I had partly written the post below but had laid it aside to do other things. Therefore yesterday’s news, which leads the post now, encouraged me to tidy it up and finish it off. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that Mr Green or his associates are doing anything underhand or inappropriate. However, the stance seems to re-emphasise the Schrodinger’s Cat like qualities of the Rangers Football Club “entity”.
I wonder about the issue of the corporate entity v club idea, and suggest a scenario for Rangers fans to consider in the event that they choose to invest in the “corporate entity”.
Sky News’ City Editor reported the following yesterday:-
The new owner of Rangers Football Club is close to appointing advisers to kick off a swift return to the London stock market.
I understand that the consortium led by Charles Green, which took control of the Scottish outfit in a cut-price £5.5m deal to acquire its assets in June, is poised to hire Cenkos Securities, the broking firm, to handle the flotation. Cenkos is one of a number of brokers which have held talks with Mr Green’s consortium in recent weeks, and it remains possible that another firm will be appointed if an agreement cannot be reached, according to insiders.
The listing is likely to see the newly-reconstituted Rangers … listed on the junior AIM market before the end of the year. People close to the situation said that it could seek to raise as much as £20m, part of which is likely to be used to fund the acquisitions of new players.
Details of how supporters and investors will be able to acquire shares in the company, called The Rangers Football Club, will not be available for several weeks, insiders say.
Since the deal Mr Green, a former chief executive of Sheffield United, has struck a merchandising joint venture with Mike Ashley, the tycoon who owns Newcastle United and who may acquire a stake in Rangers as part of a stock market listing.
Mr Green believes that despite its recent travails, Rangers has considerable international potential as a sporting and leisure brand.
If Rangers successfully floats with a valuation of around £30m, that could augur well for the prospective valuation of the club’s ‘Old Firm’ rivals, Celtic, which is also listed on AIM.
The club declined to comment.
————————————–
However, the club did comment later yesterday.
“The Rangers Football Club Limited confirmed today the appointment of Cenkos Securities to assist with plans to raise additional capital for the Club.
Chief Executive Charles Green said: “From the day the consortium I led became owners of Rangers we have repeatedly stated our intention to raise additional capital for the Club and would explore all avenues, which may or may not include a stock market listing.
“We are pleased to announce that we have now appointed Cenkos Securities to assist with our plans. We are still in the preliminary stages of this process and will make further announcements once the Club has been able to consider its plans in further detail.”
————————————–
RANGERS chief executive Charles Green revealed last night he hoped to unveil his plans to float the club on the stock market “in the next couple of weeks”.
He expressed confidence that, in spite of delays during the summer in securing Scottish Football Association membership for the newco Rangers, the flotation would be “done before the end of this year”. If his plans for a swift flotation come to fruition, Rangers will join the stock market as a Scottish Third Division club.
Mr Green told The Herald: “We have obviously lost a few weeks because, until we got admitted to the [Scottish] FA and got admitted to the league, we wouldn’t have been sure what we were floating on the stock market.
“We are now members of both. We are hoping to announce what our plans [are] in the next couple of weeks, which are on track for it being done before the end of this year.” Mr Green voiced his flotation hopes as he unveiled a major merchandising joint venture with billionaire Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct retail chain.
As he says he was not sure what he was going to be floating on the market. As he says, “we are now members of both (SFL and SFA)”.
Therefore what he is looking to do is to float Rangers Football Club, selling shares to the fans who will be encouraged to take ownership of their football team. In addition, he plans to limit the largest shareholdings, so that one man, in the manner of Murray and Whyte, can control the club in the future.
Very laudable.
————————————–
And the Rangers Supporters Trust followed that up with its own statement too.
For the past two months the board of the RST, in partnership with other members of the Rangers Family, have been working on a Community Share Scheme.
The Community Share Scheme is designed to bring about a significant stake in Rangers FC by way of investing in the club as a collective and helping to secure the club’s long-term future.
Because of the size of the task involved, we sought out help from our members and the wider Rangers support. We were delighted by the response and the calibre of individuals that have got involved.
Supporters Direct, the governing body for supporters trusts in the UK, have also supported the process through their network of resources.
Ian Davidson MP’s involvement to date has been to, very helpfully, broker a meeting with the club.
Paul Goodwin (SD), Ian Davidson MP and Chris Graham (Chris has been helping to co-ordinate the project) all attended a meeting with Mr Green and Mr Stockbridge recently to discuss the concepts of fan investment and involvement in the club. Mr Green and Mr Stockbridge were very receptive to these concepts.
The content of this meeting and previous discussions has been communicated to The Rangers Supporters Assembly and Rangers Supporters Association in order to hopefully achieve widespread backing for the project. The groups will reconvene after consultation.
Despite all the troubles of the past six months, the Rangers Family will hopefully soon have an opportunity to invest in, and have a real say in the future of, the club we all love. The Trust Board will further update members if and when the project is ready to launch.”
The fans will be given their chance to invest in “the club”.
————————————–
I am confused.
The fans are getting the chance to invest in a company formed in May 2012. Repeated arguments have come from Rangers supporters, with which arguments I have some sympathy, that the club and the “corporate entity” which happens to own the club from time to time are two completely different things. Therefore the administration and soon to be liquidation of the company which has been the “operator” (to use a neutral word) of Rangers since 1899 did not affect the continuity of the team, as the company and the club are not synonymous.
As John D C Gow wrote on the Rangers Standard blog after the failure to carry the CVA:-
Liquidation it is then. No CVA, means no more The Rangers FC. The club is dead and you better get used to it. I’m paraphrasing, but this is what we’ve been told to accept.
Yet it’s rubbish.
True, there will be liquidation of the company but the football club will survive. The Rangers FC will continue to be a football team that was founded in 1872 by the ‘Gallant Pioneers’. Nothing except a time machine can change that. In any case, the Rangers club ‘share’ held by the football authorities will probably be transferred over to the new company, thereby guaranteeing the football history remains intact.
Of course, as it turned out, the Rangers club share was not transferred, but that would not persuade Mr Gow that the history remained with the share, I am sure. Nevertheless, fans of the Rangers FC claim that the club is continuing, and can date its history back 140 years. However, all of the debt is left abandoned in the books of oldco. Newco saved the “club” by buying the assets of oldco.
————————————–
On 12 June 2012, the administrators issued a statement as follows:-
Paul Clark, joint administrator, said today: “We have been informed by HMRC they will not support the proposal for a Company Voluntary Arrangement at the meeting of creditors on Thursday, June 14.
“As a result of this decision, the Sale and Purchase Agreement in place with the consortium led by Charles Green will take effect and Rangers Football Club will continue within a new company structure.
“HMRC has taken the view that the public interest will be better served with the liquidation of The Rangers Football Club plc as a corporate entity. The Club will continue to operate as it has always done but within a new company structure.
“The consequence of the rejection of a CVA outcome is that sanctions will be applied to the Club by UEFA and that the Club will not be able to participate in Europe for three years and the new company will need the consent of the other SPL clubs to the transfer of the share in the SPL, in order for Rangers to continue playing in the SPL.
“As we have stated previously, there is a binding contract between ourselves as administrators and Charles Green, who is leading a consortium to acquire the Club.
“As soon as the CVA proposal is formally rejected, Mr Green’s consortium will move towards completion of an acquisition of the business and assets of The Rangers Football Club plc. That transaction will be completed within a few days. The sum payable to creditors will be £5.5 million, most of which has already been paid over to us by the Green consortium.
“We would like to thank the staff and supporters at Rangers for their great determination and professionalism during a very difficult period for the Club. While the Club will continue to face difficulties in the short term, it will survive and continue to play at Ibrox.”
I think I understand what Mr Clark was saying. The club and the company are different things. It just happens that one was inside the other, rather like Russian dolls?
Even though the company was in administration and headed to liquidation, this did not matter because it has a separate identify and existence. Then, Now, Forever, as the slogan puts it.
I looked before at the Scottish football definition of a football club. It does not really extend beyond “a club that plays football”! There is no clear definition to satisfy the proponents of each view.
However UEFA do have a definition, and this is contained within the Financial Fair Play Regulations.
A “Licence applicant” is defined as:-
Legal entity fully and solely responsible for the football team participating in national and international club competitions which applies for a licence.
We then come to “Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence”.
Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant
1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions which either:
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter: registered member); or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football company).
2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.
Finally we have a definition of a football club!
It is
- a legal entity
- fully responsible for a football team
- participating in national and international competitions
- a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league or
- has a contractual relationship with a registered member.
A company is a legal entity. An ethereal “spirit” of a football club is not.
By the UEFA definition therefore Rangers Football Club PLC, now RFC 2012 PLC (oldco) was the legal entity [a company] responsible for a football team [Rangers] participating in national and international competitions and which was a registered member of the SFA.
Oldco was a football club until 14th June at which time it sold all of the assets and business to Sevco. As the August report by the Administrators says:-
The sale of the business and certain assets included the sale of the Company’s right, title and interest in its SPL share and SFA membership. Following the sale of these assets, the sale of Ibrox and Murray Park and the transfer of the Playing Staff to Newco the Company was no longer in a position to meet the criteria for membership of any of the Football Authorities and therefore no longer operates a Football club.
What about “Rangers”, the football team?
It is not a legal entity.
It might be argued that it fulfils the remaining criteria, but it fails to get over the first hurdle. It is not a legal entity.
Now we have the Rangers Football Club Ltd, formerly Sevco Scotland Ltd or newco.
It fulfils the definition above too, at least now, as it is a legal entity responsible for a football team.
However, it was not a member of the SFA until 3rd August. Therefore newco was not a football club within the UEFA definition until then.
The question arising from this definition is how the football team, Rangers, operated by a football club, oldco, can still be the same team now operated by a different club, newco, where there was a hiatus of almost two months during which time there was no “football club” responsible for Rangers!
Article 12(2) helps I think.
- The membership must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years.
- Any alteration to the club’s legal form
- or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs)
- during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence
- to the detriment of the integrity of a competition
- is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.
The Article gives the circumstances where a change in a club means there is a continuation of it for footballing purposes, even though the same changes prevent a licence to play European football being acquired.
Was there an alteration to the club’s form? No, unless administration and liquidation, the latter of course occurring when oldco is no longer a football club, count as an alteration to the club’s form.
Was there an alteration to the company structure? Helpfully UEFA give us some examples of changes to a company structure. They are “changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs”. This list could be described as illustrative, not exhaustive. The only one remotely applicable is the transferring stakeholdings between different clubs. We did not have that here either, as there was no transfer of “stakeholding” and even if there was, it was from a football club (oldco on 14tyh June) to a company which did not become a football club until August.
————————————–
But, let us return to the argument by Rangers fans to the effect that the team, or club, is different from the corporate entity. That the memories and experiences of the fans, and the sight and sound of trophies being lifted and great matches being won by great players is what makes up the essence of the club, not corporate paperwork at Companies House. As I mentioned, I have sympathy to some extent for that view.
There is a problem though, emphasised by the comments further up the page.
Rangers supporters, and others such as Tom English on Twitter, are keen to make the following point. They make much of saying that fans of Celtic (and I should add a great many others too) think that Rangers ceased to exist as a result of the financial shenanigans which are well known. The belief that the history of old Rangers still exists, subject to any disciplinary decision the SPL Independent Committee might make, but the new Rangers has started with a clean slate is ridiculed. The comment is made that, if people think old Rangers no longer exists, why do they want new Rangers punished for what the old did.
That, for now, ignores the fact that newco has, as a condition of entry, accepted responsibility for the sins of oldco.
The people who hold the above view are criticised for apparently holding two diametrically opposed opinions on the same issue simultaneously.
Look though at the argument, as detailed above, that the corporate entity and the club are not the same.
Now look at Mr Green drumming up business for his share issue. As he said, “until we got admitted to the [Scottish] FA and got admitted to the league, we wouldn’t have been sure what we were floating on the stock market.” I assume he meant that he did not know if he was floating an SPL, SFL1 or SFL3 team.
If the argument about the separate nature of the club is accepted, then what the fans are being invited to buy into is NOT the club. Instead it is the holding company, or corporate structure, which holds the club, as in the Russian doll example.
The logic of that position, when applied to ownership, is that no one “owns” the club, but the shareholders of the company own the corporate structure containing the club. In this analysis, the suggestion that it is the fans that constitute the club in fact has greater resonance.
Mr Green however is advertising the club for sale.
The RST statement said the plan was, “to bring about a significant stake in Rangers FC by way of investing in the club as a collective and helping to secure the club’s long-term future.”
It added, “Despite all the troubles of the past six months, the Rangers Family will hopefully soon have an opportunity to invest in, and have a real say in the future of, the club we all love.”
So again the sale is of shares in the club, not the corporate structure.
Can’t they just make up their minds?
If Rangers FC is a still existing, and never ending entity, standing apart from the legal make up of the corporate owner, then keen fans and investors can never own anything of the club legally, although they can give money to Mr Green for the privilege of having him run the company.
The “official” Rangers view came from Andrew Dickson on the Rangers website. He used the “Kit-Kat” analogy.
He said, in part, the following:-
Factually, it’s the Rangers supporters who are correct in the debate over whether it is a new club or not. It’s not, even if it is owned by a new company.
That was confirmed when the Light Blues’ assets – the stadium, training ground, car park, staff and players – were transferred from the old business in June. Also moving from one to the other was Gers’ history, thus ensuring it continues seamlessly under the latest parent firm and doesn’t grind to an abrupt halt.
The SFA’s granting of a transfer of membership to the new company – rather than the issuing of a new one entirely – highlights too that the club itself carries on as before.
Last night’s wonderful, vociferous support of 38,160 – mostly Gers fans – will agree. They were there to cheer on the side they’ve always backed, not a new entity yet to win something.
Nowadays, in corporate terms at least, the team you all know and love is called The Rangers Football Club thanks to its parent company’s recent name change from Sevco Scotland Ltd. On a day-to-day basis, and especially when it plays, it is known simply as Rangers, just as Heart of Midlothian plc is known as Hearts, should you require an alternative example.
The team still plays at the home it has occupied for more than 110 years with Ally McCoist carrying on as manager like he has done for the last 13 months or so. It has the same club crest and even the same strip as the one worn in last season’s friendly at Linfield, when Rangers Football Club was owned by The Rangers Football Club plc.
Plain and simple, it is the same club.
A Kit Kat was still a Kit Kat when Rowntree’s was bought over by Nestle and production of the chocolate bar continued. It used the same ingredients and tasted exactly the same, thus nobody talked of it as a new product. In effect, the same thought process applies to the Rangers case. I still enjoy Kit Kats the way I did when I first tasted one as a child and they were made by Rowntree’s.
————————————–
An interesting analogy by Mr Dickson, but flawed, I think.
The Kit Kat is the product. I think Ibrox fans would be upset to see the team they love described as a “product”.
You can buy a Kit Kat. However, no matter how many Kit Kats one buys, Nestle still manufacture them, and if they decide to stop production, or cover them in cheese rather than chocolate, or sell them for twenty pounds each, all the “consumer” can do is refuse to purchase the new version.
Kit Kat Then, Now and Forever only works if Nestle keep the recipe the same and sell it in the same way. The only people who decide that are Nestle because they own the brand.
————————————–
The emphasis by the supporters that Rangers = the club and not the company makes the process of flotation very interesting. If we accept the argument that Rangers Football Club Ltd happens to be the corporate entity within which the club rests just now, that means that the assets and business of the club can be sold, in the same way as the administrators sold them to Sevco.
The problem is as follows. If Mr Green floats the company on the Stock Market, then the eager fans will be buying shares in the company. If the Board of Directors decide that they can make a profit by selling the assets and business to someone else, then the shareholders will still own shares in the corporate entity, but not the club.
————————————–
The following speculation is plausible. What can the fans do to stop it if it transpires?
Let’s imagine we are almost a year on from now. It is August 2013. A successful flotation has taken place. The fans own 49% of the shares, with the majority owned by the financial backers and investors. League reconstruction means that Rangers FC (which I use to refer to the team playing football) is starting off in SPL2. I suggest the following possible scenario.
1 Sevco own the assets and business of Rangers Football Club. (I am using the former name “Sevco” in this illustration to avoid confusion caused by a multiplicity of “Rangers”.)
2 The assets and business include the land at Ibrox and Murray Park.
3 Sevco is majority owned and run by businessmen who are not in the game for the love of football or Rangers, but for profit (which is perfectly legitimate).
4 An astute investor, with a substantial and successful football background, or else a person like Mark Goldberg, dazzled by the prospects of fame, and possibly fortune, decides to buy the team. We will call this person Mr X.
5 Sevco, being smart people, realise that there are many costs involved in running a team, and buying players to satisfy fans’ desire for progression. However, there is a value on owning property, especially where there would be a tied tenant.
6 Sevco sell the “assets and business” of Rangers FC, excluding Ibrox and Murray Park to Mr X. Mr X enters a long term lease with Sevco paying substantial rents. However, Mr X has acquired all of the players, history, goodwill etc of Rangers FC.
7 Sevco sells off the land at Murray Park for development.
8 Especially if the shares issued in the flotation are of a different class, with different rights to dividends, as is the case with Manchester United, the Sevco owners, and Founder Investors, reap the benefits of substantial dividend payments, with greatly reduced costs.
9 Mr X now owns the assets and business of Rangers FC, excluding Ibrox. The Rangers fans who purchased shares in the corporate entity are left owning a share in the company which rents Ibrox to Mr X. They can no longer have a financial interest in Rangers FC.
10 Mr X could then decide, in a year or two, to float his company which acquired the assets and business of Rangers FC. He would sell the shares to the fans as being an overseer of the club who would not sell off the business, and would respect the fans’ ownership.
11 And so the great circle of life turns again…
I am not suggesting that this is the plan. However, if it was, how can the minority shareholders stop it? This would not be an acquisition of the shares in Sevco by Mr X where he would need to achieve consent of the shareholders to sell to him, but sale of the assets and business, which, as we have seen, allows the club to continue, “then, now and forever.”
You might ask why anyone would buy a team and not buy the ground. The reason I mentioned Mark Goldberg is because he did precisely that. He bought Crystal Palace from Ron Noades in the late 1990’s for £25 million. Mr Noades retained ownership of Selhurst Park. Mr Goldberg lost his fortune and was bankrupted.
My question then is this, for any reader, but especially for Rangers supporters who would consider investing their hard-earned cash in shares in “their club”.
What are you buying, if the “heart and soul” of the club can be sold by the “corporate entity”, and there is nothing you can do to stop it?
Posted by Paul McConville
Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville 
any1 that thinks the rangers are oldco is wrong and has a dilutional disorder we all know the diffrence between oldco newco newco was only allowed to keep the establishment happy to clone a club that is the laughing stock of the world due to financial doping and insistance that is the same club is mad company house show new number to old co so it makes it a new club ,the history died but the media are telling the newco other wise ,its going to be intresting to see what the aim make of it all no share issue then admin by xmas am thinking due to the 30mil black hole miller saw then backed heeled no matter what happens its a rocky road and mmaybe not this year but next it will clapse due to current climate money wise ,has any of our newco fans phoned the hit the cross bar and make a million line $1.50 lol
@Mick
From your posts on here, you do appear to be the only one who is actually delusional. You seem obsessed with Rangers coming to an end, unfortunately for you mate, were not going anywhere!!
If Oldco and Newco didn’t hold the same club on their balance sheet then why do you want to take titles from a club that doesn’t exist? (In your head that is….pretty delusional, but lets keep going…)
What on earth is the establishment? (Is this the Spl board for which Celtic had representation and Rangers did not?, not that I am suggesstion that Celtics FD acted inappropriately at anytime) or is this the SFA from which Celtic forced through a host of changes last year to which they stated they were happy with?……(a made up establishment…creeping up the delusional meter, but better yet to come…)
Laughing Stock of the World?? Have you seen the state of Scottish football, the only time the rest of the world used bother to watch was OF games….and now there more interested in watching rangers in div 3 than anything from spl. (Again, a fantasy made up in your head..)
So you in your expert financial analysis have decided that ‘maybe’ not this year, but ‘next’ year because of todays financial climate on an imaginary 30million black hole we’ll be bust….(So were now making up numbers and liquidation….off the scale of delusion now…)
‘There mostly scum in your eyes’…Wow. Delusional meter bell rung, and alarm bells ringing…..
Perhaps, you should calm down, concentrate on Celtic and give up hating Rangers as it’s clearly affecting your ability to think rationaly…..Were here to stay, keeping our history and looking forward to beating Celtic the next time we meet, hopefully in a cup this year 🙂
Andy,
This wouldnt be ‘taking titles from…’, if they were never fairly won under the rules 9it remains an ‘if’).
@andy your delutional you think its ok to swan about after 15 years of cheating ,yous are a laughing stock a good rip tickler Debt? We’re Newco. Titles? We’re Oldco. Punishment? We’re Newco. History? We’re Oldco. EBTs? Newco. SFA Licence? Oldco. #TheRangersWaltz
@andy the whole of scotland wants the licence back yous have broke the deal lol
How did you get on against QoS recently .. never mind celtic
Duplesis, but surely we are talking about LIQUIDATION for rangers fc, and not ADMINISTRATION.
There is a world of difference.
Why has FC Sevcovia no accounts? because they are a NEW club. Yes? No ?
@geddy Lee
In RFC’s case, we are talking about liquidation after administration, and in particular after the transfer of assets and business during administration. That’s exactly the same as Rotherham and Luton, and in principle no different to Crystal Palace and Plymouth..
The newcos in all of the above cases had no accounts either – they were new companies, and so hadn’t traded.
The point though is that demonstrably the club and company can’t be the same thing, since the club can be moved between corporate entities.
The Assets were Sold to Sevco Scotland ltd, who then Changed the Name to The Rangers Football Club ltd.. how does that make them the Same Club..
Because in the other cases I’ve referred to, such a sale from the old company in administration of the business and assets has been regarded as a transfer of the club to the new company.
If still the same, why have Rangers changed their name, even if ever so slightly, and where oh where do the “5 Stars” keep dissapearing to?
According to Der Spiegel, Green has a picture of the Queen in a gers top on the wall behind his desk.
It says “Thankyou for saving MY Club” (oh the irony)LOL. The interviwer realises he is dealing with a fantasist. He also points out “Green has a lot of visions” and then goes on to quote Helmut Schmitt…. ” Anyone who keeps having visions, should see a doctor” LOL Priceless.
@geddy Lee
We haven’t changed our name – the 2 companies might have slightly different names “The Rangers Football Club Plc” v. “The Rangers Football Club Ltd,” but that difference just designates the nature of the corporate vehicle – i.e. a private Ltd company as against a PLC.
In any event, the name of the company running the club has little necessary connection to the name of the club itself. The Club Crystal Palace is run by a company called CPFC Ltd, for example.
I don’t think the retention or otherwise of the 5 stars founds a particularly good argument either way on whether or not we are the same club, but for what it’s worth they haven’t disappeared, they are just on a different part of the jersey (the reason being, I understand, to make this season’s strip closely resemble the 1972 strip for the 40th anniversary.)
I haven’t read the Der Spiegel article, so will have to take your word on its contents.
wrong it Was Rangers Football Club Plc not THE Rangers Football Club Plc
@philip,
I can’t believe I’m getting involved in this argument, but no. it was The Rangers Football Club Plc. You can check that right now on Companies House, to be sure (I just have.) The company number is SC004276, although the name is now RFC 2012 Plc, of course. If you check previous names, you can see the position.
speaking of visions its not only here that people are trying to warn them lets see phils take on the subject
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/emotional-investment/
this article was enspired by the debate pauls created on the aim flotation its a good read and nice to see people doing articles about the blog
http://www.thecelticnetwork.com/2012/09/09/for-the-intellectually-challenged/
First of all the answer to the question “Why has FC Sevconia no accounts” is: because it doesn’t exist.
If you mean The Rangers FC, the answer is almost the same: because it doesn’t exist in legal terms.
If you mean The Rangers FC ltd: because it was incorporated the end of May, so the next accounts are due November 15th 2013
The debate about the existence of Rangers FC is really interesting. Before I enter into it and offer my opinion on this matter (as I see there is noone interested in the matter of the flotation) let me make one thing clear: I am a Celtic fan through and through, I own some shares, a season ticket and travel some thousend miles a year to attend as many games at Parkhead as I can, so my opinion regarding Rangers might be a bit biased 🙂
I think Duplesis (has that name something to do with Cardinal Richelieu: Armand Jean Du Plessis, or am I interpreting to much into it?) has a point in saying the time of the transfer matters, but there is something else to it.
My opinion is: the club is dead but so is Celtic, for example. They died when they became registered companies. So when people speak of these clubs or invest in them, they actually speak of the companies without knowing it.
So what happened to the “clubs”? They became intellectual property rights. For example Celtic plc has the right to field a team under the name Celtic FC, the same goes for The Rangers FC ltd now. Does that mean I can purchase the rights to Celtic FC and have them play as a Paris based team? Yes and No. Yes because I have the intellectual property rights to “the club” and no because this depends on the goodwill of the national federations and the league I want to play in.
Rangers and all the examples of Duplesis have this in common: the goodwill of the authorities.
Another example: Lets have a look at Ireland, especially Cork (Up the Rebels! :D) The holding company of Cork City FC went into examinership (that’s like administration) in 2008. When a group of supporters wanted to keep the club alive their offer was refused. The supporters however got a license to field a club under Cork City FORAS co-op in the first division(gloriously winning it in 2011 with promotion to the premier Division). In 2010 the company went into liquidation and Cork City FORAS purchased the intellectual rights to the name of Cork City FC, therefore Cork City FC still exists with unbroken history.
So, domestically the “existence” of the “club” depends on the authorities and the transfer of the intellectual property rights of the company. (There is a difference in thinking of the club being run by a company or the club name being a brand and therefore an asset, because the first thought is wrong as the club doesn’t possess a thing (no legal entity) it can not be run, it is just an asset)
Why now is the standpoint of the UEFA different? Because UEFA doesn’t care if there is a club or not, if there are people devoted to this club or not. UEFA has to organise their tournaments and see that FIFA rules are followed. The company = club because that means financial stability for UEFA and moreover planning certainty.
You all saw the mess about the license and membership and SPL share which went on for 3 months. With the UEFA rules that can’t happen, as there is no legal entity and are no accounts, there is no club. End of the story UEFA moves on.
to put it in a nutshell I think Rangers lives on and personally I believe there are more important things to think about.
I think that’s a very fair assessment of the position. We’ll not know definitively how UEFA treats RFC until we get back into the SPL and/or Europe, of course. Essentially all the supporters are worried about is how the honours are treated by the authorities, and it remains to be seen how UEFA deal with these.
Duplesis
I have no problem with Ranger’s supporters claiming it’s the same club, but I can’t believe that you will be allowed to retain the titles won by the misuse of EBTs.
Is it only myself who sees a contradiction between all the contumely currently being heaped on David Murray’s head and your desire to hold on to the honours he brought you by financial malpractice.
Ernesider,
thanks for that. The retention of the titles from 2000-2011 following on the EBT investigation is a different question, of course. I’d have to say that I don’t know enough about the facts to form a clear view on what will happen.
i.e. I don’t know what was actually lodged on the players’ behalf by the club, and to what extent that departed from the true position. I also don’t know how what Rangers did compares to what other clubs did.
Charles Green’s statement today throws the cat amongst the pigeons though, and I look forward to discussing the question of whether the SPL truly have jurisdiction over our past titles once I’ve managed to get my head round the issue!
@Duplesis
The award of cups/titles surely must reside within the gift pro-tem of the relevant association – usually for a year – always with the caveat that the discovery of any future wrongdoing could see their withdrawal.
Forgetting EBTs what about the relatively simple matter of an improperly registered or indeed unregistered player. If that came to light surely an association would have the power to act?
And there is the obvious chemical doping scenario which I honestly – in terms of final result – isn’t that fair away from financial doping.
@ecojon,
My initial thoughts are in line with your first paragraph – whether or not the SPL have jurisdiction over Rangers when Rangers are not in the SPL, the SPL would have “jurisdiction” (for want of a better word) over the honours it has previously awarded. It’s going to be an interesting argument though.
Apart from that though, I’m not sure any other penalties imposed by the SPL would be competent against a club which isn’t a member of that league – e.g. I don’t think a fine or an award of compensation could be enforced unless and until the club is back in the SPL.
Duplesis, you claim the club can be moved between corporate entities yet the players, without whom there is no club, only have to move if they want to. Selling OFF the assetts is simply bricks and mortar, nothing else.
Surely the players would not be allowed to rip up their contracts had the club remained in existence.
Even Green admitted liquidation means the end of 100 odd years history, indeed every commentator in print, including the administators warned of the consequences of Liquidation.
There is now a blog consisting of countless quotes, from every conceivable source, warning that rangers as w e know them,would be finished if they went into liquidation. They come not just from rangers laptop loyal, but from GREEN HIMSELF.
What on earth has changed since?
Reminds me of the months building up to Administration. No matter how many warnings, no matter how much info was being published, rangers, especially their fans, refused to acknowledge anything was about to happen. Choosing instead to sneer and snipe at those trying to get them to react.
It was not until the ballifs turned up, and then Craigy Boy put the club into admin, that the wailing and gnashing of teeth down Govan way began.
I assume it will be the same here until the liquidators do their “thing”.
Duplisis,
Correct me if I am wrong, but the club changed it’s name from Rangers FC, to “The Ranger’s FC” . A very slight but very significant change, required I assume because Rangers FC was being liquidated. The changes you refer to are those needed to be to launch a public flotation.
I take your point about the 5 Stars and will shut up about them in the future.
As for the article in Der Seigel, that is indeed what it says, and I found those corkers during a quick scan. Check back in on thiws blog where I will supply a full translation in the next few days. No translation software used by the way. It will be my Kraut Wife doing the editting on my translation. LOL
Geddy,
yes, on that point you are wrong – the club has always been The Rangers Football Club, and indeed the old company name was The Rangers Football Club also. It was simply shortened to Rangers, as it will be again I’m sure.
@Duplesis
Ah but was it the club or a holding or operating company that used to be ‘The Rangers Football Club’?.
I actually thought it used to be Glasgow Rangers?
However Duplesis your contention screws up the: Past/Present/Future cry which presumably now becomes: Past/Present/Past/Present if you see what I mean 🙂
@Michael if you look at the cut of date they have missed a other year of euro football due to dates it will be 4 year or 5 year before they can gian entry ave discussed this in the past not that a think they will rise with out a fight from the lower clubs, but those dates could be well important 3 years down line and skint uefa like all acounnts to be proper not like sfa
True that.
But I for one doubt that if the flotation won’t be a success (and right now it looks like it won’t) we will not have to discuss 3, 4 or 5 years but how it will be able to save Rangers again.
@michael the last share deal got them 1.5mil during the boom were in a double dip recession ,most people are cutting back the west coast is suffering badly and most people would invest but might have other bills to consider its tough time in scotland and football is not a need its a want so these reasons could snooker it ,a cant wait to admin agian they deserve it for the way the showed no remorse div3 was not the plan spl was now the short fall has to be covered its comedy gold from a celtic point of view
@Mícheál
Why does Green need a share float – he doesn’t really need the money if things are as they are as good financially as they are being publicly portrayed.
They don’t need any money to buy players at the moment so it can only be to pay-off existing shareholders I reckon.
because I think if the report is true and they consider a flotation or hire an advisor for it there must be something behind it. It is a seriously odd moment for a flotation, not only because of the ManU failure at the NYSE but because there are certain requirements for a successful flotation.
lets have a wee look at them:
according to Mauer/Schmalhofer and Sigloch/Klimmer, not to forget Teichmann if you want to attract institutional investors you need to have:
– success in the primary business field (4th tier football, not quite the success)
– a powerful brand name (I am generous and give that point to Rangers ;))
– a professional management which stands for financial stability and trustworthiness (highly debatable at this moment)
-a conclusive business strategy, especially regarding the developement of new and not football related business segments
-a viable accounting (now it gets hilarious, doesn’t it)
– crisis-proof non-current assets
and you need to be really well prepared
there are some more points but I thought starting with the 2nd one it got too funny.
Check the points and you will ask yourself why they want to try thisand for the record I don’t think the initial investors want a flotation right now because if they wait a bit and it turns out that Rangers is a success there is more money in a flotation when they play in the SPL.
So from this point of view it doesn’t make sense for me. Next to that I think the expenses are still higher than the income. Income from ticketing is mostly a one time cash flow as there are some 30.000 season ticket holders, I heard? might be wrong, but in anyway a max of 50% of the attendance pay regularly. You might know that the income out of broadcasting contracts makes about 40-50% of the total revenue of a modern football company, so with not playing in the SPL they have a reduced income here as well. Lets see about the costs, fixed costs stay the same as they were in the SPL (Ibrox, Murray park, maintenance, etc.) they cut the costs in player wages by about a half, given that 70% of the revenue of a SPL club is used for player wages (thanks Deloitte for the data) and no additional costs like player transfers or legal costs, if the income didn’t drop by more than 30 – 35% they are operating even.
I have a feeling this is not the case. It is just a feeling. I have to go through the accounts of Rangers of the last 10 years so I might know more about that soon, probably not, because the ones from 2010 were just fairy tales.
So I can be wrong because there is no actual data (thanks to the well known transparency of Mr Green) to support my case.
its all a con the whole deal its just the surface were scratching here what they like in other industrys if this is how the are in sport ?
the reason the players dident tupe over was its a new club simple as that ,they took legal advice from the union and were told its a new club simple as that phoniex is the only academic term a can think of its ilegal but as its rangers no 1 is bothered sad but true
KNOWN FACTS
Would any newco Rangers be banned from playing in European competitions for three years?
Yes. This is a non-negotiable penalty under UEFA rules for clubs which undergo liquidation, and new clubs cannot enter UEFA without three years of accounts.
Would the playing staff be automatically transferred to a newco?
No. Players’s contracts are terminated by the liquidation of the employer. They CAN switch to a newco club which might arise, but they are free agents who can walk away if they choose to. It’s hard to imagine why any would voluntarily move to the newco, given that it would be financially stricken, unable to pay their previous wages (though technically it would be legally obliged to), and offer the players no prospect of European football.
Could a newco Rangers retain its history and honours roll?
On the face of it, absolutely not, even if the SFA wished to allow it. Insolvency law expressly forbids any “phoenix” company* from passing itself off as the old company, and retaining Old Rangers’ league titles and cup wins would plainly appear to be implying that the new and old clubs were in fact one and the same. For the same reason, it could not – despite what both Duff & Phelps and Green are currently claiming – be allowed to compete under the name “Rangers”, although related names such as “Glasgow Rangers” might well be permitted.
Also, as touched on above, treating New Rangers as a continuation of Old Rangers would force the SFA to continue the dual-contracts investigation, and were the club to be found guilty (as seems overwhelmingly likely) the SFA would have little option but to expel New Rangers from the Association. In the meantime, of course, it would also have had to impose whatever penalty the Appellate Tribunal laid down for the disrepute charge, which is likely to be at least a suspension, effectively killing the newco at birth.
* As not-lawyers, the one thing we’re not entirely clear about with regard to the naming of a phoenix company is whether the rules apply if the directors of the new company are completely different to those of the oldco. Anyone better informed than us, feel free to clarify.
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/rangers-liquidation-knowns-and-unknowns/
…
Sorry about the typos people. I still think I can type without looking at the screen to check. LOL.
Incidentally Duplesis, the last thing I personally want to see is your club disappearing. I’m sure everyone agrees, the fans have/will suffer enough to satisfy even the most rabid bhoy.
But as you can imagine, it’s a good laugh as seen from the outside.
As Ally McCoist himself said when Celtic were waiting for “The Bunnet” to check in.. ” I can’t say I’m not enjoying it”.
Tut tut tut . LOL
geddy,
appreciate that – and can quite understand the amusement, to be honest!
the sevconians are taiting our democrecy with bulling the media and threats to any1 that questions them ,this is the main reason a want bulldozers at planet sevco as the dont deserve a second chance simple as that the whole country is sick of it and europe
the brown envolopes are rife still nothing has changed sporting cheats above entegrity why should we all not rob banks now rather than do 8 hours a day as were taught its bad over good in this country and its there for all the world to see half a nation of cheats and thiefs liars and crooks not there on merit taking which is not theres its sick and time will see a end to it
I read this on another website and it seems like a plausible explanation. I am not a legal expert tho, so can anyone please tell me if this could be what is happening:
The 4 Spivs are D&P, Whyte, Green, Ticketus and Close Leasing
The Aims of the Spivs
The aims which hold these Spivs together are as follows
D&P need to exit with a legal asset sale that enables them to get their fees paid with no objection from the court. So their aim is ensuring the asset sale is legal
Green`s consortium need their investment back plus a bit of profit. So their aim is to smooth the route to a fundraising and get out
Ticketus need their money back plus enough profit to make it all worthwhile. So their aim is to continue the ST income stream they agreed with Whyte or be repaid in full by Whyte
Close Leasing need their loan money back plus enough interest to make it all worthwhile. So their aim is to continue the Close Leasing loan they made to RFC or be repaid in full
Whyte needs the cooperation of the others to ensure his floating charge is not invalidated in court. He needs his debt to Ticketus off his back. If he can do this at no cost he is in profit for whatever he gets since he only spent £1.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Trade offs between Spivs
D&P needed a buyer (ie Sevco 5088) or their administration fees were at risk. D&P also needed both Whyte and Close Leasing to sign off on the asset sale as floating charge holders
Green needed Whyte to sign off on the name change. He also needed both Whyte and Close Leasing to sign off on the asset purchase as floating charge holders
Whyte needed Ticketus to agree not to claim RFCG for £27.5m Whyte also needed Close Leasing to agree not to claim RFCG for their loan to RFC(I.A.) Whyte also needed the consent of D&P and Green for the RFCG floating charge to follow the assets and move to Sevco 5088
Close Leasing held the RFC liquidation trump card of being first in line with a floating charge that ranked higher than the one held by RFCG(Whyte). They didn’t need to agree to the asset sale and their objection would have killed it stone dead. So Close could demand full repayment of their loan( or an even better deal) before agreeing that their floating charge would follow the assets to Sevco 5088.
Ticketus needed their ST contract(invalid under Scottish law) to move to an English co or they would get nothing in liquidation and be forced to sue Whyte for their £27.5m debt So they needed their ST contract to move with the assets to Sevco 5088.This kept it alive and under English law was now attached to any Co who played at Ibrox. But they needed the consent of D&P and Green for this to happen
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So everybody needed everybody else to pull together or they were all dead
In theory Whyte could have objected to the sale to Green and fought Close Leasing in court for the assets if no sale had been made and liquidation followed. However HMRC would probably have joined in and prolonged the entire process
In practice although Whyte had most to gain he could achieve a more certain outcome if he surrendered most of his theoretical entitlement in order to secure the cooperation of the others
There was a problem however. Whyte had a floating charge over both Ibrox and Murray Park. While he would be prepared to modify his floating charge he could not risk giving it up entirely. He could only hive off a whole asset so it had to be either Ibrox or Murray Park. He gave up Ibrox
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Where are we now?
Whyte
I suspect Whyte has given up his floating charge to Ibrox in exchange for Sevco accepting a clean floating charge over Murray Park. This is why as of Aug 2012 there is a Whyte floating charge in the title deeds for Murray Park but not for Ibrox
,,,,,,,,,,
Ticketus and Close Leasing
I suspect Sevco 5088 now carry the debts due to Ticketus and Close Leasing and will recover them from Sevco Scotland as the price of “selling” Ibrox The quantum of these debts would be subject to negotiation but will be in the range £30m to £45m
Meaning
Sevco 5088 owe “£xm” to Ticketus and Close Leasing
which they will be able to pay because
Sevco Scotland owe “£xm” to Sevco 5088
,,,,,,,,
Green Consortium
I suspect Sevco Scotland bought (NOT transferred free of charge) the assets from Sevco 5088 but haven’t yet paid for them. So Sevco Scotland now own Ibrox and Murray Park outright However Sevoc Scotland have registered a floating charge in favour of Whyte over Murray Park which is probably many £ms. The annual interest on this charge will need to be paid to a Whyte co out of Sevco Scotland income
Green will have revalued both assets significantly after getting SFA recognition that Sevco Scotland is a new football club that plays at Ibrox. This will be acceptable from an accounting standpoint
Green`s next step is to sell shares in Sevco Scotland. This will be supported by revealing the revaluation the company now has in the books
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Switcheroo……How was it done?
As long as RFC were not in liquidation the Ticketus and Azure Catering (Close Leasing) contracts were valid and the Close Leasing floating charge was unchallenged (The RFCG floating charge was also unchallenged although D&P described the RFCG debt as “TBA”)
However
With willing participants
There was nothing legally to stop these contracts and floating charges following the assets and being reassigned from RFC(IA) to Sevco 5088 under the purchase agreement between Green and D&P
Since this reduces the debt owed to Creditors it would be difficult for another Creditor to challenge the purchase terms
As an English Co owning the assets Sevco 5088 are then obliged to honour these floating charges and contracts under English law. No problems with Scottish law as each contract is now between two English cos( Sevco 5088 v Ticketus, Sevco 5088 v RFCG and Sevco 5088 v Close Leasing)
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So
After Sevco 5088 sell the assets to Sevco Scotland this meant Sevco 5088 were left to honour the Ticketus and Close Leasing debts even though they no longer own the assets. At this point I suspect the RFCG floating charge over Ibrox and Murray Park was reduced to become an RFC floating charge over Murray Park only. This explains why on 6 July Sevco Scotland registered an RFCG floating charge over Murray Park but no floating charge over Ibrox
These changes could only happen under a written agreement between Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland detailing the conditions of the asset transfer
In effect Sevco 5088 become a conduit for collecting the Ticketus ST income and repaying the Close Leasing loan debt. Sevco 5088 will not be responsible for paying interest on the Whyte Murray Park floating charge since this is a Sevco Scotland debt
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
However
It is illegally unsound to transfer assets from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland without any bookkeeping. In effect these assets have to be sold as well as transferred
Given that the assets were in RFC books at over £100m I suspect the transfer price was as high as possible perhaps over £50m
Irrespective of the revaluation Sevco Scotland probably now owe Sevco 5088 for the undernoted debts
Ticketus …………£27.5m to £40m spread over the life of the STs……….probably to be funded by future ST sales
Close Leasing….exact debt unknown but perhaps £5m ……… to be repaid with interest
Ibrox and Murray Park……..unknown but perhaps £50m as suggested above
In addition Sevco Scotland on 6 July 2012 registered a floating charge over Murray Park in favour of RFCG (Whyte) The amount is not declared but could be in the £5m to £10m range So Sevco Scotland will also have to pay interest on this debt
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Summary (My opinion)
The Ticketus and Close Leasing debts have escaped liquidation and will have to be repaid by Sevco Scotland
Similarly the Whyte floating charge has avoided a court challenge in a reduced form as a floating charge debt over Murray Park .This debt will have to be repaid by Sevco Scotland with annual interest until it is extinguished .
These Sevco Scotland debts are likely to be in the region of £30m to £50m
The only source of funds to repay these debts is the fund raising. However this fund raising also has to repay the Green Consortium for its role in the scam .The most likely scenario is that the fundraising will be drained of cash by Green and his Backers This leaves little or no cash for repayments to Ticketus, Close Leasing or Whyte out of the fundraising
These debts will have to be repaid by Sevco Scotland out of future income
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
In a nutshell
Sevco Scotland are stuffed financially to the tune of around £30m to £50m and will be hobbled for years trying to pay off their debts.
The big question in all of this is the willingness of ex RFC fans to support the Sevco fundraising
If it’s a massive positive response then Green will exit leaving a debt of perhaps only £30m. If its a flop then another liquidation is inevitable
@COYBIG
All sounds very convincing but the charge against The Rangers FC Ltd is from the Scottish Sports Council against Murray Park and is for just over £500k to cover the sports lottery money that was used to build/equip the football academy to recognise the public and SFA use element.
So I’m afraid that knocks a huge hole in your argument.
@ecojon
Just to be clear, its not my argument. I read it on another site and thought it was plausible. So so I copied & pasted it onto here so that people with a knowledge of the subject, like yourself, could tell me if it was or was not like you have done.
Thanks for reading & replying to it, much appreciated.
4 spivs…..you list 5………
@michaelk1888
Haha… How did I not see that when I read it? Its so obvious.
Again, just to confirm, It is not my post. I can count. Well I thought I could, not so sure now.
Thanks for reading & replying, much appreciated.
Andy,
This wouldnt be ‘taking titles from…’, if they were never fairly won under the rules (it remains an ‘if’).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2199954/Rangers-alleged-undisclosed-payments-hearing-set-begin.html
@carl31 the whole country was cheated for 15 years via financial doping it was as big anilltion as the trueman show the bbc were never sued as they were telling the truth the ebt system was abused thats what the man or porn king that introdced said about it on the bbc programme theres lots of head lines to come heres some that tell the story genup its real the ebt is financial doping and this week is a step closer to justice for the tax payer
what will we call the jail they go to the masonic crooked hilton = barl
mick,
I appreciate your viewpoint on that.
anextract from a article a read there well intresting
Liquidation also solved another problem, it left the new club without the impending doom of the EBT tax case, which had it gone against Rangers, as seems likely, would have certainly lead to the club’s demise anyway. So Green buys up Rangers, and after liquidation creates what is to all purposes a phoenix company with the assets, trademarks and trimmings of the defunct Rangers but without the crippling debt and potential liabilities. Green for his part may have suffered some unexpected setbacks due to the laudable supporters’ campaign which scuppered disgraceful attempts to push the new club into the top tier straight away, but it’s almost inconceivable that the new club will not be back in the SPL in three years’ time; probably before then if the SFA and SPL managed to gerrymander league reconstruction. When that happens Green will in all likelihood sell at a considerable sum and hand a tidy profit to his mysterious financial backers. Now I wonder who they might be?
Charles Green, Chief Executive of Rangers, issued the following statement today.
“The Rangers Football Club Limited will not attend tomorrow’s hearing (Tuesday, September 11) of the SPL-appointed Commission investigating the circumstances surrounding the use of Employee Benefit Trusts by previous owners of the Club. The Club cannot continue to participate in an SPL process that we believe is fundamentally misconceived.
“Neither the SPL, nor its Commission, has any legal power or authority over the Club because it is not in the SPL. For that reason it has no legal basis on which to appoint its Commission. The Club ceased to be subject to the SPL’s rules when it was ejected from its league. Our lawyers have made that point repeatedly to the SPL in correspondence and yet our requests for an explanation from the SPL have been completely ignored. The SPL’s silence on these issues is deafening. The outcome of the SPL’s process will have no legal effect.
“First and foremost, I would like to explain this decision to our supporters across the world whose loyalty and commitment to the Club in very difficult times has been unwavering and heart-warming for all those involved at the Club.
“Since the decision was taken by HMRC on June 14 to reject administrators’ proposals for a Company Voluntary Arrangement, the fate of Rangers FC lay firmly and clearly in the ability of the consortium I led to form a new company and corporate entity that would ensure that Rangers had a future as a football club.
“At all times we were fully transparent in our dealings with the football authorities, be they the SFA, SPL or the SFL. There was no ambiguity whatsoever regarding the status of the company when it made an application to join the SPL. As we all know, 10 SPL clubs decided against the admission of the new company to the league and The Rangers Football Club Limited subsequently applied to the SFL for membership and we are grateful for their acceptance.
“In short, what was decided by the SPL membership is that Rangers was finished as a member of the SPL. Despite this, the SPL now see the new owners of the company, and the new company itself, which owns all the assets of Rangers FC – including SPL championship titles – as fair game for punishment for matters that have nothing to do with us at all. And let’s be very clear about what this Commission is. Although the SPL goes to great lengths to emphasise the independence of its Commission, the Commission is not independent of the SPL. It has been appointed by the SPL. It follows SPL rules and its process is managed by SPL staff. I don’t question the impartiality of the individual panel members but whatever decision they reach is a decision of the SPL.
“To make it crystal clear, the new owners purchased all the business and assets of Rangers, including titles and trophies. Any attempt to undermine or diminish the value of those assets will be met with the stiffest resistance, including legal recourse.
“Furthermore, we ask the question genuinely. Why did the football authorities do nothing to address an issue that was public knowledge for at least two years, and was reported in the Club’s accounts for several years, before the Club went into administration and was subsequently taken over by new owners? HMRC contacted the SPL regarding EBT matters in October 2010, they met to discuss what documentation the Club had lodged with the SPL. Did the SPL launch an investigation? Did they appoint a Commission? Did they ask to see EBT correspondence? Did they ask any questions at all? No. They did absolutely nothing.
“What compounds the breathtaking hypocrisy of the SPL in this whole saga, is that the SFA, the SPL and us – as the new owners – took part in numerous discussions regarding the new company’s league status during which it was made clear that a deal was there to be done where ‘the EBT issue’ would be dealt with as part of a package of sanctions which would be implemented in return for membership of the SFA and a place in the either the SPL or Division One. We do not accept that people who are willing to come to an agreement on such matters then have a right to instigate a full blown inquisition when matters do not unfold as they thought they would.
“In our view, it beggars belief that an authority which can be heavily involved in these discussions to the point that the Chief Executive Neil Doncaster repeatedly stated he was not interested in stripping titles from Rangers can lurch from that position to setting up its own Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Nimmo Smith. I must make clear that we are not questioning for a moment the integrity of Lord Nimmo Smith and his colleagues but we believe the SPL have been hypocritical in their approach to this matter. Quite apart from their negotiations with our consortium, I know the SPL were well advanced in their discussions with Mr Bill Miller and his representatives where EBT issues were raised and there was again an understanding that the EBT issue could be dealt with informally if new owners were to take over at Ibrox.
“Why is the SPL rushing to judgement now when it has been sitting on the matter for 2 years? Their haste is particularly difficult to understand when the tax tribunal judgement is imminent. The factual issues in both cases are identical. We have to ask why is the SPL so anxious to issue a judgement in this matter before the tax tribunal’s findings are made public. The position is even harder to understand when one of the reasons the SFA did not pursue any form of disciplinary charge on EBT matters following Lord Nimmo Smith’s April report was because it was felt unwise for the SFA to pursue the matter when the tax tribunal judgement had not been made public. Nothing has changed as the judgment still has not been made public. Why is the SPL rushing ahead when in April the SFA felt it unwise to do so?
“Rangers was not the only Club in Scotland to use EBTs yet nothing was done and little has been heard about it. Also, Rangers stands accused of achieving sporting advantage unfairly – yet there is little debate over the fact in all the years EBTs were in existence at Ibrox, the Club often failed to win either the league title, or the main cup competitions. Furthermore, the period concerned saw a significant downsizing of the playing squad both in money spent on transfers and players wages.
“The decision we have taken has not been taken lightly. There are powerful representatives from Clubs within the SPL – not all of them by any means – who appear hell bent on inflicting as much damage on Rangers as possible. It is lamentable that the Board and executive of the organisation have not been able to deal with this appropriately. We do not hold every SPL club in the same regard. Several clubs were placed in an invidious position and we believe their interests were not best served by those in more powerful positions.
“Furthermore, as a Club we are not satisfied that the issue of conflict of interest relating to advisers to the SPL has been satisfactorily dealt with.
“Once again I would thank our supporters for their patience and tolerance. They have been asked to take it on the chin time and again and we stand united in saying: No more. As far as I am concerned, Rangers Football Club has won a world record 54 league titles, and, whatever the decision of the SPL Commission, these titles cannot and will not be taken away from us.”
Carl31 will not attend tomorrow’s hearing (Tuesday, September 11) of the SPL-appointed Commission investigating the circumstances surrounding the use of Employee Benefit Trusts.
That was the thing Mick. Was reading his statement/rant and was wondering how Charles Green would have known about the discussion between Bill Miller and SPL. Where did you find this statement from?
It’s just that I looked to an almost exact version of this on the RM website, but instead of Bill Miller, in it’s place was “another bidder”.
This is despite the fact that when using a search engine his name is mentioned in the short amount of text underneath the link.
Turns out the statement was amended @17.50 on RM.
It’s still a liable statement bill miller had confideuality clauses
Kds
1 fundamentally misconceived
2 “Neither the SPL, nor its Commission, has any legal power or authority over the Club because it is not in the SPL. For that reason it has no legal basis on which to appoint its Commission. The Club ceased to be subject to the SPL’s rules when it was ejected from its league.
3 the new company’s league status during which it was made clear that a deal was there to be done where ‘the EBT issue’ would be dealt with as part of a package of sanctions which would be implemented in return for membership of the SFA and a place in the either the SPL or Division One.
4 Rangers was not the only Club in Scotland to use EBTs yet nothing was done and little has been heard about it
5 the issue of conflict of interest relating to advisers to the SPL has been satisfactorily dealt with
6 Rangers Football Club has won a world record 54 league titles, and, whatever the decision of the SPL Commission, these titles cannot and will not be taken away from us.”
there circleing the wagons to get off lightly with the ebts lots of info there a wouldent know were to start hes some man spitting the dummy the day before his media coverage the mora will be throw the roof lol
The commission is to decide if the titles, when won, were fairly won. There has been a preliminary investigation on behalf of the SPL and there is a prima facie case to answer.
If this season’s Rangers bought the titles as part of the assets of last season’s Rangers, then they are lumped with the ‘baggage’ that goes with the titles.
… the rest of the statement is left to others to debate.
@carl31 if they say no to baggage then its a phoniox company and bdo should revoke sale and sell at aution small creditors were never the issue saveing the club was and hes mentioned N D as doing deals am getting plenty of crisps and ginger in for the up and coming cat fight by them via media lol
legally he may have broken confidenuallity cluses related to deal via this statement its going to be intresting to say the least sfa reply to it all
So Greeny boy says “In short, what was decided by the SPL membership is that Rangers was finished as a member of the SPL.”
Quite apart from the appalling grammar, this is a very curious statement. The decision was, in effect, that Rangers were not to be admitted to the SPL at that time. There was no question of them being “finished” with the SPL, which suggests Rangers would never be allowed in the SPL , ever again. In fact there us nothing in the decision to preclude them regaining admission to the SPL by promotion in the normal way from whatever division they eventually ended up in.
Probably this is just another Greeny tactic to bolster up the seige mentality amongst the support with his flotation in mind.
But this latest statement surely must be have the effect of hardening the attitude of the SPL (and surely also the SFA) towards him and I would think they must regretting helping him out at all and perhaps they will really put the boot into him in future. His arrogance and disrespect towards the football authorities is getting worse and is quite unacceptable.
@Charliedon
What I don’t understand is this kind of rammy won’t help big investors get involved. It doesn’t make sense to be storing-up hassle with a country’s premier and richest football league from an investor’s point of view.
Not when football shares tend to be a lousy investment anyway and historically seldom pay a dividend and often have no voting rights.
Many of Charlie’s arguments are facile and don’t bear examination so it seems all he will achieve is the support of fans not looking very far down the line. I wonder if he is beginning to worry that he won’t be able to have a successful AIM launch because savvy investors are already saying no.
If that is the case then he has probs because the Rangers fans won’t be able to raise the amount of capital that he requires.
@ecojon
Agreed. One would think big and serious investors would be wary and not encouraged at all by this constant baiting of the authorities by Green. We have to wonder what he is playing at.
@charliedon a hope the revoke the licence was it not conditional ???
@mick
The conditions Charles Green/Rangers accepted to obtain the SFA membership were as follows:
– The Scottish FA has received all necessary information and documentation from Sevco Scotland Ltd, including details of the company structure, shareholders, financial projections and business plan.
– Sevco Scotland Ltd has agreed to accept all conditions relating to RFC (IA)’s charges of bringing the game into disrepute, namely the 12-month transfer embargo, beginning at 0.01a.m on 1st September 2012, and payment of all outstanding fines and costs.
– Sevco Scotland Ltd has agreed to settle all outstanding football debts to other members of the Scottish FA plus clubs under the jurisdiction of other Football Associations.
– The Scottish Premier League and Scottish Football League have reached agreement on the purchase of a package of broadcasting rights which will allow the former to include The Rangers FC matches in contracts with broadcast partners.
– The Scottish Premier League has reserved its position in relation to the on-going investigation into EBTs.
I’m not aware that all the football debts have been settled yet, other than the debts to Scottish clubs. Presumably the licence could be revoked if Rangers don’t settle these, but I’ve seen no timescale mentioned,
The final condition, concerning the SPL investigation, seems strangely and vaguely worded so I’m not quite sure what it actually means. However, in agreeing to these conditions, it would appear to me that Green is accepting the SPL’s right to pursue the investigation. If this is correct, his latest statement seems reckless and bizarre. By apparently now disputing the SPL’s right to do so, has he broken the agreement? I wonder if Paul McC might be able to give an opinion on this. But even if the agreement has been breached, I don’t actually trust the SFA to do anything about it.
.
‘Patience and tolerance’ – well there’s a couple of words you don’t often see used to describe fans of TRFC
I find it interesting that yourself and Phil Mac Giolla Bhain have both written blogs in the last couple of days effectively warning Rangers fans off buying shares in the club with detailled explanations of how it could possibly be a bad idea.
A cynic could suggest that this is an attempt to undermine the share issue as there is concern amongst the “Celtic/Albion Rovers blogging community” that if successful this could actually complete the Rangers revival and see them re-emerge very soon as the dominant team in Scottish football. A cynic may also suggest that the aforementioned blogging community was acting with planning, co-ordination and strategy to ensure the worst possible outcome for Rangers. As a neutral in the never-ending Rangers c Celtic battles over well everything I find this new style of clever “online warfare” fascinating. I await to see what if any impact yourself and Phil have over the Rangers support who are unlikely to read your blogs in great numbers but will certainly converse with many who are influenced by them.
From my own point of view I think the scenario you outline is highly unlikely but not impossible. The value of Rangers assets has been discussed at length but I think it would be far easier to run Rangers as the very viable business they now are than to come up with a convoluted way to asset strip them. Rangers are a decent investment right now with no debt and a healthy turnover so the fans who will make small emotional investments will be largely irrelevant as real big time investors buy up the bulk of shares.
What a load of nonsense. Well written, but nonsense.
@Cynical
The success or failure of any Rangers flotation will not rest with indicidual supporters but with major investers in AIM terms.
And the Rangers fans that buy will do so purely out of loyalty to their club and not on an investment return basis as would the supporters of any other club.
I am more interested in the longer-term survival of Rangers and there are all sorts of questions which haven’t been answered like how long will the management team be locked-in after the flotation. Also what about the people who have allegedly already invested – do they get shares or have they had a secured debenture issue. And what are the shares or debentures going to be based on – a holding company or an operating company but probably not the club itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat
d&p,s statement from today coincided with greens statment lol
PAUL CLARK, of Duff and Phelps, joint administrators of RFC 2012 PLC (formerly The Rangers Football Club plc), issued the following statement today:
“I can confirm that the business and certain assets of RFC 2012 PLC – including the honours won by the Club – were acquired by Mr Charles Green’s consortium as part of the sale and purchase agreement.
“The SPL have been in contact with RFC 2012 PLC with regard to the SPL’s Commission which is examining Rangers’ historic use of EBTs. However, having taken legal advice, it is the Joint Administrators’ opinion that the SPL is not able to pursue RFC 2012 PLC in this matter.
“The SPL have stated that the Commission is empowered to review the use of EBTs under the contract between the SPL and its member club. RFC 2012 PLC no longer has a contract with the SPL and therefore the SPL has no jurisdiction over it.
“This has been communicated to the SPL and considering that further involvement in this matter is not in the interests of its creditors, RFC 2012 PLC will have no further involvement with the Commission.
“Our primary role as Administrators was to rescue the business which has been achieved by Charles Green and his consortium and whilst any sanctions the Commission may levy will not affect RFC 2012 PLC this process would not appear to us to be helpful to the ongoing revival of Rangers.”
“Our primary role as Administrators was to rescue the business which has been achieved by Charles Green and his consortium”
So why then Mr Clark are oldco facing liquidation? Because you, as part of D&P have failed in your duty to save the business. All you did was sold the assets to another businessman so that he can form a different business out of those assets i.e. the newco/sevco Rangers. Why else are they then playing in SFL3?
Interesting find on the Rangers Supporters Trust Facebook page !
.
.
Charles Green, Chief Executive of Rangers, issued the following statement today.
“The Rangers Football Club Limited will not attend tomorrow’s hearing (Tuesday, September 11) of the SPL-appointed Commission investigating the circumstances surrounding the use of Employee Benefit Trusts by previous owners of the Club. The Club cannot continue to participate in an SPL process that we believe is fundamentally misconceived.
“Neither the SPL, nor its Commission, has any legal power or authority over the Club because it is not in the SPL. For that reason it has no legal basis on which to appoint its Commission. The Club ceased to be subject to the SPL’s rules when it was ejected from its league. Our lawyers have made that point repeatedly to the SPL in correspondence and yet our requests for an explanation from the SPL have been completely ignored. The SPL’s silence on these issues is deafening. The outcome of the SPL’s process will have no legal effect.
“First and foremost, I would like to explain this decision to our supporters across the world whose loyalty and commitment to the Club in very difficult times has been unwavering and heart-warming for all those involved at the Club.
“Since the decision was taken by HMRC on June 14 to reject administrators’ proposals for a Company Voluntary Arrangement, the fate of Rangers FC lay firmly and clearly in the ability of the consortium I led to form a new company and corporate entity that would ensure that Rangers had a future as a football club.
“At all times we were fully transparent in our dealings with the football authorities, be they the SFA, SPL or the SFL. There was no ambiguity whatsoever regarding the status of the company when it made an application to join the SPL. As we all know, 10 SPL clubs decided against the admission of the new company to the league and The Rangers Football Club Limited subsequently applied to the SFL for membership and we are grateful for their acceptance.
“In short, what was decided by the SPL membership is that Rangers was finished as a member of the SPL. Despite this, the SPL now see the new owners of the company, and the new company itself, which owns all the assets of Rangers FC – including SPL championship titles – as fair game for punishment for matters that have nothing to do with us at all. And let’s be very clear about what this Commission is. Although the SPL goes to great lengths to emphasise the independence of its Commission, the Commission is not independent of the SPL. It has been appointed by the SPL. It follows SPL rules and its process is managed by SPL staff. I don’t question the impartiality of the individual panel members but whatever decision they reach is a decision of the SPL.
“To make it crystal clear, the new owners purchased all the business and assets of Rangers, including titles and trophies. Any attempt to undermine or diminish the value of those assets will be met with the stiffest resistance, including legal recourse.
“Furthermore, we ask the question genuinely. Why did the football authorities do nothing to address an issue that was public knowledge for at least two years, and was reported in the Club’s accounts for several years, before the Club went into administration and was subsequently taken over by new owners? HMRC contacted the SPL regarding EBT matters in October 2010, they met to discuss what documentation the Club had lodged with the SPL. Did the SPL launch an investigation? Did they appoint a Commission? Did they ask to see EBT correspondence? Did they ask any questions at all? No. They did absolutely nothing.
“What compounds the breathtaking hypocrisy of the SPL in this whole saga, is that the SFA, the SPL and us – as the new owners – took part in numerous discussions regarding the new company’s league status during which it was made clear that a deal was there to be done where ‘the EBT issue’ would be dealt with as part of a package of sanctions which would be implemented in return for membership of the SFA and a place in the either the SPL or Division One. We do not accept that people who are willing to come to an agreement on such matters then have a right to instigate a full blown inquisition when matters do not unfold as they thought they would.
“In our view, it beggars belief that an authority which can be heavily involved in these discussions to the point that the Chief Executive Neil Doncaster repeatedly stated he was not interested in stripping titles from Rangers can lurch from that position to setting up its own Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Nimmo Smith. I must make clear that we are not questioning for a moment the integrity of Lord Nimmo Smith and his colleagues but we believe the SPL have been hypocritical in their approach to this matter. Quite apart from their negotiations with our consortium, I know the SPL were well advanced in their discussions with Mr Bill Miller and his representatives where EBT issues were raised and there was again an understanding that the EBT issue could be dealt with informally if new owners were to take over at Ibrox.
“Why is the SPL rushing to judgement now when it has been sitting on the matter for 2 years? Their haste is particularly difficult to understand when the tax tribunal judgement is imminent. The factual issues in both cases are identical. We have to ask why is the SPL so anxious to issue a judgement in this matter before the tax tribunal’s findings are made public. The position is even harder to understand when one of the reasons the SFA did not pursue any form of disciplinary charge on EBT matters following Lord Nimmo Smith’s April report was because it was felt unwise for the SFA to pursue the matter when the tax tribunal judgement had not been made public. Nothing has changed as the judgment still has not been made public. Why is the SPL rushing ahead when in April the SFA felt it unwise to do so?
“Rangers was not the only Club in Scotland to use EBTs yet nothing was done and little has been heard about it. Also, Rangers stands accused of achieving sporting advantage unfairly – yet there is little debate over the fact in all the years EBTs were in existence at Ibrox, the Club often failed to win either the league title, or the main cup competitions. Furthermore, the period concerned saw a significant downsizing of the playing squad both in money spent on transfers and players wages.
“The decision we have taken has not been taken lightly. There are powerful representatives from Clubs within the SPL – not all of them by any means – who appear hell bent on inflicting as much damage on Rangers as possible. It is lamentable that the Board and executive of the organisation have not been able to deal with this appropriately. We do not hold every SPL club in the same regard. Several clubs were placed in an invidious position and we believe their interests were not best served by those in more powerful positions.
“Furthermore, as a Club we are not satisfied that the issue of conflict of interest relating to advisers to the SPL has been satisfactorily dealt with.
“Once again I would thank our supporters for their patience and tolerance. They have been asked to take it on the chin time and again and we stand united in saying: No more. As far as I am concerned, Rangers Football Club has won a world record 54 league titles, and, whatever the decision of the SPL Commission, these titles cannot and will not be taken away from us.”
Worth reading the UNDERNOTED statement from D&P – it’s actually amazing that they feel they can make the statement that they have.
Other than spending more money on lawyers what I really object to is: ‘“Our primary role as Administrators was to rescue the business”.
And here was me thinking it should have been maximising the payment to creditors – of course the whole scenari that has unfolded involvinbg D&P going back to their subsidiary’s involvement with CW has always left a taste in my mouth and this latest statement confirms it.
And why would D&P have the slightest interest in the: “ongoing revival of Rangers?” that is a totally separate matter to what they are meant to be engaged in.
UNDERNOTED
PAUL CLARK, of Duff and Phelps, joint administrators of RFC 2012 PLC (formerly The Rangers Football Club plc), issued the following statement today:
“I can confirm that the business and certain assets of RFC 2012 PLC – including the honours won by the Club – were acquired by Mr Charles Green’s consortium as part of the sale and purchase agreement.
“The SPL have been in contact with RFC 2012 PLC with regard to the SPL’s Commission which is examining Rangers’ historic use of EBTs. However, having taken legal advice, it is the Joint Administrators’ opinion that the SPL is not able to pursue RFC 2012 PLC in this matter.
“The SPL have stated that the Commission is empowered to review the use of EBTs under the contract between the SPL and its member club. RFC 2012 PLC no longer has a contract with the SPL and therefore the SPL has no jurisdiction over it.
“This has been communicated to the SPL and considering that further involvement in this matter is not in the interests of its creditors, RFC 2012 PLC will have no further involvement with the Commission.
“Our primary role as Administrators was to rescue the business which has been achieved by Charles Green and his consortium and whilst any sanctions the Commission may levy will not affect RFC 2012 PLC this process would not appear to us to be helpful to the ongoing revival of Rangers.”
So the SPL, if D&P are to be satisfied, cannot take action against RFC 2012 PLC, since it has no jurisdiction over it.
But if thats the case, then action should be taken against The Rangers under Charles Green. But Charles Green has stated that no jurisdiction is held over them since they were not voted into the SPL.
So if both are to be satisfied, the SPL action cannot be against either last season’s Rangers or the current Rangers.
Taken together, the message is that the investigation can take no action.
What to do, SPL?
@carl 31
No the investigation can still reach a finding and the SPL can either wait till Rangers become eligible for promotion to enforce it or ask the SFA to enforce it in the interim.
@ecojon green and d&p,s d&ps have broke confidentuality clusese telling green about the deal miller and them were doing it all seems very strange and hes mentioned behind close door deals with spl and sfa its getting murkie
@mick
But is he getting the info 2nd 3rd hand – we just don’t know but I did notice it and ti be fair if what he says actually happened then it is a disgrace because any club could end up in that position.
I suspect that Lord Nimmo Smith and his commission will feel adequate to the task of deciding whether or not they have the legal authority to conduct their disciplinary proceedings.
http://www.thecelticnetwork.com/2012/09/10/punish-us-you-cant-cause-we-are-not-them-anymore/
Looking forward to Paul Mc’s opinion on all of this……
Some interesting comments from Charles Green, drawing a line between the SPL stance and the SFA standpoint……essentially attempting to alienate SPL. And whether the investigation is legitimate or not, the timing and rushed fashion at best does appear odd from SPL.
May have let his guard down with the ‘invest in the club line’, as he did say they bought the trophies and titles and as I have metioned earlier, these things are part of what make up a club, so this does lean towards the ‘club’ being an asset of the company…
Not sure the statement will have much impact on investors….There main aim is going to be on crunching numbers, and full houses make for better numbers, so just getting the fans on board, is almost equally important to ‘big’ investors….like ive said no one can call on whether people/companies will invest until such time as Green shows everyone his plan….to suggest otherwise at this time is just hearsay.
I’ve said all along I thought the investigation was a waste of money better spent on football, but those that need it were welcome to it and if titles were to be stripped so be it….however the line that ‘Green is picking the fight is way off’…..It would appear that the Spl having not got their way with the 1st Div plan, have since decided they’ll start an investigation instead….surely as CEO he has the right to defend the club? Surely in light of this fans of SPL clubs must be worried at how the Spl ahve been operating?
Quite sure Paul will have some reflection on this, but I would genuinely like his legal views on this saga…..particularly the potential for legal recourse due to devaluation of assets?
Other than that SPL’s move I guess….
@Andy
Green’s statement is designed to appeal to the rabble rather than the suits. Many of his arguments and statements do not hold up to and kind of examination. He is entitled to take whatever decision that he thinks best for his club.
But IMHO the way to do it would just have been to state that having considered the matter that – and Rangers do have a potential problem here – that either the club or the company would not be availing themself of the opportunity to take part in the enquiry. Deid simple!
Anyone who rabbits on at length the way Green has only leaves themself wide-open to be slapped down.
At the end of the day the SLP will probably carry on with their enquiry as they have the evidence to make the decision anyway and Green has weaked any subsequent appeal to the court by refusing to attend on a number of fronts.
I just can’t make my mind up as to what he’s trying to achieve – let’s say the league is reorganised and Rangers could be back in the top flight in 1 or 2 seasons instead of 3. That will never happen with the consequent loss of money it brings about because the SPL will still return to the matter as a condition of re-entry to the League.
Of course if Green has no intention of being here for that long it won’t bother him but it could have a serious affect on Rangers and I’m sure some of the deeper thinking Bears must see there can be a downside to the outburst once the euphoria has died down.
http://maleysbhoys.com/2012/09/10/charles-greens-comedy-roadshow/
http://videocelts.com/2012/09/blogs/green-walks-away-from-ebt-inquiry
@Andy
I just re-read your piece and surely you must realise that no matter how devoted a fan is there will be a drop-off in attendance purely because of the quality of the opposition or perhaps it’s true what a lot of Rangers fans claim about them only going to a match to see Rangers.
You keep raising the money issue but I have felt for a while that there might be no stripping of trophies but rather a massive fine which will be split between the other SPL clubs and I don’t see any problem with that as Green continually broadcasts how well Rangers is doing cash-wise.
You say that you don’t accept that he picked a fight, well that’s actually quite serious because if he is reacting on a whim he ain’t much of a businessman. But he will have a reason and it might be because he thinks the punishment won’t be trophy stripping but a cash fine.
You state: ‘the timing and rushed fashion at best does appear odd from SPL’. But the date has been known about for weeks and the mechanism for even longer so I don’t know what you are getting at as the initial procedures of decising whether they was a case to answer had to be gone through – this has all been going on for months – have you been away some where?
A football club can’t buy Association or League trophies and titles – these are loaned, usually for a year, to a club which has successfully won the trophies and titles having observed the rules of the competition. And this is the problem because they can be stripped after they have been won. I genuinely don’t see much of a difference between drug doping and financial doping but obviously there has to be an investigation re whether the Rangers EBTs constitute a double-contract.
You state: ‘getting the fans on board, is almost equally important to ‘big’ investors’. That is just nonsense as Green has made it clear that the shareholding is 85% big investors and 15% fans. You have to realise that thousands of tiny investors push up costs enormously compared to 10/20 big investors.
You state: ‘to suggest otherwise at this time is just hearsay’ – No it’s not it is a matter of making a reasoned argument based on facts as to how the market and investors act – you might not be spot-on but if you have the ability you and know the market then you’ll get close and this isn’t anything to do with hearsay it’s about a professional judgement.
You state: ‘It would appear that the Spl having not got their way with the 1st Div plan, have since decided they’ll start an investigation instead’. That is just a fantasy and you don’t have a shred of evidence to suggest let alone prove the statement – paranoia I’m afraid.
You state: ‘ Surely in light of this fans of SPL clubs must be worried at how the Spl ahve been operating’. Why?
You state: ‘particularly the potential for legal recourse due to devaluation of assets’. I don’t know what you mean by an asset here but if it’s a title or trophy then the company doesn’t own them so there’s no depreciation. If its devaluation of the history well that might make an interesting legal argument but as Green has refused to attend the hearing I don’t think it will fly.
And if its devaluation of property assets well I think that getting approx £100 million worth for £5.5 million might be thought to be too good a bargain and hopefully a jusdge woyuld hit you with a £45 million charge to be distributed to the creditors.
@ecojon
I think you have mis-intepreted slightly, so I will re-phrase, when I say ‘get the fans on board’, I didn’t mean buying shares, I meant onside and buying tickets….It is certainly not nonsense to suggest big investors want to see as a high a turnover as possible!!
I agree, that attendances must drop come the winter months, however Green has done well to sell as many ST as last year, and moves like this keep single ticket buyers through the doors for a while longer. I actually, think assuming there is no reconstruction that next year will be the toughest to sell tickets..
‘Weeks’ isn’t a long time though, and as the SFA decided to delay until after the tax case, do you not beleive that it would have been prudent for SPL to follow suit of our games leaders…
You say, that a club can’t buy trophies, titles etc….is that your opinion or based on any legal documentation?
It would seem dangerous for Green to mention the SPL in the div 1 negotiations, when surely anything to the contrary, and specifically with reference to Mr Doncaster could lead to legal action from Doncaster? I think, you may have your green blinkers on here, it has been well documented the Spl were desperate for Rangers to go into Div 1. This is a slap in the face to the fans of other spl clubs that demanded rangers go to div 3…
Who are Spl going to fine?
Would a judge even have such power? Serious question.
Micheal’s comments on intellectual property rights are of interest. Green’s consortium acquired the assets of the liquidated company. Those assets comprise bricks and mortar (Ibrox) and intellectual property rights. Such rights, as a matter of law, would include the “football club” and the goodwill of the supporters.
As commented on by Duplesis, rights of this kind cannot exist outside a legal entity. They must have ownership, whether that entity is a private individual, a limited company or a plc.
With all due respect to Paul’s interpretation of UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, these apply solely to the eligibility of a club to participate in UEFA club competitions and have nothing whatsoever to do with a club’s history- see Rule 14.
The more interesting question is whether the SPL can now, through the panel it has appointed to investigate the old company’s use of EBTs, place any sanction on the liquidated company or the new company.
Duff and Phelps say the SPL has no jurisdiction over the old company. What is telling about their statement yesterday is that they also expressly state that “the honours won by the Club” were acquired by Green’s consortium.
The new company of course in no longer in the SPL so there is no contractual relationship between it and the SPL, hence the SPL also has no jurisdiction over it.
This “lacuna” has been completely missed or ignored by those advising the SPL.
The independent commission will probably adjourn on Wednesday to kick the whole sorry situation into the long grass. Doubtless Lord Nimmo Smith will not wish to find himself in the same boat as Lord Carloway did when he upheld the transfer ban and was overturned in the court of Session.
On the other hand, if the SPL persists and the club is stripped of league titles, whether competent or not, this will be viewed by the consortium as an attack on the intellectual property rights acquired from the administrators, and court action will inevitably follow, as Green himself made clear in his own statement yesterday.
hmmm, I sorry, I can’t get your points,
1) Why do you think that the football club would be in the “intellectual property rights” ? If Celtic PLC would have purchased these rights, then CELTIC FC would have won 97 Scottish league titles (43 + 54) ?
2) You told “The new company of course is no longer in the SPL so there is no contractual relationship between it and the SPL, hence the SPL also has no jurisdiction over it.”
The SPL is in full power over its competitions, record books and titles being awarded. (there is no need to have a contractual relationship when re-writing the record books)
Sorry that I’m not able to follow your points. A couple of day ago, it was told that the football club is attached to the football/licence, now it is told that the football cub is a “intellectual property right”….
every day another theory ?
Maybe its that simple ?
Rangers FC ceased to be a CLUB when it incorporated itself as a limited Company in 1899. So club and Company are the same thing.