boycott of my stadium. I know we're not due to play them again for another three years (unless we get them in the cup) but is there no way that we could arrange for our announcer to throw a few insults at them so that we can get the same treatment?

Nothing would make me happier!

---

A tannoy announcer who would know that he is not permitted in any way to broadcast anything that may be construed as derogatory to opposition fans whether they are in the stadium or not. So no more an excuse than the special constable had but they are both dropped in it by examples of over reaction from whinging fans............ pathetic!

This'll be the same club that play duelling banjo's before Dunfermline games and Gypsies Tramps and Thieves before Clyde games, they've sha* it here big time. Lost a bit of respect for them over this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

None, basically. That debt rests with the old company.

The directors of the old company may be held personally liable if they are found to have been "wrongfully trading", but that's it. Chucky can do walking away from that one.

---

Whilst still claiming his Club have won 50 + league titles and saying he will fight to prevent any stripping of cheated title victories from his club cos his club has been punished enough !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

None, basically. That debt rests with the old company.

The directors of the old company may be held personally liable if they are found to have been "wrongfully trading", but that's it. Chucky can do walking away from that one.

---

This was correct until Chuckie did his dirty deal with Regan at the SFA.

Basically, New Huns is a new club, it bought the assets of the old club including its branding etc but it is not inherently liable for any of the debt or any punishments etc.

However, the SFA have bent their rule book to pretend that a club's identity can survive its death. The Chuck/Regan deal allows New Huns to assume some of the identity of Old Huns in exchange for some of the old club's liabilities. So, as I understand it, in exchange for being allowed to pretend to be Old Huns and therefore assume their membership of the SFA, New Huns have agreed to take on:

- the outstanding punishments of Old Huns, ie. £160K fine and a 1 year transfer embargo (although the start was delayed to effectively neuter the punishment).

- any future punishments arising from the SPL investigation of payments made outside registered contracts by Old Huns. I expect they will throw the toys out of the pram if there actually are any meaningful punishments though.

- "football debts", ie. the Lee Wallace money to Hearts, gate money owed to Celtic and D Utd. Not sure if it was just the debts owed to SFA members or whether Rapid Vienna etc will get their money as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

This was correct until Chuckie did his dirty deal with Regan at the SFA.

Basically, New Huns is a new club, it bought the assets of the old club including its branding etc but it is not inherently liable for any of the debt or any punishments etc.

However, the SFA have bent their rule book to pretend that a club's identity can survive its death. The Chuck/Regan deal allows New Huns to assume some of the identity of Old Huns in exchange for some of the old club's liabilities. So, as I understand it, in exchange for being allowed to pretend to be Old Huns and therefore assume their membership of the SFA, New Huns have agreed to take on:

- the outstanding punishments of Old Huns, ie. £160K fine and a 1 year transfer embargo (although the start was delayed to effectively neuter the punishment).

- any future punishments arising from the SPL investigation of payments made outside registered contracts by Old Huns. I expect they will throw the toys out of the pram if there actually are any meaningful punishments though.

- "football debts", ie. the Lee Wallace money to Hearts, gate money owed to Celtic and D Utd. Not sure if it was just the debts owed to SFA members or whether Rapid Vienna etc will get their money as well.

---

Whilst all that is correct, that wasn't the question.

The question was "To what extent do New Huns have laibility over the debt/tax avoidance/EBT of Old Huns?" That stays with the OldHun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Whilst all that is correct, that wasn't the question.

The question was "To what extent do New Huns have laibility over the debt/tax avoidance/EBT of Old Huns?" That stays with the OldHun.

---

Nice deflect there, Mr Croppers!:smokin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Whilst all that is correct, that wasn't the question.

The question was "To what extent do New Huns have laibility over the debt/tax avoidance/EBT of Old Huns?" That stays with the OldHun.

---

True. It would be boring if we all stuck to just answering the question as asked though. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

This was correct until Chuckie did his dirty deal with Regan at the SFA.

Basically, New Huns is a new club, it bought the assets of the old club including its branding etc but it is not inherently liable for any of the debt or any punishments etc.

However, the SFA have bent their rule book to pretend that a club's identity can survive its death. The Chuck/Regan deal allows New Huns to assume some of the identity of Old Huns in exchange for some of the old club's liabilities. So, as I understand it, in exchange for being allowed to pretend to be Old Huns and therefore assume their membership of the SFA, New Huns have agreed to take on:

- the outstanding punishments of Old Huns, ie. £160K fine and a 1 year transfer embargo (although the start was delayed to effectively neuter the punishment).

- any future punishments arising from the SPL investigation of payments made outside registered contracts by Old Huns. I expect they will throw the toys out of the pram if there actually are any meaningful punishments though.

- "football debts", ie. the Lee Wallace money to Hearts, gate money owed to Celtic and D Utd. Not sure if it was just the debts owed to SFA members or whether Rapid Vienna etc will get their money as well.

---

A club's identity doesn't sit in legal land, it sits in the hearts and minds of the supporters - the huns are what they are and the club will never die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

True. It would be boring if we all stuck to just answering the question as asked though. :wink:

---

It might have cleared this whole freaking mess up months ago......


What a scary thought. :greengrin