Had Continuity of Football Clubs Been an Issue Before Rangers Entered Administration?

Following Adam’s piece on Rangers continuity, there has been extensive discussion here.

Marching on Together has explained clearly, but with diminishing patience 😉 how the present Leeds United is still the old one. There is, and has been, only one Leeds United.

Duplesis too has pointed out other instances of English teams continuing.

I think therefore this blog will take the editorial decision that previous “re-incarnations” such as that at Elland Road were simply continuations of the existing clubs.


Does that mean that the continuity of Rangers too is guaranteed by these precedents?

No. (I am NOT saying there is no continuity, rather that these precedents are unhelpful.)

I say that because in previous football insolvencies the question of continuity, or more particularly “history”, was never really raised. I am sure MoT will tell us if it was a live issue at Leeds and Violet has told us that it was not a question in Hearts’ troubles pre-Rangers travails.

I offer as an analogy the dusty tome which is the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970. You might never have heard of it, but it has been very relevant to you if you have taken out a mortgage in Scotland in the last 42 years. It affects a lot of people as it contains the law relating to Scottish mortgages. It details what a lender must do if it wants to call up its security and re-possess a property (though the phrase is correctly “take possession of” as the lender never “possessed” it before). For many years the banks, and their lawyers, followed the same possession process, as laid down in the Act.

However, in November 2010, the UK Supreme Court determined in RBS v Wilson that, for 40 years, lenders had not been following correct procedures! The legal world was in turmoil and many possession actions by lenders then had to be dropped.

The issue was whether a document called a “calling up notice” needed to be issued prior to possession being taken. The Supreme Court said yes, but for years it had been deemed to be optional.

Why had 40 years gone past with the wrong process being used?

The answer was that no one had ever really asked if the process was correct! It was assumed it was and therefore never challenged.

This brings us back to Rangers. This is the first occasion (and I stand to be corrected) when the continuity issue has been raised to such an extent.

If the “history” was unimportant to Rangers fans, then no one else, I suggest, would be too bothered. However the history is of huge importance and pride to Ibrox fans, so much so that it is the threat of interfering with it which is foremost amongst reasons for Rangers to refuse to join the SPL.

Mind you, this is the history Mr Green bought from Duff and Phelps for less than one pound. Pity they did not realise how valuable it was, though BDO might.

So why are the precedents cited by Adam of little value? Simply because the issue was not an issue in those cases. If a court issues a judgement, for it to be a precedent there has to be enough reasoning by the judge to allow the rationale for and extent of the decision to be understood (the ratio decidendi). No justification = no precedent.

As I said, this is NOT to say the existing Rangers is not the old one, just that the question has never been addressed as clearly as it has in the Rangers issue.

Posted by Paul McConville

Note – I will be posting later today a guest post which starts from some of the points raised by Adam and moves through some of the history of Rangers.

It might provoke a variety of strongly held views and robust argument.

I would simply ask commenters to be respectful of each other’s views and of the nature of the blog.


Have a nice day!



Filed under Football Governance, Rangers

92 responses to “Had Continuity of Football Clubs Been an Issue Before Rangers Entered Administration?

  1. cam

    I shall take a seat at the rear of the bus and allow the more intellectual posters to discuss the finer legal points of precedents,processes and continuity.
    To me its a moot discussion as the Gers, as has already been proven, are beyond the laws of man!

    ps .we didn’t sign Ratio Decidendi and he didn’t have an EBT.

  2. Check the SFA official records, dispels any wishful thinking by the angst ridden.

  3. ecojon

    @ Paul

    That was a very interesting point about uch a long held asumpotion being wrong all this time but it had never been tested. I know it’s pushing it a bit but it look as though the MSM have always been useless 🙂

    However, I am impressed and intrigued by the Health Warning Notice before it even goes up – promises to be an interesting day 🙂

    PS: For anyone following the Mick & Adam slugfest last night, on the previous guest post, I have just posted my response as I was dragged-in to referee while I slept. It’s at the end of the previous blog.

  4. the rangers history, is just that, history. it is in the past. the chapter rfc 1872 came to an end in 2012, and that is why charlws gree changed the name to rfc 2012, so a full stop can be used after that page.

    a new “chapter” started this year.
    the story continues, but the pen is broken and the author has retired. at the moment, a new author is being scouted and a new pen will be purchased.

  5. Adam

    And to add to the initial blog, it should be noted that there would not have been anything like the same clamor from Leeds opponents or rivals to have the history expunged.

    Not withstanding that, reading between the lines, it certainly appears as though you are not as certain on the issue as some of the posters and potentially that having read MarchingOnTogethers views on things, you are perhaps minded to understand that the situations are similar, with the exception of the frenzy between Rangers and Celtic fans.

    • ecojon

      @ Adam

      I would caution against reading between the lines when speaking of Paul as you might get hit by a tram as you search for meaning in the light at the end of the tunnel where the lines meet.

  6. john

    Were leeds united liquidated? In the eyes of those who follow the newco/club its the same as the old club only thing that changed was the debt was unpaid and will never be paid. To anyone else with an ounce of sense.. history of one entity cannot be purchased and attached (bolted onto) another new enity. (which was born only because there was a ready market to squeeze punters out of their hard or not so hard earned).. had we had a non compliant press this fact would have and should have been hammered home. The shame of going into liquidation leaving a trail of unpaid invoices seems to have passed them by but they will always be reminded by the public in Scotland and over seas of the theft and shame attached to their CLUB.
    I think what you are seeing is not ignorance, stupidity, blind support but plain old WASP’s doing what they do best ignoring the facts and setting out their demands how ever flawed as rule of law and we should obey .. or else..

    Its pretty simple you go into liquidation because (so) you cant (wont) pay your creditiors then you should be consigned to the cesspit you created. You cannot simply park in the liquidation space and then move on as one and the same when it suits you… going going and gone …

    • Adam

      Yes. Leeds United were liquidated.

      And to confirm, the CVA was not successful. The administrators refused to ressurrect the CVA having sold the club to newco.

  7. This should be fun/interesting/amusing, I will watch as the angst ridden attempt to reinvent the wheel, you know it makes sense Adam there is no argument The Rangers history is intact and unbroken.

    Let those who “just can’t get enough” amuse you for the day, their desire to be our equal knows no bounds……………54 and counting…..:cool:

  8. john

    I assume the very last sentence on this means leeds CVA was eventually accepted by HMRC and actual liquidation did not happen.. the way i read it..

    One day before the 28 day period was due to end, Bates altered his offer to ensure it was not challenged. He altered the clause stating that if Leeds made the premiership in five years then the creditors would receive an extra 30p in the pound, extending this period of time to 10 years, and increased the amount they would receive from 1p in the pound to 8p in the pound straight away.[24][25] The 28 day period was due to come to a close on 3 July 2007 at 4pm (BST).[25] With just minutes to spare HM Revenue & Customs challenged the CVA. This left a very uncertain future and possibly liquidation of the club.[26] Bates had previously stated “If there is a legal challenge, it could take two or three months to get to court and be decided. In the meantime, who is going to pay to run the club? So far it’s been funded by the ‘new Leeds’, but if there is a challenge, the ‘new Leeds’ won’t do it because it’s a risk. The implications are that the club would close down. It would mean liquidation. Leeds United would cease to exist, and the loss of 500 jobs would be a further drain on government resources.”[27] With the intention to challenge the CVA announced by HMRC, Simon Franks announced he was determined to buy Leeds United through his Redbus investment vehicle. He commented “We are absolutely committed to gaining control of Leeds United and to rebuilding the club, We have already told the liquidator that we will cover short term liquidity problems and that will be standing by our bid and will increase it given certain information. Our bid was significantly better than Ken Bates’ and we are in a position to move very quickly if we are offered the right commercial terms.”[28] Following the challenge by HMRC the club was put up for sale by KPMG, with only offers before 5pm (BST) on Monday 9 July 2007 being accepted.[29] Former Leeds commercial director Adam Pearson also stated he intended to make a bid for Leeds however Ken Bates has stated that he will take legal action if any other bid than his own is successful.[30] After the deadline had passed it was revealed that Simon Franks and Simon Morris had joined forces to bid for the club.[31] After Much deliberation KPMG revealed that once again they had chosen Ken Bates’ bid.[32] The league eventually sanctioned the sale to Bates without the club going through a CVA under the “exceptional circumstances rule” but imposed a 15 point deduction due to not following football league rules on clubs entering administration.[33] On 31 August 2007 HMRC decided not to pursue their legal challenge any further therefore accepting Bates’ final offer.[34]

    • Adam

      No. The Football League tried to get KPMG to resurrect the CVA but KMPG rejected this as they had already concluded the sale to newco.

      • john

        KPMG Restructuring were appointed as administrators of Leeds United and, within minutes of entering administration, the club was sold to Leeds United Football Club Limited.[7] Had the club not voluntarily entered administration, they would have been forced into liquidation on June 25, 2007 by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, to whom the club owe £6 million.

        They were not liquidated

        • Adam

          You uses wikipedia. I will use Companies House register. Oldco Leeds United were wound up in February 2008. This is an indisputable fact.

          • Adam

            “use”, not “uses.”

          • duplesis

            John, it is very simple to confirm that the Leeds oldco were liquidated. Just check companies house:

            The Leeds company was The Leeds United Association Football Club Ltd, formed in 1920 with company number 00170600. They were liquidated in 2008.

            The current Leeds Utd company is different, it is Leeds United Football Club Ltd, formed in 2007 with company number 06233875.

            Just check the oldco’s status on companies house, John, and come back and confirm what you find – it’s free to do this sort of check by the way.

            • Marching on Together


              People like John don’t even know what Companies House is, far less how to find information from it.

        • Budweiser


          Riveting stuff here for ‘old firm’ fans[and a leeds fan] the debate reminds me of my schooldays eg ‘AYE IT WIS’ – NAW IT WISNAE’ – ‘AYE IT WISNAE’ .

          • Marching on Together

            More like Columbus arguing that the earth was round and the rest of the world proclaiming him to be insane. So he proved it to be round by his voyages, and came home to a chorus of those who claimed that he had made it all up.

            • Budweiser

              Unless I am totally wrong,my ageing memory tells me that columbus never claimed the world to be round and the rest of the world proclaimed him to be insane.
              However a better analogy might be the alleged statement of Galileo, when after recanting his beliefs, in front of the inquisition, that the earth travellrd round the sun, stamped his foot on the ground and said “Eppur si mouve”. [yet it moves].

      • ecojon

        @ Adam


    • Marching on Together


      What is it with some people. Now I have no patience left.

      John, please stop cutting and pasting incomplete sh*te. Surely you have more intelligence than that? Or maybe not. Do you even bother to read what other people post, or are you just incapable of understanding anything above the levels of grunts and hatred for Rangers?


      If you don’t accept this, then p*ss off and find some other forum to troll on.

    • mick

      well said john theres a few in here with blinkers on no matter what you tell and explian to them

  9. @adam
    ‘scuse my ignorance.

    can you please explain to me, is there a difference between
    administration and liquidation.

    and if there is differences, what are they please?
    thanks in advance

    • Adam

      Yes there is. Liquidation is when a company is wound up. Administration is the period where the Directors relinquish control and Administrators work to try and get a company back to being solvent.

      • You know Adam I know next to zilch about Leeds United but if their business did go into liquidation leaving their creditors with next to nothing then the Leeds United that play football in England today are not the same club. The point was probably not as vehemently argued in their situation.

        Liquidation = End of Entity. You’re kidding yourself on if you don’t agree.

        • Marching on Together

          You are welcome to come down to Elland Road and argue that point, which will be a novel point as it has not been raised before, to the massed Leeds United fans.

          • Gortnamona


            Except as an exercise in stupidity, I don’t think your suggestion would prove much one way or another.

            However I paid a quiet visit to see how matters stood at Elland Road in these difficult times and I have to say that going on the following, things seem pretty desperate.

            Leeds united!!!! Praying!! by Wolfetoneleeds on Tue Nov13, 2012 6:22 pm

            “Anyone think it would be a good idea for the leeds players and coaches.. To have a good prey (sic) before games…. It has been studied that Alfred town started doing that this season before games and it has really turned things around for them!! So lads what do you think”

            Some of the replies tended toward the scatological, but others were more of the, what do we have to lose, point of view.

            • Marching on Together

              All that proves is that all clubs have idiots amongst their fans. The context of that however is a fan boycott of Elland Road under Ken Bates, a takeover of the club which had been under negotiation since May (now completed), a lack of investment in the team, and standing at that point at 18th in the table.

              I was in Milan for the Celtic v AC Milan CL game in 2004, and there were hundreds of Celtic fans at the cathedral all praying, no doubt many of them for a result that night. Did not seem to work, unless their prayers were for not getting humped.

          • hancock

            I wouldnt expect any Leeds fan to admit that it’s not the same club, same as I dont expect any Rangers fan to except that their club died …………… but they are , and lets face it …. this wind up is never gonna end =)

            • Marching on Together

              In 50 years time bitter Celtic fans are still going to be whining on about Rangers having died, while the rest of Scottish football just laughs at them.

              FYI, nobody ever argued that any English club ever died in the same circumstances as hit Rangers, until one half of the bigot brothers came along to insist that their hated enemy had died.

              Why should policy on football be determined by hatred and bigotry?

          • Budweiser


            I don’ t really have much interest in this particular discussion. Earlier, it seems now like years, mick posted a link to a leeds un. fans forum. the fans their ,to a man [or woman] seemed to be saying that there was no resemblance to their club’s situation and the one at rangers. You would seem to be at odds with these fans’ view. Perhaps this is being too simplistic?

            • Marching on Together

              Mick posted a load of sh*te, and the link said no such thing. mick has had it pointed out to him repeatedly over several months how and when oldco Leeds United was liquidated, and how he can check that through either checking it at Companies House on-line, or reading the administrator’s reports. But no, he is too lazy/stupid/bigoted to bother. So disregard anything he says about Leeds United as it will be wrong.

              The essentials between what happened to my club and Rangers (apart from the bit about them being a bunch of cheating bigoted b*stards) are the same, and nobody has yet been able to demonstrate otherwise.

            • Budweiser

              Perhaps ‘at that particular moment’ in the trfc saga the Leeds fans ‘ views, were that trfc and lufc situation were different, and later the situation evolved to your position – I don’t know. But the lufc fans on that site ‘at that time’ all seemed to be saying the situations at both clubs were different.

            • Marching on Together

              It is surely understandable that decent Leeds fans do not want to be compared with or associated with bigoted scum in any shape or form. However the fact of the matter is that the essentials are the same – administration, CVA proposed but failed due to HMRC intervention, asset sale of the club from oldco to newco, liquidation of oldco. Nothing can change that reality.

      • @adam

        so rangers were “wound up” ?

        again, as you are more knowledgeable than me,

        can you explain to me –

        what is the definition of, “wound up” ?

        • Adam

          The Rangers Football club plc are in the process of being wound up. This means that the company known as The Rangers Football club plc will no longer operate. The assets of the said company have been sold to a new company now and the new company own all those assets.

          • Marching on Together

            In the process? So they are not wound up yet? So even accepting the views of the most bigoted hateful anti-Rangers person on here that when Rangers oldco is wound up they will be dead, they are not actually dead yet?

  10. JimBhoy

    @Alex You are the definitely one of the peepul mate and the great points you have made on this site over the past few weeks have shown us, ie,
    ** the angst ridden, bigots, rangers haters and we who just cant get enough…

    You represent a lot of what we (see description above **) really think the typical rangers fan is made of.. Positively better than everyone else, above the laws of the land and entitled to do and say what you want. This will be my last response to you because I do NOT feel I am worthy to reply to your far superior and consistent, factually accurate postings….

    I am sure most of (** above) feel the same and will also not waste your valuable time trying to respond to your valuable gems and superior utterances. I feel I am in the presence of greatness.

    • It is good for the soul to confront your shortcomings, your admitting to being a Rangers hater and putting the words in print will do you the world of good, you have a nice day now rattling apart….I know I will.

      • dan

        Oh God! I feel compelled to admit it! To bear my soul and subject myself to public opprobrium! Yes! I did it! I hated Olco! I reviled them, loathed them, detested them! Short of injury to life or limb, I wished them nothing but misfortune—-(and to my delight they got it in spades!) Yes! I was guilty of hating Oldco! Oh God, was I guilty!

        But, eh, what was wrong with that? Hating, loathing and despising an institution that for a century actively and openly practiced sectarianism and encouraged vile bigotry? An institution that was nothing less than a scar on the national psyche! I don’t think that was a shortcoming on my part. I think it was completely understandable and commendable. Angst-ridden? No. I wouldn’t know what that that feels like, not being an existentialist.(Look it up) No, I’m completely at ease with myself and my wee place in the cosmos. So tell me, Eck at the Kublakhan, how should I have felt towards Oldco given their disgraceful ‘history’?

        Oh, and on that thorny subject, I tend to agree with the man who said if the CVA isn’t accepted 140 years of ‘history and tradition will be lost.’ Who was that man? Step forward Chico Verde.

    • Budweiser


      I get the feeling that you don’t quite appreciate alex’s contrtibution to this site. His ‘yes or no’ demands as answers allows us much more time to deliberate. Time is money – ask chico. Where would we all be without all the insider info, from every spectrum, that alex shares with us? LA. CONFIDENTIAL , eat you heart out!

  11. Richard Innings

    It’s still Rangers.

    It’s not the old Rangers club, it’s a new Rangers club. They’ve inherited the trophies, but didn’t earn them.

    I wish the new Rangers club every good fortune.

  12. Mark Murphy

    “54 and counting.” Yes…but which way? (sorry, should have been able to resist, but couldn’t)

  13. Marching on Together


    Re the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970, I had always understood that a calling up notice was essential (at least that is what my limited legal education had taught me), and I was gobsmacked on reading about RBS v Wilson that some lawyers had clearly decided (wrongly) that it was not.

    I very much doubt if the assumptions held by these lawyers were shared by the legal profession in its entirety. I very much suspect that those advising banks saw it as a way to cut costs and speed up the process and thought it unlikely there would be any comeback if they did away with the calling up notice.

    As for your argument that the proposition that clubs have died on liquidation has never really been tested/argued before, that is like arguing that believing that a re-possessed property can meet the advertising requirements by advertising it in wee Jimmy’s xeroxed street newsletter is sufficient to meet the statutory requirements. It is so self-evidently not the case that no-one ever felt the need to argue or prove otherwise.

    Yes there have been arguments previously that if a club is liquidated and never resurrects then it is dead. But no, as Duplesis has pointed out, what has happened has been a regular occurrence in England, operating under the same liquidation/administration/corporate insolvency rules as Scotland, and it is only when you throw in a new factor – the hatred of some Celtic fans (and others) for Rangers – that it suddenly becomes an issue.

    • Adam

      Its great to read a neutrals point of view on things for a change. Its even better that you have been through this process with your club and recognise this for what it is……Bitter rivalry.

      Incidentally, not sure if you read my piece on the similarities between Leeds and Rangers situation but in my book, they are practically the same, save for the actual winding up piece for us. UEFA, EFL and everybody down south still recognise Leeds as Leeds.

      As often said…..Only in Scotland….

      • ecojon

        @ Adam

        And have you ever wondered why only in Scotland?

        • Adam

          I know why ecojon. The hatred between both sets of fans is unique. The internet has allowed that hatred to be festered in a whole new way that was previously unavailable.

          • mick

            hatred Bitter rivalry adam your deluded rfc died the rhebels won dont try and straw clutch via were the same we have never played yous sevco are a new out fit scotlands newest club

      • Marching on Together

        “not sure if you read my piece on the similarities between Leeds and Rangers situation but in my book, they are practically the same” Adam, I was posting this on other sites in February, and on this site from (I think) April.

        It is only because of this novel conceit devised by those with hate in their hearts, that I have felt necessary to become involved in these debates, as what they are in fact saying is that if it is accepted that Rangers died, then my club did as well. And I am not having that, as it is simply not true.

      • Budweiser


        ‘Leed and rangers situation but in my book’

        Didn’t realise you were an author adam! what’s the name of the book? Can I guess- please?
        1 . How Rangers Days were Numbered.
        2 .’ Up To Our Knees In Numbers’ – A financial guide to religion in football.
        3 . The Chaos Theory – A rangers story.
        4 . The Wee Narrow people – [An Anthropological guide to the demise of a strange cult of aboriginal scots due to financial dyslexsia
        5 A Financial Guide To Reincarnation.

  14. Ernie

    I’m disappointed by the article. I believe that the whole “history” scam is merely a deflection, albeit incredibly well sold to the follow follow mob who have bought it hook, line and sinker. It’s a bit of a ploy to get the focus off the events that have taken place and the consequences that should result. Pandering to this very well played diversion does nothing more than support the lack of focus.
    The public unravelling of the biggest club in Scotland and their successor has been running for a year and still the fight is on to justify a “history” rather than getting their act together. What a joke! If your team go doon the tubes you should be desperate to sort out who’s got the reins, how you move forward, where’s the money etc etc.
    If Leeds Utd and Rangers fans want to say that they’re the same club/team/company/institution so what? It’ll make for good banter for a long time and everyone, including them of course, knows that they’re not but they’ll go forward regardless. It’s not important is it? I mean I get a buzz around AFC winning a few things in the 80’s but it means nothing going forward, nothing at all.
    Also; there has been some shock, horror cries from this and other blogs about Greene (what a man, surely conman of the year by a mile!) claiming “history” and how this may or may not affect carry over of liabilities from Rangers to Sevco. I’m not a lawyer but I have been a salesman and this is pure salesmanship. Claim everything positive that your company/product can be remotely connected to, you can hardly blame him for that. Leave them to it and stop pandering to their bleating about their old teams’ records, we’ve bailed them out financially, isn’t that enough?
    (Standing by for stock “diddy team” response!)

  15. Tecumseh

    So you place a frog in a blender and liquidise it . . .

    When you pour the liquidised frog into a glass, the glass contains all the atoms that were in the frog . . .

    But is it still a frog . .the answer has to be no, it is not a frog.

    Like Triggers Broom can be used by Trigger to sweep the streets, but all the elements of the original broom have been lost . .it is not the same broom.

    However, if you choose to believe that certain elements of a particular entity carry the the historical baggage of a former entity then you are now in the realms of Faith . .for you are choosing to “believe”. . . Investing your beliefs in said entity.

    Personally I’d prefer to believe in one of the major spiritual masters . . Jesus, for instance, rather than trying like a “bear” to keep a rather troublesome institution going . . .for what purpose . .??

    Swaggering about like a thug . . ???

    The game is not worth the candle . . Let it go.

    Like the Rev Playfair in the Quiet Man . . . They should take up tiddlywinks . . !!!

  16. JimBhoy

    I heard this and thought it was idle gossip a few days ago…

    Surely not, Head of marketing and PR… Jeez I just laughed my legs off.. 🙂
    I could not think of a better man for the job..

    If anyone could possibly explain to me what Leggo is on about today I would appreciate it…The DR pandering to Celtic since when? The DR have had no creditability with Celtic fans since they gatecrashed Celtic’s xmas night out and tried to frame Lenny for assault and property damage. Broken crests et al… The Sunday Liam 🙂 Isn’t Liam a shortened version of William???

  17. can adam or MoT explain this to me?
    craig whyte purchased an 85% shareholding of “something” for £1
    what was it he purchased for £1 exactly ?

    charles green, wants to sell “shares” apparently for approx £1.50 each.

    what is it that charles green is offering for sale exactly?

    if someone answers – he is offering shares for £1.50 each

    what is it that the shares or of – a “share” of what ?

    are the shares on offer, the very same shares as craig whyte previously owned?

    • ecojon

      @ jimlarkin

      We could ak Mr Traynor – I mean surely he knows the answer as he would have asked the questions before his demise from his old job. Still maybe the ‘history’ ha changed if the rumours are true 🙂

  18. Pat McAuley

    Could you comment on this, please, Paul. It’s Section 207 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which has not really been mofified by subsequent legislation. To me it sums up what Green and Duff and Phelps did perfectly. I can’t understand why nobody else has pointed this out; unless, of course, I’m reading things the wrong way!

    (1)When a company is ordered to be wound up by the court or passes a resolution for voluntary winding up, a person is deemed to have committed an offence if he, being at the time an officer of the company—
    (a)has made or caused to be made any gift or transfer of, or charge on, or has caused or connived at the levying of any execution against, the company’s property, or
    (b)has concealed or removed any part of the company’s property since, or within 2 months before, the date of any unsatisfied judgment or order for the payment of money obtained against the company.
    (2)A person is not guilty of an offence under this section—
    (a)by reason of conduct constituting an offence under subsection (1)(a) which occurred more than 5 years before the commencement of the winding up, or
    (b)if he proves that, at the time of the conduct constituting the offence, he had no intent to defraud the company’s creditors.
    (3)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable to imprisonment or a fine, or both.

  19. easyJambo

    There is a precedent in Scotland of a club folding and being reformed two years later, complete with their previous history. The club? Hibernian FC.

    Hibs folded in February 1891, didn’t compete in the league in season’s 1891/92 and 1892/93. A newco entered the newly formed 2nd division of the Scottish League in 1893/94, which they won. They assumed the history of the oldco, including their cup win of 1887.

    Here is an extract from a Scotsman article of 22nd October 1892
    ‘RESUSCITATION OF THE HIBERNIAN CLUB. A meeting to consider the advisableness of resuscitating the Hibernian Football Club was held last night in St. Mary’s Street Upper Hall. There was a crowded attendance and Mr. C. Sandilands was called to the chair. In his opening remarks, the CHAIRMAN said the gentlemen interested in the promotion of the club wished it to be distinctly understood that it would be promoted on somewhat different lines from the old club. They desired it should be non-sectarian. They desired also to keep clear of the old committee and up to the present time had had nothing to do with them. He then proceeded to give a statement of what they had already done towards reviving the club, mentioning that the promoters had their eye on a field which they had hopes of securing. Up to that time they had guarantees of £115 which however as
    nothing like sufficient to start the club. He intimated that they desired to open with a first class team and a first class ground. He concluded by inviting
    suggestions; and after several questions had been put and answered, MR.
    FLOOD moved a resolution declaring that the formation of the Hibernian Football Club had now become an urgent necessity, and empowering those willing to join to proceed to make any preliminary arrangements they might think fit. This was seconded by Mr. Mitchell and unanimously adopted. On the motion of Mr. Galwin it was agreed to accept five shillings from anyone
    present towards the guarantee fund, that sum afterwards to go towards their first membership ticket. The CHAIRMAN intimated before the meeting ended that the guarantee fund had risen to £130 and names were then taken of persons desirous of guaranteeing with a view to membership, a good number going forward.’

    • Marching on Together

      Oh dear. That somewhat puts the kybosh on the Rangers are dead mob.

    • Ernie

      1892, and how relevant is that to being a football club in 2013? Just like 1872, 1690, 1903 (any guesses?) i.e. not at all.
      However, good point made and worth mentioning that the old gers have missed a fantastic opportunity to start again. No pseudo Irish history, no debts, clean start, no flag crap, no pro/anti terrorism, no whataboutery, no sectarian apologists, no succulent lamb. Biggest team in Scotland, they’d have cleaned up.

      • Ernie

        After posting that I just read the new blog. There’s the options for the new Rangers: keep the history or start anew. No brainer for me.

    • Cheap Suit Charlie

      But were the previous club liquidated and a newco set up or was it exactly as it says in the headline that they were “resuscitated”. If the latter then I fail to see how this is a precedent.

    • Easyjambo, that’s a somewhat strained comparison, to put it kindly.
      For one thing, there’s absolutely no justification for referring to the Hibs ‘newco’ and Hibs ‘oldco’.
      Hibernian didn’t even incorporate until 1903.
      There was no company, old or new, until that date.

      There was, however, a football club which missed the boat when the league was formed in 1890 and Hibs had to sit out the first few seasons. Friendlies and exhibition matches became increasingly difficult to arrange, especially when it lost the lease to its home ground. Eventually, for want of opponents to play, the club had to be temporarily mothballed while plans were made for its return.
      In 1893, Hibernian were admitted to the brand new League Division Two whose creation it had lobbied strongly for.

      It’s disingenuous, if not downright ridiculous, to suggest that there is a parallel between the liquidation of Rangers and the hiatus which Hibs suffered at a time when the organisation of the game was still evolving and developing.


  21. What are fans buying when they splash the cash on Greens IPO? Is it shares in a football club or shares in a company that owns a football club? What did the old rangers fans who bought shares off SDM think they owned? I’m sure they thought they owned shares in a football club not a company who owned the assets of a football club. I like to think i own a little bit of Celtic with my very modest shareholding. Someone tell me i’m wrong?

    A company is about to be put to rest by BDO. A company that built and paid for ibrox, a company that bought and sold some top level football players, a company that instigated and rightly ended a sectarian employment policy, a company that hired the struth’s, baxter’s and grieg’s to run and play for their football club’s assets. A company that paid all their players that won many trophies all for the enjoyment of their customers.

    But the club lives on, I’m not sure what’s left, but it lives on apparently.

  22. I’m waiting on Mot or Adam. – answering my other questions about the shares . . . I won’t hold my breath

    • Marching on Together


      As I am not a Rangers fan, I really don’t give a flying f*** about some Rangers scheme to round up money from dopey b*stards with more money than sense. I fully expect to see it all end in tears, with possible prosecutions to follow.

      • MoT –

        Hmmmm –
        Not really an answer, is it !?

        instead of posting a rediculous post rant like that, i think maybe, out of respect of paul’s ‘rules’, you shouldn’t bother.

        • Marching on Together

          So what on earth were you doing asking me about the shares? What made you think that I had any interest in the issue, or would be interested in questions about them which you might have put. if someone mentions me in a post, if it is a thread I have subscribed to, I will generally respond, but don’t expect me to pick up on every post, when it is not even of interest.

          Why can you not just admit that you wrongly assumed that I was a Rangers fan?

          • i didn’t assume anything about you – other than the assumption that you could/would answer the relevant question.

            you still refuse to answer it.
            you have an opportunity to furnish me with your opinion on the matter, which after all, is why you got involved in this blog.

            so, can i please have your opinion of what the “shares” are “in” or “of”.

            you had peter ridsdale and allen leighton ?
            what was their positions?
            you had ken bates. what was his position?

            the point there being – why are these positions needed? why bother having them? why follow a team that allows these positions to dictate what “the club” does?

            [look at the fundamental man-ure fans. they went off and now follow the team that was “originally” man-u.
            both teams have fans who claim they support the real man-u.
            who is right and who is wrong ]?

            • Marching on Together

              What was the relevant question? I did not see it the first time round so answering it is somewhat difficult.

  23. prohibby

    I welcome your contribution easyJambo which shows that History is not worth a great deal if it does not help us to understand where we have gone wrong in the past and helps us create a better future. The resuscitation of Hibs in 1892 seems to have been fairly successful and while the club has had its ups and downs it did seem to gain from a couple of seasons in suspended animation. Perhaps TRFC might have benefitted from such a period in which it could have profitably reflected on where its previous incarnation had gone wrong and resolved not to make the same mistakes again.

  24. allyjambo

    In a discusion I had with Marching on Together a couple of days ago, on Adam’s ‘Rangers then…’ post, I asked whether or not there was any ‘challenge’ around the old club/new club issue in Leeds Utd’s case and he replied that there wasn’t. I suspect that this was the case in all other examples of ‘liquidated’ club’s history continuing. Now we have a situation where this issue is not only being debated on websites by internet bampots, but may very well be (probably definitely will be) discussed in the upcoming tribunal. Lord Nimmo Smith has already stated that, in his opinion, Rangers Football CLUB, and not the company, was the member of the SPL, on the grounds that the SPL rules, unlike those of the SFA, talk about the member club as opposed to the member company. He didn’t, I believe, state that this definitively separates the club from the company, but was setting the scene whereby any penalties (similar to trophies won), in the case of the SPL, at least, attach themselves to the club and not to the company. In the event that Rangers Football Club is found guilty by the tribunal, I believe they will presented with a dilema of epic proportions: accept the penalties as Rangers Football CLUB, or accept that you are not Rangers Football Club but some other club operating under a similar name. Should Green/TRFC accept the penalties, then I think we can all accept that they are the same club, and that it will be the case for any future liquidations – within the SPL, at least. Should he say, OK, we ARE a new club and don’t accept liability for the old club’s wrongdoings, then fair enough, and so no definitive precedent is set. On the other hand, and who would put it past Green, if he decides to challenge the decision, trying to keep the history while dumping the penalties, either in the CAS, or even the CoS, a definitive ruling, for the whole of football, will no doubt result.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s