Monthly Archives: July 2012

Can “Rangers” Play as “Rangers”? What’s In a Name?

Various suggestions have been flying about teh Internetz regarding the possibility that Sevco Scotland Ltd’s team ought not be allowed to play under the name of Rangers.

This is suggested to arise from differing sources.

Some say that calling the team “Rangers” will make it a “phoenix company” and as such it would be illegal to use that name.

Others hint that HMRC would prevent the use of the old team name.

It is regularly voiced that HMRC did this with Farsley Celtic, an English non-league team which, as the story would have it, was blocked from reforming under the name Celtic.

In fact the ownership of the club had planned a name change prior to insolvency, and there was no HMRC involvement in the new name being chosen as Farsley AFC. This has become an urban myth which, like all such stories, has a life far beyond reality.

There are also rumours that calling the team “Rangers” would allow creditors of the Rangers Football Club PLC (RFC PLC) to pursue Sevco Scotland Ltd for payment of debts. Continue reading


Filed under Football, Insolvency Act 1986, Rangers, SFA

Rangers-itis – Is It Catching? A Guest Post by Bill

So what is it with Rangers and Ibrox that affects seemingly normal human beings with dementia which should only appear late in life? Much has been made recently about the “toxicity” of Rangers FC but no one would ever have imagined that it might not just be financial but physical as well.

It has long been known that members of the media have been infected by a strain of Creutzfeld-Jakob disease caught by the ingurgitation of vast quantities of succulent lamb but until now it was never suspected that there might be other ways for the disease to be caught.

In the past few months it has come to light that a number of ex-players were unfortunately infected by use of the drug EBT which had been refined using unsafe methods of production. There is some hope that these patients may be cured in the future but their treatment is likely to prove extremely expensive and may involve “hospitalisation” at some time. Continue reading


Filed under Football, Guest Posts, Humour, Press, Rangers

Is A Lawsuit Always Needed When Something Goes Wrong? – Guest Post by Sandy Atwood

Over the past decade, doctors have becoming increasingly vulnerable to lawsuits being brought against them by their patients. It appears that some patients are actively seeking reasons to sue their medical practitioners to generate some spare cash. In its 2012 annual report, the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) reported that 9,143 clinical claims were raised against NHS Trusts during 2011-12, together with 4,618 non-clinical claims. Of the 14,171 claims closed by the NHSLA in 2011-12, 37% were resolved without payment of damages to the claimant. Clearly, a high number of claims are reaching court that could have been settled without a lawsuit being raised.

There are several reasons why patients may suddenly initiate court action, despite the medical staff performing their jobs efficiently and effectively. One of the main causes of spurious claims is the unrealistic expectations of the patient. Unrealistic expectations can persist even when a doctor or surgeon has clearly laid out the risks and possible pitfalls of treatment. Some patients only hear the parts of the preoperative information that they want to hear. A good example of this is a case that was brought against a specialist orthopaedic surgeon in 2003. The surgeon had successfully repaired damage to the patient’s clavicle. However, prior to the operation, he had stressed the possibility that the surgery could lead to scarring and may not be 100% successful. Five years after the initial surgery, the patient raised a claim against the surgeon. While the outcome of the operation fell within the possible options he had outlined, the patient had become unhappy with the results. However, a psychiatric report linked the patient’s unhappiness due to other life events, rather than the outcome of the surgery. The claim was defended and ultimately dropped by the claimant.

Patients occasionally raise claims against their doctors simply because the treatment they have experienced was uncomfortable or unpleasant. In a case that was successfully defended by MPS, the world’s leading mutual medical defence organisation, the family of a toddler sued because she was subjected to an examination that involved torchlight being shone in to her eye. They also alleged that the ophthalmologist had failed to operate quickly enough, with the operation delayed for 22 hours until a course of antibiotics could be administered. Expert opinion supported the course of treatment administered and stated that the sight in the child’s eye had been saved by the ophthalmologist’s actions. The claimants failed to attend at court and the case was dismissed.

Of course, some claims arise because something has gone wrong with a medical procedure. However, simply because a patient experiences complications, it does not automatically follow that the doctor was negligent, no matter how serious the consequences. Following an operation to address his severe back pain, a patient experienced complications, including internal bleeding, septicaemia and multiple organ failure. He subsequently died and the family raised a claim against the surgeon. However, the court found in favour of the surgeon because his technique was exemplary and there was no evidence of negligence.

Although modern medicine has reduced the risk of treatment and surgery, they are not risk-free. However, doctors must be up-front and honest with patients to ensure the risks of a particular treatment are fully understood if they want to avoid unnecessary claims.

Author Bio:

Guest post contributed by Sandy Atwood, on behalf of Sandy studies education law and in her spare time, she takes an interest in and writes about the various lawsuits.


Filed under Damages Claims, Guest Posts

The Brechin Ultimatum – Did SFA Botch Rangers FC’s “Membership” – Are Any RFC Players Registered?

In which I look at the joint SFA/SFL/SPL/Sevco statement.

Who owns Rangers Football Club right now? Not Sevco Scotland according to the statement.

Plus why Brechin have three chances to defeat Rangers FC, one on the pitch and two off it.

Why it seems to me that the SFA have granted Sevco Scotland Ltd a membership which does not exist and why possibly there are simply no players of Rangers FC registered to play tomorrow. Continue reading


Filed under Football, Football Governance, Rangers, SFA, SFL, SPL

Sevco and Rangers and “Conditional” SFA Membership – Me at Scotzine

I note that Sevco Scotland Ltd have been given “conditional membership” of the SFA.

Does that actually exist?

I have posted some quick thoughts over at Scotzine, which you can reach here.

I am writing a piece which will make three or four posts (at least) looking in depth at the SFA/SFL/SPL/Sevco joint statement, and the various comments emanating from Ibrox.

They will go up as they get done.


Filed under Football Governance, Me at Scotzine, Rangers, SFA