Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[greenginger]

JohnJames blogging again.


https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/


Gives a pretty comprehensive description of how Rangers player's registration have been compromised by the omission of EBT details and why the SFA should find them improperly registered.

Exactly the same for the Yam Skacel.

[portycabbage]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Rangers are the member club. Their owner is TRFC.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I was about to reply with this before you changed the last bit from RIFC to TRFC!-

"In December 2012, a company called Rangers International Plc was formed and listed on the London stock exchange and became the holding company for the The Rangers Football Club Ltd which, in turn, owns the football club."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_of_Rangers_F.C.

So the club is the member, who is in turn owned by The Rangers FC, which is in turn owned by RIFC, which is owned by various shareholders and holding companies. Although I'm now confused as to what shares in a football club are, given there might be 2 or 3 holding companies in between! There also seems to be an extra layer of holding company post liquidation - "oldco" then v RIFC/TRFC now.

I know this was mentioned recently, but wasn't it "oldco rangers" who had the (non-transferable) membership, which was why the vote on whether to allow them to join the league happened? If the club was continuous and is the member, then how did it need to re-apply?

[Dan Sarf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not as if Lord Coe, and the companies associated with him and the Olympic venture have anything to hide?

Good point *cough cough*

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I was about to reply with this before you changed the last bit from RIFC to TRFC!-

"In December 2012, a company called Rangers International Plc was formed and listed on the London stock exchange and became the holding company for the The Rangers Football Club Ltd which, in turn, owns the football club."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_of_Rangers_F.C.

So the club is the member, who is in turn owned by The Rangers FC, which is in turn owned by RIFC, which is owned by various shareholders and holding companies. Although I'm now confused as to what shares in a football club are, given there might be 2 or 3 holding companies in between! There also seems to be an extra layer of holding company post liquidation - "oldco" then v RIFC/TRFC now.

I know this was mentioned recently, but wasn't it "oldco rangers" who had the (non-transferable) membership, which was why the vote on whether to allow them to join the league happened? If the club was continuous and is the member, then how did it need to re-apply?

Oldco had the share in the SPL. The SPL had shares rather than membership.

When Oldco 's assets were sold to Sevco, one of those assets was that share. So Sevco had a vote on whether Rangers, the club, were to be allowed to continue in the SPL. They lost the vote, and their share was transferred to Dundee.








Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And Sevco remain skint. Still no sign of over investment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And, looking at the fixtures they don't have a home game before their November wages day.

[portycabbage]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Oldco had the share in the SPL. The SPL had shares rather than membership.

When Oldco 's assets were sold to Sevco, one of those assets was that share. So Sevco had a vote on whether Rangers, the club, were to be allowed to continue in the SPL. They lost the vote, and their share was transferred to Dundee.








Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

But the vote was because of the application to transfer membership of the spl from oldco to sevco, rather than for "the club" to have continuous membership.

"registrations with the Scottish FA and SPL were terminated"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18707522

"SPL chairmen met at Hampden to vote on the new club's application to replace the old Rangers in the top flight."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18703183

"An application to transfer the Scottish Premier League membership from the 'oldco' to the 'newco' was rejected on a 10–1 vote^"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owners...rent_ownership

[Ozyhibby]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Now every club in Scotland is going to have to pay for the SFA to defend Sevco against Mike Ashley's very expensive lawyers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But the vote was because of the application to transfer membership of the spl from oldco to sevco, rather than for "the club" to have continuous membership.

"registrations with the Scottish FA and SPL were terminated"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18707522

"SPL chairmen met at Hampden to vote on the new club's application to replace the old Rangers in the top flight."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18703183

"An application to transfer the Scottish Premier League membership from the 'oldco' to the 'newco' was rejected on a 10–1 vote^"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owners...rent_ownership

They still legally owned a share in the company known as the SPL. As a result of that, they had a right to a vote on the membership issue. It was as a result of that vote that the share was transferred to Dundee.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I cut and pasted this from a Celtic website as it provides a handy timeline of court dates for the next month. I think Scotland is going to need more judges at this rate.
------
Sports Direct v the SFA is just the latest event that seems certain to send Sevco into administration with turkeys more likely to celebrate Boxing Day in good health. December 12th.

Tomorrow Charles Green will be at the Court of Session to get the club to pay his fees for the Ibrox Fraud Case relating to the £5.5m transfer of assets in 2012.

On November 27 the company will attempt to stage an AGM with one of the proposals being to deny voting rights to anyone (Mr Ashley) with a stake in another football club.

December 2 is the final date for BDO to appeal against the verdict in the Big Tax Case, Sevco issued a statement on Monday asking everyone to move on.

On December 9 Mr Ashley will attempt to get Mr King, who was described as a glib and shameless liar by a South African judge, jailed for breaching a court order preventing him from discussing the deal between Sevco and Sports Direct.
---------


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I cut and pasted this from a Celtic website as it provides a handy timeline of court dates for the next month. I think Scotland is going to need more judges at this rate.
------
Sports Direct v the SFA is just the latest event that seems certain to send Sevco into administration with turkeys more likely to celebrate Boxing Day in good health. December 12th.

Tomorrow Charles Green will be at the Court of Session to get the club to pay his fees for the Ibrox Fraud Case relating to the £5.5m transfer of assets in 2012.

On November 27 the company will attempt to stage an AGM with one of the proposals being to deny voting rights to anyone (Mr Ashley) with a stake in another football club.

December 2 is the final date for BDO to appeal against the verdict in the Big Tax Case, Sevco issued a statement on Monday asking everyone to move on.

On December 9 Mr Ashley will attempt to get Mr King, who was described as a glib and shameless liar by a South African judge, jailed for breaching a court order preventing him from discussing the deal between Sevco and Sports Direct.
---------


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks Ozy.

As the keeper of the diary, it's your job to keep us reminded on a daily basis. Court reports would also be handy. Expenses will not be paid.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Oldco had the share in the SPL. The SPL had shares rather than membership.

When Oldco 's assets were sold to Sevco, one of those assets was that share. So Sevco had a vote on whether Rangers, the club, were to be allowed to continue in the SPL. They lost the vote, and their share was transferred to Dundee.








Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

No, that's not right. The original Rangers represented by Duff & Duffer got to vote. Sevco never got their hands on the SPL share.

They (Sevco) also got a temporary membership of the SFA before the original Rangers membership was transferred to them. If it were one club, how could it have 2 simultaneous memberships?

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thanks Ozy.

As the keeper of the diary, it's your job to keep us reminded on a daily basis. Court reports would also be handy. Expenses will not be paid.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Nothing shall be missed, I have psycho Celtic fans reporting to me on every aspect of this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ACLeith]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thanks Ozy.

As the keeper of the diary, it's your job to keep us reminded on a daily basis. Court reports would also be handy. Expenses will not be paid.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

And Ozy, don't even think of setting up an EBT

[Ozyhibby]

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...orts-1-3944848

For those that won't read the Sun.
I really hope the SFA have a way of passing the cost of this onto Sevco otherwise it's going to cost Hibs money we can little afford right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrSmith]

Pretty clear now the term "sporting integrity" does not describe Scottish football at this time, if it ever did? 😕

Need a new broom!

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No, that's not right. The original Rangers represented by Duff & Duffer got to vote. Sevco never got their hands on the SPL share.

They (Sevco) also got a temporary membership of the SFA before the original Rangers membership was transferred to them. If it were one club, how could it have 2 simultaneous memberships?

If the vote was after liquidation, it couldn't have been D&D. They were out of office by then. The only scenario I could see that happening would be if Sevco had authorised them to appear on their behalf. Thinking aloud, that may be part of the conspiracy case.

If the vote was pre-liquidation, it would have been them.

The share was part of the asset sale. Somewhere online, there will be the relevant document. ScotsLawThoughts say this:-

He has paid a total of £5.5 million. Therefore he has acquired everything else for £750,000:-

The Player Contracts – the contracts of employment of those employees of the Company who are professional football players registered with the SFA;

The SFA Membership;

The Company‘s share in the SPL;

The Goodwill and intellectual property rights – the goodwill relating to the business of a professional football club carried on by the Company and the exclusive right to use the name “The Rangers Football Club”;

Stock, plant and equipment and cash at bank;

Amounts owed to the Company (other than the Player Transfer Fees).

[hibs0666]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If the vote was after liquidation, it couldn't have been D&D. They were out of office by then. The only scenario I could see that happening would be if Sevco had authorised them to appear on their behalf. Thinking aloud, that may be part of the conspiracy case.

If the vote was pre-liquidation, it would have been them.

The share was part of the asset sale. Somewhere online, there will be the relevant document. ScotsLawThoughts say this:-

He has paid a total of £5.5 million. Therefore he has acquired everything else for £750,000:-

The Player Contracts – the contracts of employment of those employees of the Company who are professional football players registered with the SFA;

The SFA Membership;

The Company‘s share in the SPL;

The Goodwill and intellectual property rights – the goodwill relating to the business of a professional football club carried on by the Company and the exclusive right to use the name “The Rangers Football Club”;

Stock, plant and equipment and cash at bank;

Amounts owed to the Company (other than the Player Transfer Fees).

Don't forget that Sevco also bought the 'History'.

[Mikey09]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Now every club in Scotland is going to have to pay for the SFA to defend Sevco against Mike Ashley's very expensive lawyers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The SFA are run by a bunch of fan dans and if Ashley goes through with this then I hope they are made a complete tit of in court. Passing King as fit and proper was the biggest farce of there's to date!

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If the vote was after liquidation, it couldn't have been D&D. They were out of office by then. The only scenario I could see that happening would be if Sevco had authorised them to appear on their behalf. Thinking aloud, that may be part of the conspiracy case.

If the vote was pre-liquidation, it would have been them.

The share was part of the asset sale. Somewhere online, there will be the relevant document. ScotsLawThoughts say this:-

He has paid a total of £5.5 million. Therefore he has acquired everything else for £750,000:-

The Player Contracts – the contracts of employment of those employees of the Company who are professional football players registered with the SFA;

The SFA Membership;

The Company‘s share in the SPL;

The Goodwill and intellectual property rights – the goodwill relating to the business of a professional football club carried on by the Company and the exclusive right to use the name “The Rangers Football Club”;

Stock, plant and equipment and cash at bank;

Amounts owed to the Company (other than the Player Transfer Fees).

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/106806-rangers-newco-vote-the-spl-powerbrokers-in-their-own-words/

The 12 Scottish Premier League member clubs will meet on July 4 to decide whether to admit a new company to the league.

The newco, currently known as Sevco 5088 but which plans to trade as The Rangers Football Club, will seek to transfer the share of Rangers FC to itself in order to compete in the SPL next season.

The Rangers Football Club PLC, which remains in administration ahead of a liquidation process while the newco is set up by businessman Charles Green, will get a vote through its existing share. This will be cast by the administrators, Duff and Phelps.

[Jim44]

The recent statement by Sevco says that a line should now be drawn under the saga and that all clubs should bond together in a concerted attempt to further the interests of Scottish football. How do they reconcile this with their supporters' open declaration of war against every club in Scotland which stood up against them over the past few years? Didn't they openly vow to destroy Scottish football on their return to the top flight?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/106806-rangers-newco-vote-the-spl-powerbrokers-in-their-own-words/

So, according to that, the vote was whilst it was in administration. If that's the case, D&D were entitled to vote on the basis that they held the share (not the "membership") in the SPL.

The share allowed them to vote on membership. The 2 are different things.

[Weststandwanab]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No, that's not right. The original Rangers represented by Duff & Duffer got to vote. Sevco never got their hands on the SPL share.

They (Sevco) also got a temporary membership of the SFA before the original Rangers membership was transferred to them. If it were one club, how could it have 2 simultaneous memberships?

That is what a lot of people, and all Sevconians, forget !

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...orts-1-3944848

For those that won't read the Sun.
I really hope the SFA have a way of passing the cost of this onto Sevco otherwise it's going to cost Hibs money we can little afford right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or the SFA could chose no to defend the action.

Or wait until Admin2 happens - Green in Court tomorrow !

[hibs0666]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The recent statement by Sevco says that a line should now be drawn under the saga and that all clubs should bond together in a concerted attempt to further the interests of Scottish football. How do they reconcile this with their supporters' open declaration of war against every club in Scotland which stood up against them over the past few years? Didn't they openly vow to destroy Scottish football on their return to the top flight?

There is an important point in here that we should not overlook - Scottish football is a basket case and is probably only a couple of runds up from the Maidstone United's of this world.

What proportion of effort do we want to spend kicking **** out of one another - and making the situation even worse - versus working together to try and get this shambles of a sport on a decent footing?

Right now it looks like 100% on the former and 0% on the latter.

[Jim44]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There is an important point in here that we should not overlook - Scottish football is a basket case and is probably only a couple of runds up from the Maidstone United's of this world.

What proportion of effort do we want to spend kicking **** out of one another - and making the situation even worse - versus working together to try and get this shambles of a sport on a decent footing?

Right now it looks like 100% on the former and 0% on the latter.

Would that be the decent footing of a return to Old Firm monopoly in a set up they have no desire to be in and would drop like a hot potato if the English Leagues were stupid enough to adopt them?

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So, according to that, the vote was whilst it was in administration. If that's the case, D&D were entitled to vote on the basis that they held the share (not the "membership") in the SPL.

The share allowed them to vote on membership. The 2 are different things.

Above I was referring to SFA membership, not the SPL share. For a very brief period, Sevco were given a temporary membership of the SFA while the old Rangers was still a member.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...continues.html

[hibs0666]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Would that be the decent footing of a return to Old Firm monopoly in a set up they have no desire to be in and would drop like a hot potato if the English Leagues were stupid enough to adopt them?

Fair point, and that can become part of the dialogue for improving the Scottish game. It ain't going to get addressed if we continue on this path into the abyss.

[GreenOnions]

I think the point re the eligibility of players who received EBT payments is a strong one and does imply IMHO that all games in which they were involved should be retrospectively marked as a 3-0 defeat. I don't think cups won during this period by RFC should be awarded to other teams though - they would just have to be marked as having no winner. It's impossible to say whether or not the losing finalists would have won the cup instead of Rangers because a team RFC knocked out in an earlier round whilst RFC fielded an ineligible player could have gone on to win the cup if a 3-0 win against RFC is assumed. League championships are a different matter though as all results involving RFC fielding ineligible players could be amended and the overall result calculated.

Another main point the authorities need to take into account is that of precedent - both in the sense of taking into account historic examples of action taken where ineligible players have been fielded and of how any action they take now will set a precedent for the future should it be confirmed that players were ineligible.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Above I was referring to SFA membership, not the SPL share. For a very brief period, Sevco were given a temporary membership of the SFA while the old Rangers was still a member.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...continues.html

Okay, I get you. So many memberships, so many shares, so many Rangers.

The SPL stuff I can follow, and understand the process. The SFA stuff, though, is a dark place.... which would be so much lighter if the 5 Way Agreement was allowed out into the public domain.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There is an important point in here that we should not overlook - Scottish football is a basket case and is probably only a couple of runds up from the Maidstone United's of this world.

What proportion of effort do we want to spend kicking **** out of one another - and making the situation even worse - versus working together to try and get this shambles of a sport on a decent footing?

Right now it looks like 100% on the former and 0% on the latter.

If the customer base believes the game is rigged, then there can be no decent footing. Bending over to appease the Huns destroys everyone else's confidence that there is a sport in there somewhere worth the bother of turning up. Better to clean up the Augean stables now, void all the competitions the Huns cheated in and then we can move on.