Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Green Goblin

Board for us says Hibernian, but for the away team it just says "visitors" doesn't it? Or have they changed it? It was a Mowbray idea - one of many small wee digs he came up with to give Hibs a psychological edge...

---

Definitely has the away teams name now, hasn't had "Visitors" for a while

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Green Goblin

Board for us says Hibernian, but for the away team it just says "visitors" doesn't it? Or have they changed it? It was a Mowbray idea - one of many small wee digs he came up with to give Hibs a psychological edge...

---

It's back to the teams mate... Preferred visitors. Would have been funny to put

The visitors

Just the once though

Getting back to the lad Telfer surely when the Huns were liquidated ALL player contracts had to be re-negotiated as they were signing for a new club?? If this is the case, maybe posters with more knowledge could tell us, then Thompson is spot on saying they will only be paying 2 years compensation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey09

Getting back to the lad Telfer surely when the Huns were liquidated ALL player contracts had to be re-negotiated as they were signing for a new club?? If this is the case, maybe posters with more knowledge could tell us, then Thompson is spot on saying they will only be paying 2 years compensation.

---

Chances are that this would be covered by TUPE rules. The new company would take on all the rights and responsibilities of the former employers.

If that's the case, I reckon TRFC have the law on their side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Chances are that this would be covered by TUPE rules. The new company would take on all the rights and responsibilities of the former employers.

If that's the case, I reckon TRFC have the law on their side.

---

cheers CWG....

These matters are always difficult to resolve and seem to be very complicated. "All very complex" some might say.

I must admit that I have a degree of sympathy with "Sevco" on this. Ok, they were liquidated, stiffed a lot of creditors and had to be launched as a newco. But one of the conditions of the new license being granted was that they were liable for all football debts. Surely if they were liable for the debts then (in the unlikely event of it ever arising) surely they should also stand to receive any football credit?

Basically, United should have to cough up for the 6 years worth of investment that was put into training the boy regardless, because it happened. 2 years should definitely go to Sevco. Whether Sevco receive the extra 4 years or whether it goes into the pot for oldco's creditors should be the only question.

I could be a bigger problem for us in future if "bigger clubs" (s******) can poach players from smaller clubs and walk over the regulations regarding recompensing clubs for bringing through youth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

These matters are always difficult to resolve and seem to be very complicated. "All very complex" some might say.

I must admit that I have a degree of sympathy with "Sevco" on this. Ok, they were liquidated, stiffed a lot of creditors and had to be launched as a newco. But one of the conditions of the new license being granted was that they were liable for all football debts. Surely if they were liable for the debts then (in the unlikely event of it ever arising) surely they should also stand to receive any football credit?

Basically, United should have to cough up for the 6 years worth of investment that was put into training the boy regardless, because it happened. 2 years should definitely go to Sevco. Whether Sevco receive the extra 4 years or whether it goes into the pot for oldco's creditors should be the only question.

I could be a bigger problem for us in future if "bigger clubs" (s******) can poach players from smaller clubs and walk over the regulations regarding recompensing clubs for bringing through youth.

---

Pretty much agree with that. For the TUPE-related reasons above, I would side with Sevco getting all the cash.

However, TRFC's liquidators might have something to say..... :cb

On the subject of RFC's liquidators.....


Have they squeezed every last penny out of the pot yet or are they still working on it?

I believe there were some legal cases they were following up on but wasn't sure if they'd worked their way through the cash yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

On the subject of RFC's liquidators.....


Have they squeezed every last penny out of the pot yet or are they still working on it?

I believe there were some legal cases they were following up on but wasn't sure if they'd worked their way through the cash yet.

---

Think it must be ongoing. We would have heard if there had been any developments, positive or otherwise.

Where my sympathy runs out with Sevco is that the SFA gave them a lifeline to sign players before the player embargo set in. Then Fat Sally continued to ignore any cost cutting of his squad even when they were playing against part time teams in Divs 1 & 2, paying high wages and staying in***** hotels pre-matches.

If Sevco had tried to cut their cloth to make savings to pay back creditors then maybe I would feel some sympathy but it is clear that the club has been run as a cash cow for all except the fans (much as I detest them).

Let them burn.

The newco bought the liquidated company and inherited its football debts as such it should also then inherit any football money due form the oldco.

I know this is not a popular point of view but a lot are blinkered cos it's them.

Newco have already said the new Ashley cash will not last long. They are paying players with no resale value, Daly, Shiels Miller, Boyd etc 4-5k per week. Gates way down so they are loosing cash hand over fist. Another fine mess.

And the rest, those figures are nowhere near correct - it is worse for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trig

I don't know why it's seen as so controversial to claim that Sevco and Rangers are two different clubs.

They're the only organisation from any field that I've ever heard of which has gone through liquidation and yet still claims to be the same organisation to the one which existed before liquidation occurred.

The club that exists now has only been in existence since 2012.

Never let them forget.

---

The same thing happened to Livingston in 2010 when they were liquidated and dumped into the third division - the controlling company died but the Livingston 5 group took over the running of the club, which remained unaffected.

From a business point of view though, Stephen Thomson is quite right to challenge the transaction between Dundee United and the new Rangers company, is he not?

Telfer's contract was transferred over to a new company and that registration has only been held for 2 years? Whether you buy into Rangers being the same club under different corporate management or not, the business that held his employment contract died and his new registration with The Rangers International is only 2 years old? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sylar

The same thing happened to Livingston in 2010 when they were liquidated and dumped into the third division - the controlling company died but the Livingston 5 group took over the running of the club, which remained unaffected.

From a business point of view though, Stephen Thomson is quite right to challenge the transaction between Dundee United and the new Rangers company, is he not?

Telfer's contract was transferred over to a new company and that registration has only been held for 2 years? Whether you buy into Rangers being the same club under different corporate management or not, the business that held his employment contract died and his new registration with The Rangers International is only 2 years old? :confused:

---

...but that contract was transferred to the new company. I am no expert in TUPE, but I reckon that the rights and responsibilities of that contract would be transferred as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MehHFC

Definitely has the away teams name now, hasn't had "Visitors" for a while

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7Hero

It's back to the teams mate... Preferred visitors. Would have been funny to put

The visitors

Just the once though

---

Thanks for that. :aok: I get over twice a year but December/January is the only time I get to see the cabbage home and away. I keep hoping they`ll introduce summer football in June/July so I can see some games then too.

Still, December/January are good months to be back, because they cram the games in a wee bit, but I couldn`t remember thinking back what the scoreboard said when I was there last year. I agree it would have been funny...:greengrin but they should put The Rangers anyway...It`s not inaccurate. Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lyonhibs

Aside from the legal/paperwork fiddly bits, anyone who insists on calling Rangers "The Rangers 2012" or similar is having a mare of a facepalm moment IMO.

It may be technically correct, but they still play at Ibrox, in blue, still have the same horrid bigoted fans and I imagine still have an Ibrox Trophy Room stuffed to the rafters.

They're Rangers - do we now sing "We hate The Glasgow Rangers................. " etc? Does anyone really say, in the pub, who are "The" Rangers playing this weekend?

Move on and continue to despise them as much as we always have.

---

I have been calling them Sevco since 2012 and will continue to do so.

On the odd occasion that I call them Rangers, I quickly correct myself.

Regardless of the legal detail it's a fact that singing

You were always hated
Then you were liquidated
You're not rangers anymore

winds them up big time. It'll be even sweeter if we're 3 up at half time again next time we get to taunt them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trig

I have been calling them Sevco since 2012 and will continue to do so.

On the odd occasion that I call them Rangers, I quickly correct myself.

---

you mean "misdirect"?

:cb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

Various reasons but relations have been bad between the clubs since 2007 or so and getting worse.

United losing the LC final to Rangers on penalties where Thompson felt his team had been cheated was particularly sore.

A couple of years before Rangers had smashed United 7-1 at Hampden in a semi final, Thompson was angry and unpleasantly offensive in the Hospitality areas at Hampden that night ( I was there with a work party).

The Mike McCurry refereed game at Ibrox that Rangers won 3-2 where Dundee United nearly walked off. It is without doubt the most biased piece of refereeing I have ever seen in an SPL game. It was so bad I felt sorry for Craig Levein the United manager who was having a breakdown at the side of the pitch.

Then there was the general unpleasantness between the clubs over abandoned matches due to weather conditions. After a game was abandoned at half time Thompson refused to issue vouchers to the travelling Rangers fans and basically said "screw the lot of you, you can pay full price in the rearranged game". Rangers howled in protest at this but the SFA said there was nothing they can do.

United were one of the first clubs to vote to boot Rangers out the league in 2012. Their vote was issued with glee rather than the resigned sigh most of the other clubs announced theirs with and the between sobs manner that Celtic issued theirs.

These two clubs (irrespective of what you view Rangers status as) really despise each other. The urban rumour I've heard is that delegates from United and Rangers will not talk to each other at SFA/SPFL meetings. But it has to be said Stephen Thompson is something of a **** stirrer because if he really did actually view Rangers as a new club rather than the old enemy, he wouldn't use the language he does about them because it's all fuelled by the perceived injustices that predate the Rangers meltdown.

---

:thumbsup: Many thanks indeed. Missed most of that in real time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southsider

Newco have already said the new Ashley cash will not last long. They are paying players with no resale value, Daly, Shiels Miller, Boyd etc 4-5k per week. Gates way down so they are loosing cash hand over fist. Another fine mess.

---

:agree:
For me the serious question is
What does the next three months hold for them ? If what we hear/read is correct they have funding problems as well as cash flow trouble.
Once again a business living above their means ! Sounds familiar doesn't it :greengrin
I know of a maintenance firm ( 40 odd employees) in the area whose general manger won't acce[t work from them for fear of administration by May !!!!! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

Various reasons but relations have been bad between the clubs since 2007 or so and getting worse.

United losing the LC final to Rangers on penalties where Thompson felt his team had been cheated was particularly sore.

A couple of years before Rangers had smashed United 7-1 at Hampden in a semi final, Thompson was angry and unpleasantly offensive in the Hospitality areas at Hampden that night ( I was there with a work party).

The Mike McCurry refereed game at Ibrox that Rangers won 3-2 where Dundee United nearly walked off. It is without doubt the most biased piece of refereeing I have ever seen in an SPL game. It was so bad I felt sorry for Craig Levein the United manager who was having a breakdown at the side of the pitch.

Then there was the general unpleasantness between the clubs over abandoned matches due to weather conditions. After a game was abandoned at half time Thompson refused to issue vouchers to the travelling Rangers fans and basically said "screw the lot of you, you can pay full price in the rearranged game". Rangers howled in protest at this but the SFA said there was nothing they can do.

United were one of the first clubs to vote to boot Rangers out the league in 2012. Their vote was issued with glee rather than the resigned sigh most of the other clubs announced theirs with and the between sobs manner that Celtic issued theirs.

These two clubs (irrespective of what you view Rangers status as) really despise each other. The urban rumour I've heard is that delegates from United and Rangers will not talk to each other at SFA/SPFL meetings. But it has to be said Stephen Thompson is something of a **** stirrer because if he really did actually view Rangers as a new club rather than the old enemy, he wouldn't use the language he does about them because it's all fuelled by the perceived injustices that predate the Rangers meltdown.

---

Strictly speaking, Rangers booted themselves out the league (and existence) when they were liquidated and went out of business. The newco wasn't in any league until they were granted a place in the 4th tier, despite not having the required 3 years accounts. Apologies for nit-picking your post to make a point!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Chances are that this would be covered by TUPE rules. The new company would take on all the rights and responsibilities of the former employers.

If that's the case, I reckon TRFC have the law on their side.

---

Might that not be in respect of employment rights and responsibilities of the employer to the previous contract of employment and not in respect of rights in respect of a prospective third party that is associated with there having been such a contract and not from the contract itself? TUPE is there to protect the rights of the employee being transferred from one employer to another and is not a simple step in the old employers shoes scenario.

or am I indulging in wishful thinking:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malcolm

Might that not be in respect of employment rights and responsibilities of the employer to the previous contract of employment and not in respect of rights in respect of a prospective third party that is associated with there having been such a contract and not from the contract itself? TUPE is there to protect the rights of the employee being transferred from one employer to another and is not a simple step in the old employers shoes scenario.

or am I indulging in wishful thinking:greengrin

---

You might be right. I'm not an employment lawyer, but I understood that the "step into the shoes" analogy was, by and large, correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weststandwanab

And the rest, those figures are nowhere near correct - it is worse for them.

---

Is it the big L? Maybe a big double L? Christ, here we go again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trig

I have been calling them Sevco since 2012 and will continue to do so.

On the odd occasion that I call them Rangers, I quickly correct myself.

---

That makes you decidedly more pedantic than me then :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

...but that contract was transferred to the new company. I am no expert in TUPE, but I reckon that the rights and responsibilities of that contract would be transferred as well.

---

If I remember correctly, contracts were not being transferred. The players were all asked to take pay cuts so new contracts would be signed with the "new" club. Would that not rule TUPE out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trig

I have been calling them Sevco since 2012 and will continue to do so.

On the odd occasion that I call them Rangers, I quickly correct myself.

---

But do you consider them Sevco-5088 or Sevco-Scotland?


That makes a whole lot of difference, you know


:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

If I remember correctly, contracts were not being transferred. The players were all asked to take pay cuts so new contracts would be signed with the "new" club. Would that not rule TUPE out?

---

They couldn't actually force the players to take pay cuts or sign new contracts. That's actually the main thrust of the TUPE rules, to protect the rights of the employee and to maintain the conditions they had under the previous owners.

Chuckie Green got a bit confused about that, thinking the TUPE laws were there for his benefit. He was wrong.

The only pay cuts I remember were voluntary reductions agreed by the players before the previous entity went bust and the new Company took over. That was a temporary measure to get Rangers to the end of the season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

If I remember correctly, contracts were not being transferred. The players were all asked to take pay cuts so new contracts would be signed with the "new" club. Would that not rule TUPE out?

---

No. Rangers was a straight forward TUPE between two operating companies, the fact that one was in Administration at the time is neither here nor there. Under TUPE an individual does not have to transfer and has the right to say, "not for me, I'm leaving", which is what Allan McGregor and Steven Whittaker amongst others did. Players like Lee McCulloch and Lee Wallace agreed to TUPE and initially this would have been at their existing pre-Admin contract rates.