“Rangers FC Survived: 3 Indisputable Justifications” – Guest Post by AD Bryce

A quick introduction from Paul –

Whilst it is disputed whether or not Rangers FC “died”, it appears that the question itself will live forever!

Stephen posted recently about why, in his opinion, the die was cast and Rangers FC had ceased to be. You can read his piece here.

The piece provoked various reactions and AD Bryce asked if he could put the contrary view – so here it is.

Two things – he suggested that people who wanted to engage him regarding his thoughts on the point could do so via Twitter – @Bryce9A.

Secondly, it would be great if commenters could hold back on the invective and abuse. Otherwise comments will be disapperaring and commenters pre-modearted, which disrupts the flow of the discussion, annoys those who are moderated, and takes up my time. But more folk are telling me that wading through pages of sniping back and forth to no great purpose is putting them off reading – and that is a shame for all (the majority) of comenters who have sensible points to make and who do so in a courteous manner.

Thank you – and now I leave the stage clear for AD Bryce.

————————————————————

The record books show that no football club on the planet – possibly even in the universe – has bossed its own backyard to the extent of Rangers FC – 54 times wearing the badge of national Champions. As a result, when the financial meltdown of the club hit the headlines, there was no shortage of people to interpret the news – euphorically in many cases –as consigning Rangers FC to those very same history books.

However, things haven’t quite gone according to that script. A football club bearing the name “Rangers FC”, retaining substantially the same colours, badge, stadium, team management and playing staff of the club of that name prior to summer 2012, is currently in existence drawing crowds and media attention to Govan.

The question is whether such observations are best explained by positing that Rangers FC survived the liquidation of its corporate incarnation, or whether the facts point to the SFL3 Champions being an entirely new club, not recognised as existing prior to 2012.

In a nutshell – here are three reasons why I not only believe Rangers FC continued to exist, but that now, in May 2013, ignorance or dishonesty are the only two excuses for not recognising this survival…

  1. Because…. It’s Official!
  2. Because…. The Law Lord said so.
  3. Because… The “club = company” foundation to ‘new club’ arguments is demonstrably false.

To address each in turn…

 

1.  OFFICIALLY Rangers FC survived.

The government does not run Football, neither do the courts. What constitutes “Official” in football is what the game’s governing bodies, albeit operating within the law and their own rules and regulations, determine it to be.

There are two ruling bodies with presiding authority over Rangers FC: the Scottish Football League and the Scottish Football Association.  BOTH state, officially, that Rangers FC survived.

THE SFL –

Conveniently, it’s “official website” has a reference page for the club listing just the details we’d require to ascertain the history of this 3rd division club – founding date, trophy haul etc.

The page http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers/ states that 3rd division Champs Rangers FC were “founded 1872”, are Scottish Champions 54 times etc. CEO David Longmuir has clarified “the history of Rangers is appropriately described on the SFL website”, ruling out any possibility these facts are the work of an unauthorised individual. http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/128091-sfl-chief-executive-confirms-rangers-league-cup-wins-will-remain/

This evidence is not a media interpretation, a blogger’s spin, it’s direct evidence from the ruling body itself. Therefore it’s reasonable to state that the official presiding league body officially recognises the survival of Rangers FC.

THE SFA –

Another direct source from The SFA, cutting out any potential error from second part interpretation:

Seeking to clarify the situation post “Rangers FC’s insolvency event”/“Rangers FC’s administration”, the SFA issued an official statement that reads “the club’s status has been confirmed by the SPL and SFL”, leading them to acknowledge “Rangers FC as a third division club”, pending, at the time, “conditional acceptance of Rangers FC in Irn Bru Division Three” from the Scottish Football League. http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10204

The SFA has been accused of cowardice in not clarifying more clearly the status of Rangers, but this does seem unfair on the basis of this official statement. A more reasonable allegation would be not accommodating those who cannot interpret a statement that refers to “RANGERS FC” as both:

–           suffering an insolvency event/administration in season 2011-12 AND

–          being a third division club for season 2012-13.

Tom English of the Scotsman has claimed:

Last August, Michele Centenaro of the ECA contacted the SFA and asked for an appraisal of the Rangers situation and whether they could be deemed the same Rangers as before or a new company unworthy of acknowledgment from the ECA. The SFA’s response was unambiguous. Different corporate entity but same Rangers, same history, same honours accrued over 140 years.

Is Tom lying about what Michele Centenaro heard was the Official position of the SFA? Unlikely. Likewise, is David Longmuir co-conspiring with the web editor to lie about the Official position of the SFL? Once again, I think not. It has to be admitted Rangers FC’s survival is, at the insistence of these official organisations, OFFICIAL.

 

2. RANGERS FC SURVIVED – the Independent Law Lord said so.

Few football-related debates have enjoyed the luxury of having been answered so emphatically by an Independent Commission, lead by a Senator of the College of Justice/ A Law Lord/ A former Supreme Court of Scotland judge. Step up The Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith.

His ruling that Rangers FC survived as a “continuing entity” is blindingly clear, forming as it does the very backbone of his reasoning regarding the entire case he was brought in to rule upon by the SPL.

http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/Commission%20Decision%2028%2002%202013.pdf

A selection of some of the quotations where continuity of Rangers FC – “the club” which he distinguishes explicitly from the two owning and operating companies – is explicit:

Page 2: “there is no allegation that the CURRENT OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THE CLUB, The Rangers Football Club Limited (Newco) …”

Page 4: “On 14 June 2012 a newly incorporated company, Sevco Scotland Limited, purchased substantially all the business and assets of Oldco, INCLUDING RANGERS FC..”

Page 4: “[Newco] BECAME THE OPERATOR OF RANGERS FC within the Third Division of the Scottish Football League”

Page 5: “Newco, as the CURRENT OWNER AND OPERATOR OF RANGERS FC, although not alleged…”

Page 6: “Rangers FC was liable to sanctions as provided by the Rules in the event of a breach WHILE [RANGERS FC] WAS OWNED AND OPERATED BY OLDCO”

Page 6: “…capable of affect Rangers FC as a CONTINUING ENTITY now owned and operated by Newco”

Page 32: “Oldco as a company, as distinct from the football management or players of Rangers FC as a club…”

Page 32: “Rangers FC is of course NOW OWNED And OPERATED BY NEWCO …”

Page 33: “…does not affect Rangers FC as a club UNDER ITS NEW OWNERSHIP.”

Anyone wishing to spin those statements to mean Rangers FC didn’t survive, good luck! Nimmo Smith’s reputation is defined by his ability to offer an objective, unbiased judgement based on facts… and his conclusion is: Rangers FC survived.

Of course many bloggers and journalists have publicly disagreed, but are any better qualified to judge than the Judge himself? A question that’s answer seems obvious to me at least.

 

3. The ignorance of the ‘Company = Club’ position

Finally I come to the “new club” perspective, specifically this ‘Company = Club’ mantra, and its idiocy in light of the facts of football precedent. The equation:

The company = the club  Liquidated company = liquidated club  Dead company = dead club.

Lying at the heart of every “new club” taunt, its simplicity, whilst rendering it seductive to the lazy observer, also makes it so easy to ridicule as nonsense.

Simply put, Football Club X cannot be equivalent to Company Y if: club survives after being sold from Company Y to another corporate entity, Company Z.

So just 1 measly example of an F.C. spanning different companies – where the only continuing “entity” is a collection of assets (ie. NOT another company)–  is all that is needed to kill this ‘Company = Club’ equation stone dead. Happily, we have many, but here’s two of my personal faves:

A. The Classic – Leeds United.

1. Oldco company = http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00170600  Incorp. 1920, Status “In LIQUIDATION”.  (“Notice of Move from admin. To Liquidation” KPMG document http://www.scribd.com/doc/87980843/leeds-cvl)

2. Newco company = http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06233875 Incorp. 2007.

B. The Connoisseur’s choice – Crystal Palace FC

1. Original company = http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00084396  Incorp. 1905 (name subsequently. changed to Mardonmain Holdings Ltd)

2. New Company = http://companycheck.co.uk/company/01844765  Incorp. 1984, Status “DISSOLVED”

3. (Another) New Company = http://companycheck.co.uk/company/03951645   Incorp. 2000, Status “DISSOLVED”

4. (ANOTHER!) New Company = http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07206409  Incorp 2010.

In both cases, IF “club = company” is to be believed then the club, Leeds or Palace, CANNOT be separated from its original company and still live on because that company is the club. However, have there been 4 different clubs called “Crystal Palace FC”, with histories starting again each time a new company was born? Are Leeds United a 6 year old club?

No evidence anywhere exists to support such claims, their on-going histories are universally accepted. On this basis, the absence of one company spanning the continuing existence of these clubs must therefore prove the “Company = Club” mantra is false.

What the evidence overwhelmingly shows (check how many companies have operated Luton/Bradford/Portsmouth/Middlesbrough/Charlton/Rotherham/Bournemouth the list goes on and on) is that the sale – from company to company – of the fundamental assets (players/stadium/coaches/brand identity etc..) that comprise a club are sufficient for on-going recognition as X football club by the football authorities (formalised by the transferring of League/FA membership shares between the companies that own those assets).

4. To conclude…

I’m happy to accept that some people will believe what they want to believe, hear “Sevco” every time the name of Rangers graces the airwaves or their television screens, dig up examples where a corporate entity is referred to as a “club” and claim that proves all other uses of the word are therefore invalid. For these people retaining the belief that “Rangers are gone” (quote courtesy of Paul Brennan, CQN) holds more benefits than giving any genuine consideration to whether reality reflects that statement.

However for everyone else, I hope this article has allowed them to at least evaluate the preceding evidence critically – are the SFL/SFA statements lies? Are those quotes actually in the Nimmo Smith report? Has the information in those companycheck web links been doctored? – and come to their own conclusions without the excuse of ignorance of the above facts.

PS. To answer one inevitable question (What about UEFA? Or FIFA?) the answer is these international organisations have no direct say, nor wish to interfere, in the question of the survival or otherwise or a Scottish association football club. Handily for me, you don’t need to trust my word on this – just trust their OWN words and (if you dare) the journalistic integrity of one Alex Thomson…http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/questions-answered-footballs-governing-bodies/2235

UEFA: “UEFA rules and regulations apply only to European competitions.”

“ the SFA and SPL as they run their domestic game according to the regulations they have passed.”

FIFA: “we would like to highlight that this is a domestic issue which falls under the remit of the SFA”

Thanks for reading.

 

Posted by AD Bryce

Advertisements

417 Comments

Filed under Guest Posts, Rangers

417 responses to ““Rangers FC Survived: 3 Indisputable Justifications” – Guest Post by AD Bryce

  1. Rangers sont morts. Terminé. Cessé d’être.
    Signed.
    Pascalle., Phillipe ,et Remi.& Janine.

  2. Sevco Sont merde!
    Pierre.

  3. when company/club is liquidated they go out of business and no longer exist, what part of that don’t rangers fans understand. If it same rangers why did chuckie have to buy the history. Did rangers buy the history from rangers?

  4. Browny

    Leeds united and crystal palace were not liquidated – they unlike dead rangers entered a cva

  5. rab

    Mojo.

    Le petite merde.

  6. rab

    Sally le coist.

  7. Niall Walker

    Ray,

    A rational mind uses evidence and logic to form a reasoned opinion, we are trying to deduce from the evidence what is most probable in the case of Rangers, anything is possible but not everything is probable.

    Nobody knows what CW is actually contesting and until we do know we cannot just assume non-disclosure unravels the whole flotation, especially since it only involves £137,000, and the sale price was 5.5 million.

    The EBT is a possible liability but there is no evidence to support its probability, there are no letters tying the loans to employment.

    If Ally causes fans to desert then he will be moved upstairs, if Ally prevents fans from deserting he will be kept on as manager.

    The sale is not being contested in the courts to my knowledge, and until the fans desert en masse and we see accounts we cannot just assume its a financial basket case. We cannot assume 7 million of losses in the first 7 months means Rangers are trading with an operating loss of 1 million per month.

    I am not saying there are no problems or risks but apart from a mass boycott by fans this year, I cannot see the business plan imploding within the next two years, once they are in the SPL they are more or less secure.

    Its no skin off my nose if Rangers goes bust again, but I think it is too early to state its probable, its a possibility.

    • Raymilland

      @Niall Walker

      With the possibility of litigation and fiscal matters causing insurmountable problems for TRFC; the probability of TRFC enduring the journey to the SPL is most unlikely.

      TRFC may continue in some form; although in a life form other than we know it.

      Illogical Spock? It must be the green blood.

  8. Monti

    Paul le guen 😀

  9. Niall Walker

    Mac,

    You are correct in stating the SBs strategy is key, and all this CW guff has not helped but until I see an exodus and/or management accounts I remain optimistic the business plan may see them through to the SPL. Reading between the lines Rangers operating losses of 10-15 million in the first 3 years may be the best they can achieve, and they may decide to bite the bullet on ticket increases to avoid further risk to SB.

    • arb urns

      why the ‘if you see kay’ would an ‘east fife’ fan remain OPTIMISTIC about Sevcos Business Plan……………..

      • Niall Walker

        Because there is sufficient cash in their account to make up any shortfall, and all Rangers fans know by deserting their club they risk putting it back into administration. These two factors encourage me to believe they may make it back to the SPL.

  10. Robertg

    If they bought the business why was the spl registration not included? This after all is the key asset in permitting a football club play football and trade as a business. No registration = no football = no club.

    • Niall Walker

      Robertg,

      Are you suggesting all the clubs in the SFL are not football clubs because they don’t have an SPL registration ?

      • castlerockbhoy

        Niall, Rangers 1872 had a SPL registration when they were liquidated, they also had a SFA membership. Why did they then have to go to the SFA and negotiate an associate membership if they were the same club?

      • Robertg

        No. I am saying that The Rangers had no registration with the SFA, the SPL or the SFL. If the registration for the football club Rangers FC was not part of the asset purchase (and it was not) The Rangers were a company with a football stadium, football players and employees but no means of actually taking part in any officially sanctioned football games. When Rangers FC went into liquidation, their status as a registered football club died. History ended. The Rangers got a new registration and a new history.

  11. MONTIT ……full house at breezeblock castle today ?…..how’s your relocation going ….?

  12. Monti

    WE ARE ALL NEIL LENNON! WE ARE THE PAPAL!

  13. Monti

    Really nice touch Neil Lennon giving his WINNERS medal away to a young fan! A class act from a top class man…. Now that’s DIGNITY!

  14. Monti

    Looks like Celtic sons can’t stop picking up silverware today, Maloney & Caldwell & all at Wigan….well done 🙂

  15. Well done Wigan ! GIRU the citeh glory hunters !…..wonder if they’ll give away their medals …..?

  16. Paul

    If a club is separate from a company then it would be fair to say that all the titles were won by the company as the club could not finance the players required to win the titles. liquidated company liquidated history.New company new titles.1 in a row.

  17. Paul

    125 years of unbroken history, Neil Lennon brilliant.

  18. Saturday night Pauline I’m off for a pint with normal people , haha !!what about you ….? I’ll let you and your ” special friend ” rab get on with your sweetie wife talk ..hahahaha!! I’ll bet you know all about w###s as your mouth will have given out a few ….rotflmao….night , night , ladies , no scratching or pulling hair….haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaa

    • rab

      Now now tampon, play nice. No need to pretend you have friends just so you can justify walking away from yet another humiliating defeat from the single digit i use to type out withering put downs. Now remember to put the plastic sheet on your bed tonight, your poor wee maw shouldn’t have to drag your duvet through the house, laden as it is with 3 litres of frosty jack you expelled through the night. A 47 year old like yourself should know that.

    • Paul

      Just having a party remember title flag and trophy today.You off to the Louden with yer zombie mates.

  19. Pauline , why don’t you and rab hook up and go to a ” bar ” …? It’s Saturday night ffs !…lmao.

  20. allyjambo

    AD,
    I really wish you’d convinced me, for as a Hearts supporter, with my team’s future uncertain, I’ve been hoping someone could convince me liquidation is not the end of a club. You’ve, in my opinion, made a valiant effort, but I remain unconvinced.

    1) You ignore how heavily conflicted the bodies, and their executives, are in this whole shambles. You fail to note that none of these bodies have made any effort to justify their positions in the matter, which is par for the course in their fudging of all things Rangers. Somewhere within the secret 5 way agreement will be an undertaking to back the ‘same club’ mantra, I’m sure, but we will probably never know.

    Plus, making a statement without justifying it, clarifies nothing. In fact, it merely continues the Scottish footballing bodies failure to grasp the meaning of ‘transparency’.

    2) Lord Nimmo Smith’s opinion is undoubtedly of great weight, but he is the man who held that mis-registering players to provide tens of millions of pounds to spend on players doesn’t provide a sporting advantage. Surely this is something that suggests his remit was only to judge on the evidence presented, and we know the complainants were more than happy to provide evidence to support their favoured club. I doubt LNS sees the oldclub/newclub scenario as all that important, especially as he was not presiding in a court of law, and more a case of semantics, so again, he would probably be content to provide the tribunal with a pronouncement to suit the evidence presented. Anyway, regardless of how he came to his conclusion, it was not argued in a court of law and is therefore not a legal, nor conclusive, fact.

    3) I think you’ll find that in all cases the oldclub/newclub issue was never raised, probably through a lack of ‘we are the people’ attitude prevalent in the liquidated clubs, so nobody really cared enough to question it.

    I can just about buy into the idea that a club is what is ‘in the hearts and minds of the supporters’, it is, after all a romantic notion (not one you promote in your blog though) but the idea that the ‘club’ goes with the assets is nonsense, for how do you decide on which assets are the club, and how many of the assets would be required to form a club? Would you suggest it is all the assets? The majority of the assets? The major assets ie player registrations/contracts, brand name, stadium and so on? There would be problems, of course, if the assets were sold to two or more purchasers; and if a major asset, say the stadium, was later found to be owned by some other company, what then? But no worries, your friends at Hampden will make whatever pronouncement you require, just like they’ve done already.

    Over 100 years ago Rangers Football Club BECAME a limited company. A company wasn’t formed that bought the assets, and Rangers FC never appeared as an asset in any company’s accounts. In fact, you may be right that the club=company notion is wrong, for it could be argued that, on incorporation, a club ceases to be, except as a word in the title of a limited company, and only exists in the hearts and minds of the company’s supporters.
    Not a notion I find particularly pleasant, but perhaps one that footballing bodies, everywhere, would prefer to go untested.

    • Paul

      Why punish a club because the company which is separate screwed up.if a club is separate then any punishment should be dealt with for only sporting matters.,just as a company should be dealt with for legal law matters ie liquidated. if i funded a club and was a chairman of the company part then i would consider paying nothing.Precedent set.

      • Den

        The issue seems to be: what is a club?

        If I and a few friends form a club it is no problem (assuming it is legal and harms no one).

        It gets more complex at a high level when clubs must be more ‘corporate’.

  21. rab

    Interesting development from a guy called charlotte fakeovers on TSFM.

    Whats this about Paul.

    • lordmac

      RAB I THINK THIS IS A LOAD OF TOSH there is no date to this or when it was written, but it jumps in and out, of old and new reports, the only part that interested me was, that Rangers owned 2 houses, as i never heard anything mentioned about them before, valued at £800,000

      • rab

        Lordmac.

        Cheers, i dont have a scribd account so i dont know what is in the document, i could offer no legal or business analysis even if i had as i have zero expertise in either field. I just noticed it had caused some intrigue on TSFM. The guy ( @charlottefakes ) who posted it has a twitter account but no tweets apparently, which seems strange. Despite my ban from TSFM i continue to read almost all the posts and i dont ever recall his name appearing before tonight. Easyjambo and chipm0nk ( who i wont out but is an old RTC stalwart ) have commented. I guess the next couple of days on here and TSFM will ascertain the validity of the contents.

        Nae flies on the bampots.

  22. rab

    Scribd account opened, document downloaded. What stood out for me was there is no mention of the tax case. Is this a complete document, and what is its purpose.

  23. Fra

    The underdogs of Wigan triumph against the spending power of Man City. I have no affiliation with either but I do like to see the underdog win. This is where Sevco gets ridiculed.

    For years, the dark craft of freemasonry, coupled with a twisted perception of Protestantism has been allowed to flourish in Scotland at the expense of others. This perception that ‘we are the people’ is not only outdated in a modern society but is also racist and regressive in moving forward.

    Coming from an engineering background in the West of Scotland opens ones eyes to this phenomenon. It is played out daily with regalia being openly flaunted. Ties, badges and tattoos are common within these industries. Surnames can play a large part in progression within the slimy pole of progression.

    Having the handle of our fathers should instill in us a sense of pride of who and what we are but within the yards and factories of our heavy industries lies the discriminatory hand of freemasonry / protestentism / orange order / sevco (rangers) to keep the status quo or the ill conceived notion of superiority.

    Granted, this behaviour is being eroded slowly but in my opinion, secret society’s serve no purpose in a modern society and should be banned. Only when heads of industry and leaders in our field speak out will this be taken seriously. Clubs take many varying styles and headings and most have nothing but intentions.

    Until we take a serious stance with regards to this racist, backward, attitude then as a country, Scotland will never be able to move on.

  24. rab

    It strikes me that rfc have never had a plan that didn’t recquire participation in the champions league., this document outlines a need for CL football at least every two years. Would the clients who this document is aimed at be so ready to dismoss Celtics ability to deny rfc participation in the CL for a 3, 4 or even 5 year period, thus diluting the future prospects of rfc ever returning to that level of fund generation. Its not like rfc could rely on, say, a corrupt governing body who could influence referreeing or disciplinary matters for their benefit and ease of passage into the CL. As i mentioned earlier, i have no business accumen but rfc have never had a plan that is sustainable or attainable.

    I noticed the plan to sell boogy or macgregor for £5m, yet the hordes have turned on macgregor rather viciously for disloyalty. Rfc were a disgusting, rapacious, self serving and entitled bastion of establishment supremacy.

  25. I believe some posters are unfamiliar with the theology of modern Protestantism in Scotland.

    Particularly those who revel in cries of “we are the people”.

    I was brought up attending the Church of Scotland. My minister as a child was Sandy MacDonald. A truly great and wonderful man.

    I remember all the kids liked him. That was because he had a warmth to his personality that naturally drew people towards him. In some other religions this could be described as an aura.

    Years later, I heard how he also proved a great comfort to bereaved families and also a pillar of strength to them.

    In cricketing terms he was a great “all-rounder”.

    In religious terms he was simply a man of God.

    He later became Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

    As an aside, one of his sons is the former Dr Who, David Tennant.

    Anyway, the point of my tale is that I can assure those of other faiths that the Protestantism I have experienced within the Church of Scotland for the last 40 odd years is not one that promotes an exclusivist theology or a separatist cultural ideology.

    Modern-day Protestantism, as represented by the Church of Scotland, focuses on the fact that “We are all God’s children”.

    It most certainly does not promote a supersessionist belief that Protestants have leapfrogged the Jews as the “chosen people”.

    • Fra

      @RayCharles…A wonderful post mate and how religion when practiced correctly can be the greatest thing known to man. It is when hatred and bigotry is allowed to fester and is attached to the said religion giving a false impression.

      Any religion when practiced correctly can only enhance that person. If it promotes harm and negativity towards others, then it’s been twisted to suit that persons narrow agenda

      • Mike Brough

        Apologies, Fra, but if a person needs a religion to ‘enhance’ them then they’re not thinking for themselves. That’s the same mindset that says morality can only come from religion.

        • Fra

          @Mike…..Religions not for me mate but if people get some sort of spiritual goodness from it and it doesn’t harm others, then who am I to criticise. Too much hatred in this twisted world of ours

    • allyjambo

      RC, great post that has made me feel a little bit better after hearing McCoist’s ludicrous rallying call; that put all hopes of a ‘New Dawn’ right out the window! Good posts, too, from Fra.

  26. Bryce9a

    Paul, I hope you were not shying in communicating to Messrs Brennan and McGiloavan how sharply your own view regarding Rangers survival disagrees with their perspective on things.

  27. Bryce9a

    Just to add, as i made clear in my own article, the Scottish football authorities have made very clear their position on Rangers’ survival, which was what made those ASA complaints so amusingly absurd.

  28. Pingback: Crystal Palace – why this club is NOT returning to top-flight football – by AD Bryce | Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville

  29. Daz

    Why would any one buy shares in rangers international football club plc when we are led to believe that it is sevco scotland that owns and opperates rfc??

    Fifa themselves have stated they died remember this http://touch.fifa.com/worldfootball/news/newsid=1977017.html

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