Nimmo Smith’s Club Routine Draws Chuckles – by The Battered Bunnet

I am delighted to welcome The Battered Bunnet to the blog with the following piece which has been posted already on CQN, but which he was kind enough to add a tail piece to for me.

I am grateful to TBB for letting me post it here.

So, without further ado, please welcome the Battered Bunnet, with exclusive addendum too!

———————————————————–

Charles Green wasted little time in jumping on the comments from Nimmo Smith last week on what constitutes the Rangers ‘club’, but I think he somewhat misconstrued the issues at hand.

In the SPL Commission’s Reason for Decision from which Green quotes extensively, Nimmo Smith is discussing what constitutes a ‘club’ for the purpose of the SPL Commission which he Chairs, as defined by the SPL Articles and Rules – specifically, rule I1 which states:

“Club means the undertaking of an association football club which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club”

In essence: Under the SPL’s rules, when a team is no longer entitled to play in the SPL, it is no longer a ‘club’ as defined by the SPL’s Articles.

The Lawyer for Oldco and Newco (same firm) argued to the SPL Commission that under the rules of the SPL, Rangers FC ceased to be a ‘club’ on the 14th June, the day Sevco Scotland Ltd bought the assets of RFC plc from the Administrator.

The SPL’s Lawyer disputed that, insisting that RFC ceased to be a ‘club’ as defined in the Articles on the 3rd August, the day the SPL Board transferred the SPL share from RFC to Dundee.

Nimmo Smith said… it disnae matter what day RFC ceased to be a ‘club’ for SPL purposes because all of the alleged rule infringements in the indictment occurred prior to RFC ceasing to be a ‘club’ under SPL Rules regardless of which date you choose, and cease they surely did, as agreed by all concerned.

Evidently, the Commission, the SPL, Oldco and Newco all agree that, for the purposes of the SPL’s Articles, Rangers FC ceased to be a ‘club’, the only matter in dispute is the date they ceased to be.

This of course is discussed solely within the parameters of the SPL’s own definition of ‘club’ per its Rules and Articles. The discussion does not suggest that a ‘club’ ceases to exist when it ceases to be recognised as an ‘SPL club’. Clearly for example, while a ‘club’ may very well cease to be a ‘club’ in terms of the SPL Articles when it is relegated, it remains a football club provided that it continues to participate in the Game generally.

Nimmo Smith picks up on this and, as allowed for in the SPL’s definition of ‘club’, chooses to separate the ‘undertaking of the football club’ from the owner and operator of it within the context of the SPL Commission’s remit.

For Nimmo Smith, although the owner and operator has been consigned to be dissolved, the ‘undertaking of the football club’ was purchased by Charles Green’s Sevco Scotland Ltd, and the ‘undertaking’ is now operated by a new owner.

Nimmo Smith concludes from amongst the provisions of the SPL’s Rules, that a ‘club’ is an ‘undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated’ and does “..at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.”

This then introduces a second definition of ‘club’ into the mix. On the one hand, all parties agree that for the purposes of the SPL, ‘Rangers’ ceased to be a club when it ceased to be entitled to participate in the League. On the other hand, for the further purposes of the SPL’s Commission, the ‘club’ continued as an ‘undertaking’ comprising various assets and staff.

Charles Green jumped on this and claimed: “The Commission has in effect ruled that Rangers and its history did not die on 14 June despite numerous reports to the contrary.”

It’s quite a leap of judgement from Green, and one that is disputed here and elsewhere, but to be fair to him, and drawing from Nimmo Smith’s ‘undertaking’, the stadium continues to be used to host football matches featuring a team of players calling itself Rangers, which begs the question: Is this the same Rangers ‘club’ that was formerly an ‘SPL club’ as Green claims? Does Nimmo Smith’s definition of ‘club’ square with that of the SFA and other stakeholders?

The SFA, the Governing Body of the Game in Scotland, helpfully provide some assistance on the matter with the following definitions:

Drawing from the SFA Articles:

“Club: means a football club playing Association Football in accordance with the provisions set out in article 6”

“Club Licence: means the licence secured and maintained by the clubs in membership of the Scottish FA… upon compliance with the Club Licensing Procedures”

And from the SFA’s Club Licensing Procedures:

“National Club Licensing applies to Scottish FA member clubs”

“Definition of the Club: The club is a full member and/or an associate member of the Association and the expression “membership” shall be construed accordingly.”

“All SPL, SFL and SHFL clubs, as members of the Scottish FA, are subject to Club Licensing and are bound by its requirements.”

“Licence Applicant: The Licence Applicant may only be a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member).”

Taken together, it is clear that for the purposes of the SFA, a ‘club’ is a Member of SFA, that Member being a Legal Entity responsible for a football team that is bound by the Club Licensing criteria.

In order to obtain a Club Licence, the ‘club’ must own or have access to the various elements described in Nimmo Smith’s ‘undertaking’, but a ‘club’ has further prerequisites for the SFA, namely SFA Membership and a Legal Personality.

Similarly, UEFA, the Governing Body for the Game in Europe, defines a ‘club’ for the purposes of a UEFA Club Licence in the following terms:

“Legal entity fully and solely responsible for the football team participating in national and international club competitions which applies for a licence.”

In terms of both the SFA’s use of the term ‘club’, and UEFA’s definition of a ‘club’, the ‘club’ recently known as Rangers FC was in fact the legal entity Rangers Football Club plc, being the legal entity Member of SFA, and licensed by SFA and UEFA to participate in the Game.

On 13th June the relevant ‘Member Club’ of the SFA was Rangers football Club plc. By 1st August it was no longer a member club of the SFA. It had ceased to be a club for the purposes of the governance of the Game.

The SFA now has a ‘conditional’ member club formerly called Sevco Scotland Ltd since renamed The Rangers Football Club Ltd, which because it is a new Legal Entity, is not eligible for a UEFA Club Licence. Whether it satisfies the requirements of SFA Club Licensing, at least at Entry level, remains to be seen.

However, the vestige of Rangers FC remains apparent, referred to by Nimmo Smith as the ‘undertaking’. Charles Green claims that his Sevco company ‘owns’ it, and his Sevco company is fielding a team that is playing matches using the name ‘Rangers’.

Nimmo Smith states that, in Legal terms, while lacking a legal personality, a ‘club’ is “no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold”, a definition somewhat at odds with SFA and UEFA, but remember he is discussing the term ‘club’ within the context of his remit and the definitions provided in the SPL’s Rules and Articles.

Green’s Sevco purchased the undertaking, the physical assets of Rangers Football Club plc, together with the rights to use its brand names, designs, identifiers and other intellectual properties. Accordingly, he is legally entitled to field a football team in matches played at Ibrox Stadium, and call that team ‘Rangers’.

But did he buy the ‘club’?

No says UEFA: The club is a legal entity.

No says the SFA: The club is the legal entity member of the SFA.

Despite playing in the same stadium, with the same strips as Rangers FC, Green’s Rangers is not the same ‘club’ that was a member of the SFA and which held a SFA and UEFA Club License.

For SFA and UEFA, Rangers Football Club plc ceased to be a ‘club’ for the purposes of the Governance of the Game when it was no longer “fully (and solely) responsible for the football team”, and subsequently ceased to be a Member of SFA altogether.

But what of the Supporters of the club? Does the supporter recognise the ‘club’ in the same terms as Nimmo Smith or SFA?

For the supporter, the ‘club’ manifests itself in many ways, including but not exclusively in Nimmo Smith’s collection of assets wrapped up in the ‘undertaking’. For Nimmo Smith, the nature of the ‘undertaking’ is simply the sum of its parts: The Stadium; the Players; the Manager and so on albeit these are apt to change. For Nimmo Smith, while the handle and the brush head might each have been changed umpteen times, the broom is still identifiably Trigger’s. (© Contrarian)

For the supporter though, the ‘club’ has a meaning beyond its legal personality, its tangible assets, its players, its memberships and licences.

For a Supporter, a club is not defined by its legal personality. After all, no one is claiming today to be a loyal Sevco Scotland Ltd supporter.

It is not defined by a group of players playing as a team, as the players and the team change from year to year but the ‘club’ remains.

Neither is it defined by a given team playing at a given stadium, as clubs often change stadium without compromising the identity of the ‘club’.

It is not defined by the strip worn by the team or the badge stitched to the strip, as again, these are merely designs that are periodically changed without impacting on the essence of the ‘club’.

All of these tangible things – Stadium, Players, Strips – may be associated with a ‘club’ in the supporters mind, but they are not in themselves individually or collectively the ‘club’ as the supporter perceives it. They are manifestations of the ‘club’, part of it, characteristics of it perhaps, but they do not define the ‘club’ itself in the mind of the supporter.

So if, to the Supporter, the ‘club’ is not the company that owns the players playing in the shirt with the badge on it, at the ‘home’ stadium of choice, as defined by SFA and UEFA, what is this ‘club’.

I am indebted to my Tutor, @glasnost, for pointing out that it is often futile to attempt to define the essence of a concept where an essence does not exist, and that in this case, perhaps the meaning of club doesn’t consist in any set of the features mentioned, but by the intricate web spun from all of them. Nevertheless….

…I think ‘club’ in the mind of the football supporter is essentially an idea, a concept, something intangible on one hand, but capable of articulation and expression on the other.

It is more than a brand, a brand being capable of being owned, copyrighted, bought and sold. Indeed a brand being conceived and executed for that purpose.

It is, I think, a notion, akin to an idea or a philosophy. Indeed, ‘clubs’ are often associated most with philosophical ideas, ‘Corinthian Spirit’, philanthropy, socialism and so on. Can an idea die? Can a philosophy cease? I think not.

Can the entity that manifests that philosophy cease? Well, yes of course. While Friends die, Friendship remains.

And so we have ‘Rangers’. Quite what is it that Charles Green and his Sevco investors have bought?

Clearly, he has bought the stadium, training ground and assorted equipment. He has bought the business of Rangers, its intellectual property rights, the brand name and identifiers of Rangers, and the right to trade as such.

Did he but the ‘club’ as defined by Nimmo Smith – the ‘undertaking that is capable of being bought and sold’? Absolutely. Charles Green’s Sevco Scotland Ltd is permitted to trade as ‘Rangers’, operate as ‘Rangers’, market itself and benefit from being marketed as ‘Rangers’ come what may.

Did he buy the Football Club, as defined by SFA and UEFA? Clearly: No. The football club that was known as Rangers FC, which was a member of the SFA for over 100 years, and which was licensed to play in UEFA’s tournaments no longer practically exists.

Charles Green’s Rangers no more won the 2009 SPL title than David van Day’s Bucks Fizz won the 1981 Eurovision Song Contest. (Younger readers may find Google useful here…)

Did he buy the ‘club’, the entity with which the supporters have such affinity? Again: No. You can no more buy the idea of Rangers than you can bottle and sell Christianity. Extending which notion, and please excuse the apparent blasphemy (but the analogy holds I think) ‘for where there are two or three thousand gathered together in the name of Rangers, there Rangers is’.

Ultimately, as with Trigger’s Broom, it matters not how many times the handle and the brush head have been changed, the broom is Trigger’s only providing that Trigger believes it to be.

Thus it is for the supporters of ‘Rangers’ to decide if Green’s Rangers represents the ‘club’ they have supported through the years.

Charles Green’s Sevco-owned reincarnation of Rangers represents the Rangers ‘club’ only provided the supporters recognise and acknowledge it as such. Without the endorsement of the supporters, Green’s Rangers has no provenance as the original ‘club’. Indeed, without that it has little value as a business undertaking.

Which perhaps explains the lengths to which Charles Green is going to win their approval lately.

All in my opinion, of course.

TBB

NB This message has not been endorsed by any of the parties referred to in the text, and no endorsement is implied or should be inferred.

——————————————–

Addendum by TBB

The confusion on what constitutes a club arises I think from the historic nature of football clubs colliding with the modern day need to contract within a reliable framework. We know RFC was an unincorporated club at conception, and incorporated as a limited company some time later. What we are not clear on is when this transition was effected at SFA level. Green’s ‘certificate on the wall’ indicates that as recently as the mid 90s, the SFA member clubs were recognised as the team, not the legal entity, but with the advent of – yip, you guessed – Quality Management Systems, specifically UEFA’s efforts to standardise the professional football landscape, it became increasingly necessary for elite clubs to be defined by their legal personality, such that there is no doubt that the SFA member formerly known as Rangers was indeed the legal entity RFC plc. I am quite sure Chuckles has a revised Certificate from the SFA to that effect.

While you’re playing Sunday league under 15s, there is no need for the club to be a body corporate. When you’re trading players for £30M at a time, and carrying responsibility for a £1 Billion annual television contract, you need a little certainty in your life. Club Licensing still permits unincorporated clubs to be licensed, but not new applicants, and only provided the applicant plays below SFL1 level. To be Silver or Gold Licence standard, you MUST be a Legal Entity and a member of SFA as such. This development has not been well reflected in the various Articles, Rules and Procedures across Scottish Football.

BTW, here’s a curiosity:

While I am definitively unqualified to challenge the eminent Lord Nimmo Smith….

Quoting from para 46 of his Reasons on the one hand:

“…a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.    While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.”

And on the other:

“This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator.   We are satisfied that it does not”

An undertaking that does not possess a legal personality cannot be an employer of players, managers or staff. Neither can it own property, such as a stadium. I’ll allow him that it can have a name, albeit the rights to the name belong to someone else, but players? There may be some question as to with which ‘entity’ players are registered at SFA, but not the contracts of employment.

The fact that the employment undertakings required to be transferred under law would indicate as much.

Whatever LNS thinks the undertakings of a ‘club’ are, it certainly does not include the employees and associated contractual undertakings.

Posted by The Battered Bunnet

Advertisements

26 Comments

Filed under Charles Green, Football, Guest Posts, Rangers, SPL

26 responses to “Nimmo Smith’s Club Routine Draws Chuckles – by The Battered Bunnet

  1. Carl31

    …but what of FC United of Manchester, the AFC Wimbledon, and Scarborough situations when considering the identity of the eternal club is in the gift of the fans?

    • mick

      carl the the only thing there is eternal is the holy spirit not soccer clubs rfc cheated and robbed there way to sucess now there fans are paying the price for murray and co.s ego its sad but true the west coast rfc are a embaressment to scotland and the soccer world destroyed from within its sad that there fans cant see it also if a was a rfc fan a would want them all jailed how can these people sleep at night its shocking and they have stianed our country and have damaged our sport reputation all over the world a just hope the judge takes this into account when the police and pf finally catch up with them green is conning them to and cant last the season and no 1 is mentioning it its sad but truetrfc zombiefied by msm to line a slect fews pockets shocking to say the least

    • carl31

      Dear Battered Bunnet,
      Now I have more time for a proper response, I’d like to say the piece is informative, well put and enjoyable. Thanks. Whilst company law and football rules show that the club came to an end, its undeniable that Rangers remain as substantially the same recognisable entity, in common terms.

      The point I’m getting at above is that, when looking at the Rangers situation re the fans deciding that Rangers remains Rangers throughout, thats a relatively straightforward example. I agree with the sentiment, but is it generally workable? There are other situations where leaving it simply to the fans isnt sufficient.

      Re FCUoM – currently there’s only one recognisable Manchester Utd, but if the situation came about that financial downfall befell them, and fans deserted them in favour of the latter, which developed over time, allowing for a continuing decline of ManU until failure, when would the FCUoM adopt the mantle of ‘being’ Manchester Utd? How many/what proportion of fans would be needed? This eventuality was envisaged by those who formed FCUoM and precisely for that reason.

      Re AFC Wimbledon – MOT reproduces their admirable sentiment below, but it needs be asked, what if a similar statement was produced by MK Dons? What if two groups testify vehemently? Hypothetically, what if there was a substantial Rangers fans group that opposed Charles Green in his claim to the continuing club?

      Re Scarborough – I should do more research, but I believe there are two Scarboroughs, Athletic and Town both rising from the ruins of Scarborough F.C. Which one is the ‘eternal club’? Who deems which fans as having the requisite authority above which for the right to claim to support the continuing and eternal Scarborough FC?

      Its too simple to say, “Thus it is for the supporters of ‘Rangers’ to decide if Green’s Rangers represents the ‘club’ they have supported through the years.” The recognisable ‘clubFC’ continues in common terms but a number of problems arise with how workable this is in consistent terms, consistent enough to apply across the UK. I’m sure the fans of all clubs would be happy if this were sorted.

      Behold! RangersFC!

      [The following is simply hoisting an idea up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes it.]

      The Rangers that continues is the club that is beheld to be RangersFC. “Beheld” is the word used to cover – regarded as, considered to be, is treated as, can be referred to or recognised as. To behold a clubFC as Rangers, a beholder does not need to clearly define what is ‘Rangers’ (as was suggested as the case by Duplesis in a comment to a previous thread).
      This is the case because any aspect of, individual, or combination of, asset(s) can be beheld as RangersFC. Any and, I suppose all, of these could change in some way, and RangersFC would still be beheld as such. ‘Beheld’ is IMO the word to use since it encapsulates the dependence upon the attitude and belief of others. It passes the eternal club test. It needs no legal personality (as was suggested in the LNS opinion).
      Common speech usage = clubFC is in the eye of the beholder.
      But, assuming the fans are the ‘beholders’, and the fans alone cant deem a club to be beheld as clubFC, it would seem that some form of officialdom must need be involved…

      What is needed is a formal method of making that which is in common usage, part of the law of the land.

      I would propose…
      A body that acts/operates outwith the football governing bodies will formally declare/verify the beheld clubFC, for each sporting club.
      This would be with the cooperation of certain groups that matter, who would be the relevant Associations and governing bodies.
      Organisations that could recognise this beheld club “officially” might be
      League association, National Association, UEFA, FIFA, Government, or a new body?

      BTW
      re your BTW at the end of the piece…
      LNS names some assets of Oldco in his para 46, but he doesn’t state or imply that the ‘eternal club’, which he earlier refers to as Rangers FC, owns any of them, its just that he sees these as the least needed to comprise Rangers FC.

  2. Marching on Together

    From AFC Wimbledon: “The supporters of AFC Wimbledon believe that our club is a continuation of the spirit which formed Wimbledon Old Centrals in 1889 and kept Wimbledon Football Club alive until May 2002. We consider that a football club is not simply the legal entity which controls it, but that it is the community formed by the fans and players working towards a common goal. We therefore reproduce the honours won by what we believe was, and will always be,’our’ club, in our community.”

  3. Rich753

    (don’t know if this is possible but) if someone were to offer Duff and Phelps or BDO £200M to rescue Oldco from administration, would you then have two Rangers? Which one would have the true “Ranger’s Spirit”?

  4. mick

    @the battered bunnet that was a great read you sound a bit like donald dewer(RIP) (battered bunnet)never judge a book by its cover or although theres a hole in it al wear it for a other 5 year lol .thats what a liked most a bout the late great donald dewer was his stance on its not what you were but who the person is.lord hodge lns bdo the tax men the police must be ready to hammer them all a feel there will be lots of help needed from good men like your self and ecojon and any1 else with an intrest in helping paul with it all as a think when it all drops paul will need to have more hands than a octupus to keep up with it all

  5. I’m curious…what does constitute a ‘Zombie’?
    ‘A person who appears to be lifeless, apathetic, or totally lacking in independent judgement. A corpse brought back to life by witchcraft.’
    What more does Lord Nimmo Smith need to know?
    They can gather as much of the old dead corpse as they can muster and glue it all together again and worship the devil…again… but it will never be brought back to life…its still a ZOMBIE…with no shadow!

    • Mike

      Pathetic! Try indulging in literate, intelligent discussion and not just insults.

    • mick

      thas grat buffcat evrywan nose they zombie a nose a sad so masel ta Donal Dewir rfc cheetd fir yers in a wud tell yus abut ra wor on franco an at as a think they zombie a same as that.

      ps the above is exceptionally bad satire, but we illuminate the dark to show what is in the shadows – and that doesn’t mean anything either, but it means as much as mick’s usual ramblings with the exception of the odd piegate interlude!

      And no, none of the above indicates I am a mick hating bluenose. It does, however, indicate I can’t replicate mick’s own peculiar writing style!

  6. mick

    mike would you care to broaden your comment the whole of scotland calls them zombies thats who sad the the have become ,o why dont you call yourself mick ?

    • mick

      mick the whole of Scotland doesn’t call them zombies! There are important issues to be discussed about Rangers, but name calling, and being deliberately insulting to them does not progress the discussion and only leads to hardening of attitudes and opinions on both sides of the argument.

      I, for one, wish to read sensible comments by Paul and this time by TBB, but being insulting for the sake of it is best left to the football club boards where like minded people speak to one another. I feel it has no place on comments on a blog which is itself trying to comment on the facts of the case.

      And just for you, pie man, I’ll call myself mick and we’ll confuse everyone into thinking you really can punctuate! 🙂

    • Mike

      mick the whole of Scotland doesn’t call them zombies! There are important issues to be discussed about Rangers, but name calling, and being deliberately insulting to them does not progress the discussion and only leads to hardening of attitudes and opinions on both sides of the argument.

      I, for one, wish to read sensible comments by Paul and this time by TBB, but being insulting for the sake of it is best left to the football club boards where like minded people speak to one another. I feel it has no place on comments on a blog which is itself trying to comment on the facts of the case.

      And just for you, pie man, I’ll call myself mick and we’ll confuse everyone into thinking you really can punctuate! 🙂

      gone into moderation – so I guess I’ll have to stay as Mike! – Bummer!

      • mick

        2 micks cam and andy would well be afriad lol mike if you feel we are rubbing salt in to the wounds thats because pauls blog is now a source of truth for laymen men like myself when the scandal is over we will all go back to our fan sites but until then you will just have to put up with us a do admit and hold my hands up to turning the screw lots put hopefully people see it as a bit of criac as that is all it is before the tax case pauls readership was mostly academic law people but because its sportits every 1 from all walks of lifeit must be hard for the rangers fans just now jabba telling them there the best and now this but they did rub it in to the whole country (diddy teams )rfc saying.what we could do is have a post about comments and what paul and his academic readership think we should text like a sunday night debate on cleaning our act up a have noticed thatafter 50 comments it ends up with me and cam andy and a other few slagging each other sometimes we do go below the belt but most of it is just banter paul is very quick to correct any drama that is out of context also if it ends up us slagging each other of it blinds us from the objective of finding the truth so there you go micky bhoy

        • Mike

          mick, it’s not a case of rubbing salt into the wounds, it’s a case of discussing the points raised in the post and not immediately going off topic and calling Rangers fans zombies. While I can appreciate it as a dig at them, I doubt they do. As I presume you are a good catholic man, then do unto others etc. Think about how you would feel if it was your club and you believed it was still the same club, even though the rest of the country didn’t. I have no doubt you would rage against those who put your club down.

          This particular post is one of the few to address the larger issue, not just Nimmo Smith and the SPL rules point of view.

          The comments on the blog should at least try to address the post and not just immediately go off on biased / pejorative comments. If commenters want to do that, what is the point of the original post? Paul may as well just have an open forum and not bother with the posts.

          And just for calling me micky buoy, I’ll post a nonsense comment under me mick persona! 🙂

        • cam

          Whoa there my old son,,,my logic circuits are overloaded.If anyone posts in here or prints in papers a view that opposes yours then its lies,cheating,criminal etc.
          Pauls blog is a source of truth?? Yeah and Craig Whyte is honest!
          Jeez, next thing i’ll hear is Guy Fawkes telling me not to play with matches.
          The 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean being a good start,now thats wisdom.
          Lump in estate agents and any other profession that uses gibberish to protect its position.
          Justice ,now there’s a fine principle ,but lawyers being human? tend to lose sight of that.

  7. AB

    “The SFA now has a ‘conditional’ member club…The Rangers Football Club Ltd…whether it satisfies the requirements of SFA Club Licensing, at least at Entry level, remains to be seen.”

    The Battered Bunnett seems to have missed the TRANSFER of full membership from oldco to newco.
    How embarrassing.
    http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/7960503/SFA-rubber-stamp-Gers-membership

    The SFA: Yes clubs have to be legal entities. Rangers FC was a legal entity in the form of oldco. Rangers FC is still a legal entity, but a different LEGAL ENTITY, newco.

    As far as the SFA goes, it’s the same membership/same club.

    Listen to Stewart Regan say “the share of the club transfers across from the oldco to the newco. When a share transfers, the membership of that share transfers”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19068235 Towards the end.

    Was Regan lying? Mistaken?

    Every 3rd party source is in agreement in distinguishing between company and club.
    Lord Nimmo Smith, Lord Glennie, SFA, SFL, SPL, HMRC, even UEFA are still adding co-efficient points to the running total of “Rangers FC” for season 2012-13!

  8. duplesis

    Completely off topic, but is it “The” Craig Whyte who is the subject of a sequestration petition in Inverness tomorrow?

  9. mick

    is that related to the bentley a thought he settled the case with the wife,or the roofing drama?

  10. Jamie

    @Mike “As I presume you are a good catholic man, then do unto others etc”

    This is the Christain ethos not just a Catholic one. This is exactly what he’s doing…you know as well as the rest of us if the shoe was on the other foot what the outcome would be….and you might try asking the sevco supporters to have a think about your statement.

  11. TheBlackKnight

    they are dead. Move on!

    • Marching on Together

      So what is it that actually makes Rangers dead? The fact they went into administration? Happened to lots of clubs before, and no-one has ever suggested that those clubs have died. The sale of the assets that make up a club to another company? Happened to many many clubs. including some that were administration at the time, and no-one has ever suggested that those clubs have died. Liquidation of oldco Rangers? Hasn’t happened yet. The fact that it is Rangers and a lot of prejudiced Celtic fans wish it were so?

      • john

        CVA was rejected and liquidators have been named and will move in later this month. Liquidation is not an option its a certainty … like death it is certain and its final… taxes on the other hand appear not to be if your the most dignified…by wanting the punishment fit the crime as in you will not use the public purse to finance an ego if that makes people prejudiced then I suggest you need to make an appointment get some help…. like most watching the slow, painful, humiliating demise of a club who sanctioned bigotry and workplace aparthied has been enjoyable

        • Marching on Together

          So amongst all that gloating waffle, you are admitting that Rangers are not dead yet, as oldco Rangers are not yet in liquidation. Glad someone admitted it at last, other than Dermot Desmond.

      • Grabthegrass

        MOT Totally agree with your point. The whole club died/didn’t die thing has never arisen before when the club was sold to another company and kept playing. Only when complete liquidation occurs and no club reforms to start right back at the very lowest level can any club be said to have died. R To state otherwise is simply to ignore all part precedent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s