There are those who maintain the myth that the Rangers FC formed in 1872 is the same club pre and post liquidation 2012. Here is why Rangers FC no longer exists.
MAIN STREAM MEDIA (MSM)
When it became clear that liquidation was inevitable for Rangers the overwhelming response from the msm was that Rangers, including its history, would cease thereafter. Here is a small selection of quotations, succinctly capturing this widely held view in the media:
– The Herald: “Air of unreality as 140 years of history is formally ended in less than nine minutes” (The Herald, 15 June 2012: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/air-of-unreality-as-140-years-of-history-is-formally-ended-in-less-than-nine-minutes.17876625).
– Roddie Forsyth: “Rangers in crisis: the final whistle sounds on Rangers’ 140 years of history” (The Telegraph, 12 June 2012: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9327256/Rangers-in-crisis-the-final-whistle-sounds-on-Rangers-140-years-of-history.html).
– Jim Traynor: “Rangers FC as we know them are dead. It’s all over. They are about to shut down for ever…They’ll slip into liquidation within the next couple of weeks with a new company emerging but 140 years of history, triumph and tears, will have ended… No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club. When the CVA was thrown out Rangers as we know them died.” (Daily Record, 13 June 2012: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/james-traynor-spl-will-not-be-able-1129166).
Of course, journalists are not the most reliable barometer of definitive opinion, but why would they express such an unambiguous view in the first place? Even Charles Green held the same categorical viewpoint [speaking to the BBC]: “…the history, the tradition, everything that is great about this Club, is swept aside.” This leads us on to the crucial piece of evidence contradicting the idea that Rangers FC still exists.
INSOLVENCY LAW
When a company is liquidated its business activities cease to exist. The business of Rangers FC Plc was football. When Rangers FC Plc was wound up, so were the football activities of Rangers FC Plc i.e. the football club and associated merchandising etc. The BBC recognised this fact when they observed that “The Rangers Football Club PLC is a public limited company registered in Scotland (company number: SC004276) and was incorporated on 27 May, 1899. When the current company is officially liquidated, all of its corporate business history will come to an end.” It is now clear why the main stream media, including Charles Green and the alleged journalist Jim Traynor, held the unequivocal belief that liquidation signalled the demise of Rangers FC.
Change of company name or ownership, or indeed a combination, does not in itself represent a cessation of a business’ activities. Manchester United changed owners when the Glazers took over but there was no claim that Manchester United FC stopped existing as a football entity. Similarly, when Craig Whyte bought Rangers FC from Sir David Murray, Rangers FC continued to exist. When Fergus McCann bought Celtic FC there was not only a change in ownership but also a change in corporate status, from The Celtic Football and Athletic Company 1888 to Celtic Football Club Plc. Owners come and go, as do corporate names, but provided liquidation has not taken place the business itself continues with an unbroken, seamless history.
If company status altered the historical timeline of football genealogy then Manchester United Plc became a new club when it changed its company status from Manchester United FC Ltd to Manchester United Plc in 1991; similarly with Celtic under Fergus McCann; and with Rangers FC when Sir David Murray changed the company status in 2000 from The Rangers Football Club Ltd to The Rangers Football Club Plc, in which case there have been three Rangers clubs: one before the Plc, one immediately after, and a third after liquidation. The reason the allegation that change of company status alters a company’s historical timeline has zero credibility is because business continuity is not dependent on company status, unless liquidation has occurred.
Furthermore, if a new company is formed – using assets bought from the old, liquidated company, for the purposes of operating the same type of business – it is not only a new company that has come into being but also the start of a new business venture, irrespective of the nature of that business. In the context of Rangers, the Rangers FC plying its trade in the SFL is a new football club and not the same club as that which played in the SPL. To deny otherwise is contrary to insolvency law. If it were otherwise then insolvency law would be a meaningless legal instrument.
NO PRECEDENTS
Legal matters can be determined by statute (Acts of Parliament) or case law. In terms of statute, there is no law that permits a liquidated company’s history to continue unbroken after liquidation: on the contrary, there is one to prevent such an event taking place – The Insolvency Act 1986. In terms of case law, there is no legal precedent to justify the claim that a liquidated company’s history can legitimately resurface under the guise of another company. Once a company is liquidated, its name, historical timeline and associated business activities immediately cease.
In the case of a football club, there is no club in the UK that has been liquidated and resurfaced, after liquidation, with its history intact. In Scotland for example, Airdrieonians, formed in 1878 (under the earlier exotic name of Excelsior Football Club) went into liquidation in 2002. In the same year Airdrie FC was formed but because of insolvency law could not lay claim to the history of its previous incarnation, which to their credit they accepted with good grace. Other examples include Gretna and Clydebank.
Rangers’ fans erroneously point to the case of Leeds United FC as evidence of a club that has a continuous historical timeline intact after liquidation. In 2007, Leeds United AFC Ltd, under the threat of liquidation, was sold to Leeds United FC Ltd, but with the important proviso that HMRC would agree to a CVA. HMRC did eventually agree to a CVA and Leeds was saved from compulsory liquidation. The club suffered a points deduction and after paying off the creditors and the proper and orderly transfer of assets from Leeds United AFC Ltd to Leeds United FC Ltd, the old club company was voluntarily wound up. If a CVA had not been agreed and Leeds United AFC Ltd had been forced into compulsory liquidation then Leeds United FC Ltd (i.e. the new company) would not have been able to claim the history of the old club. Rangers FC is a very different case indeed and Rangers fans cannot point to the example of Leeds FC as an exemplar of club survival after liquidation.
SALE OF ASSETS
Listed below are the assets of Rangers FC Plc bought by Charles Green:
| Assets | Price |
| Goodwill | £1 |
| SPL Share | £1 |
| SFA Membership | £1 |
| Leasehold Interests | £1 |
| Player Contracts & Registrations | £2,749,990 |
| Stock | £1 |
| Plant & Machinery | £1,250,000 |
Nowhere is Rangers FC listed as an asset. Nowhere is the history of Rangers FC listed as an asset. Yet, a thesis has been postulated that a company’s history can be sold as a separate item in a company asset sale. This is manifestly absurd. In the case of Rangers, the bizarre logic of that position is a) Craig Whyte had the option not to purchase the history of Rangers when the club was sold to him, or parts of the history that he did not like, thus wiping out any potential tax liability or creditor debt; b) after Craig Whyte, someone could have purchased the stadium while another party could have submitted a successful bid to own its history; c) if a club’s history was a saleable asset then it would also mean that a club, even as a going concern, could sell off its history to another club in an effort to raise money. All of this, of course, is unheard of, and for good reason: a club’s historical events are tied irrevocably to that club and a club separated from its history loses its identity and meaning. Crucially, when insolvency law kicked in and consigned Rangers FC Plc and its football activities to the past, the club and its history thereafter ceased to continue, except as an historical footnote.
There has been an attempt to conflate a company’s goodwill with ownership of its historical timeline. HMRC define goodwill as “the value of the attraction to the customers which the name and reputation possesses”. The value of purchasing Ibrox stadium and playing in the same colours as the old club, given the record of achievement of the old Rangers FC, was obvious to Charles Green, but equating goodwill to ownership of Rangers FC and its historical timeline is an incredulous sleight of hand that flies against both the common sense definition of goodwill and the concrete clarity of insolvency law.
To then argue that insolvency does not breach that timeline is to employ Alice in Wonderland logic. The effect of which would be to ensure that no football club could ever be compulsorily dissolved. By extension, companies about to be liquidated could adopt the same law-defying approach: sell off the core of the business under the asset “goodwill” and resurface under a new company name but with the same core business activities as before, claiming an unbroken historical timeline. Of course, this is nonsense because it is unlawful.
Lord Nimmo Smith has been used in evidence in support of the notion that old Rangers FC survived liquidation. He said that a football club can exist separate from its holding company. Now we have the bizarre position where not only can a football club be separated from its history and its history be sold on (even if the club is subsequently liquidated along with its holding company), but a club can also exist without an owner. If the Manchester United Board decided voluntarily to liquidate Manchester Utd Plc then Manchester Utd FC would no longer exist, except in the minds of its supporters. To argue that Manchester’s history could be auctioned either pre or post liquidation defies interpretation in the real world of insolvency.
Lord Nimmo Smith was also wrong when he said that Rangers FC still exists. He was reflecting the view of the SFA who, we know, know Sweet FA, not least their own arcane humpty-dumpty rules. Dr Gregory Ioannidis, a leading authority on Sports Law, agrees that “the history of a club cannot pass from one company [into liquidation] to another”. The import of LNS’ claim was that the new Rangers FC could be punished for the sins of the old Rangers FC, if they were one and the same club. If he had maintained that claim and punished the Rangers currently plying their trade in the SFL then a court challenge would have immediately nullified that punishment on several grounds: 1) such a punishment would harm newco and newco had nothing to do with oldco 2) the Rangers in the SFL is a new club (insolvency law saw to that) and, like newco, had nothing to do with the sins of old Rangers. In the end, LNS strayed clear of punishing newco in any shape or form and, instead, levied a futile fine on oldco. HMRC, like Dr Gregory Ioannidis, and consistent with insolvency law, also recognise that newco has no connection whatsoever with oldco. Unlike insolvency law, LNS’ philosophical musings are not legally binding; nor do they set a legal precedent.
SFA MEMBERSHIP AND EUROPEAN FOOTBALL
When Charles Green bought the assets of Rangers FC Plc he also purchased the old club’s SFA membership and SPL share. Prior to liquidation, Rangers had full membership status within Scottish professional football. After liquidation, the club playing in SFL Division 3 was allocated associate membership status. The reason for that was very simple: the Rangers playing in the SFL was a different club than the one which previously played in the SPL.
Importantly, the new Rangers applied to join the SPL but their application was rejected, despite a mysterious 5-way agreement. If Rangers was the same club pre and post liquidation then an application would have been completely unnecessary, particularly since they claimed to purchase the old club’s SFA membership and SPL share. Of course, Rangers was legally dissolved after liquidation – hence the need for a fresh application from the new club. Similarly, the new Rangers then applied to join the SFL and this time their application was successful. Remember, if an existing SPL club changes ownership or its holding company changes from a Ltd to a Plc, it has no bearing on the club’s membership status and therefore there is no requirement to re-apply for SFA or SPL membership – it is liquidation that forces that event.
Furthermore, because Rangers post-liquidation is a new club, it is unable to compete in European competition for three years. It is a stipulation of EUFA that a license to play in Europe can only be given to a club that has been a member of a national association for three consecutive years. The old Rangers did have a EUFA license but the new Rangers do not. When Rangers FC expired, so did their EUFA license.
The fact that the SFA has allowed The Rangers FC to pretend that their history is continuous, contrary to insolvency law, has no bearing on the facts of the case and will forever remain a stain on the SFA’s reputation.
WHO ARE LIVINGSTON PLAYING IN THE THIRD ROUND?
[The credit for this further piece of evidence on why Rangers FC is a new club belongs to Gordon Johnston: http://gordonjohnston.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/livingstone-provide-proof-that-the-rangers-are-a-new-club/]
The third round of the Scottish Cup 2012/13 consisted of 16 ties between Scotland’s smaller clubs, after which, in the fourth round, the 16 top clubs from the previous season – 2011/12 – then joined the fray. The 16 top clubs included the 10 clubs in the SPL from season 2011/12 and the top four from last season’s SFL First Division: Ross County, Dundee, Falkirk and Hamilton Academicals. Looking at the SFL First Division from 2011/12 it is clear that Livingstone finished 5th and therefore should not be considered to be among the “16 top clubs”:
| Position | Team | Points |
| 1 | Ross County | 79 |
| 2 | Dundee | 55 |
| 3 | Falkirk | 52 |
| 4 | Hamilton Academicals | 49 |
| 5 | Livingstone | 48 |
Yet, Livingston got a bye into round four when they should have been playing in round three! Why? The regulations for last year’s third round were quite clear and ought to have excluded Livingston:
“The clubs which, in the previous season, were members of The Scottish Premier League and those clubs finishing in The Scottish Football League First Division league positions one to four, shall be exempt from playing in Round Three of the Competition.” (http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2012-13/SFA_HANDBOOK_169-200_Cup_Competition_Rules.pdf)
The reason that Livingston got a bye was because one of the clubs in the SPL – Rangers FC – no longer existed. If they existed, irrespective of their current league or position in 2012/13, they would have been entitled to enter the competition in round four courtesy of the previous season’s placings. The SFA considered The Rangers FC to be a new club. Hence the creation of a spare slot, duly allocated to the team finishing 5th in the SFL First Division, i.e. Livingston.
CONCLUSION
The club formerly known as Rangers FC is as dead as a dodo. The new club masquerading as the old Rangers FC is just that: a new club masquerading as the old club. Unfortunately, when conclusive proof of the demise of Rangers FC is brought to the attention of Rangers fans, there is an apoplectic response: one is either deluded or a Rangers Hater, or both. Fortunately, insolvency law usurps personal insult. The Celtic Story, a glorious club built on charitable foundations, winner of the Big Cup and welcomed throughout the global football fraternity, is quite another story altogether, but that is for another blog!
Posted by JohnBhoy
Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville 
I don’t support Celtic. I’m sure that most people look at Leeds and agree that, that is not the real Leeds. That does not mean that they can’t support them and be proud of the new team’s efforts.
“I’m sure that most people look at Leeds and agree that, that is not the real Leeds.” I am sure that most people would look at that statement and think what the **** is he babbling on about.
In 1919 Leeds City dissolved and a new club Leeds United were formed in 1920. Different club, but connected, many of the same supporters.
In 2007 Leeds United continued in an unbroken line with an unbroken history. Same club, same supporters.
aye! leeds city leeds united. get over it mate, once a bhun always a bhun, ya kiddin naebidae. the club that wiz never a football club are deid, shake hands on it eh!
Adam I have to congratulate you. You’ve dealt with the (minority) morons on here with dignity & respect. Your points have been made quote obviously with deep knowledge of the subject & perhaps the more logical or less blinded by hatred on here might think on as to the rubbish which, 90% of the time regarding Rangers, is posted on here.
Kudos to you Adam.
@MOT
Brilliant stuff. Again like “Adam” you know your stuff. Responding on this particular site as you know will open up the gates of indignant hatred & blind fury without reason.
Well said you
Ta. I think. Just to be clear, I have no liking for Rangers, but even less of a liking for those who by implication are trying to kill my club.
@MOT
I did pick up that you’re not a Rangers fan. Unfortunately posting on here in attempt to hold a reasoned, sane & logical debate automatically qualifies you as a “deid persun” & “Sevco Zombie”. Intelligence & wit on here is frowned upon by (& I stress) minority bigots.
Best to you
Click to access 0,,10794~126028,00.pdf
In reaching our conclusion on the meaning and effect of this Agreement and in particular Clause 4 we have taken account of the circumstances in which the Compromise Agreement came into existence.
Leeds OldCo went into administration. In accordance with its undisputed powers the League issued a Compulsory Transfer Notice in respect of the League Share (which entitles it to membership of the League) in the name of Leeds OldCo requiring it to transfer the League Share at par value to the Secretary of the League.
Leeds NewCo wished to succeed Leeds OldCo as owner of Leeds United FC, by becoming a Member Club and securing a transfer of the League share to enable them to do so.
The Business & Assets were offered on an unconditional basis with an open bidding process. Although a CVA was not reached there was still ways for creditors to be paid through scheme of agreement or conditions imposed by the league via the exceptional circumstances provision.
With the way things are going in Scotland perhaps it is time for the SFA / SPL/ SFL to look at including detailed rules for admin and insolvency. if a club like Rangers , with their large fan base, can become insolvent then it is surely only a matter of time before other clubs follow suit. The key issue seems to be the transfer of the share which allows a club to play football in the league.
Reading what happened during Leeds troubles has shown me the issues are complicated. Liquidation is pretty clear to everyone… they know and we know it……… and you will never get Celtic and Rangers fans agreeing about anything concerning football… except our MSM write garbage
“The Business & Assets were offered on an unconditional basis” Doesn’t mention Club. perhaps that is because the the Business & Assets collectively make up the Club.
“there was still ways for creditors to be paid” The unsecured creditors got 4p in the pound (more to come if Leeds got back into the Premier League within a certain period). Only the secured creditors and football creditors were paid in full.
Did Ken Bates buy Leeds from the administrator in June 2007 ?
No. Next.
what date do you want ?
I don’t date Rangers-haters.
@MOT
What possible reason would a “Leeds supporter” have for not wanting to date a person who dislikes another non-connected football club?
The Rangers-haters by the arguments they put forward, want by implication to kill my club also. Added to which they are all ugly as sin.
BUSINESS ‘AND’ assets, so they bought the business? The entity as a whole? Unlike Tribute Act, who bought assets and NOT the business? Is it just me who can see an ever so slight difference!
Business 101 – a business is made up of assets, such as stock, premises, goodwill, IP including brands, the business name, employee registrations, cash, money owed, etc etc. A football club is a business. A football club is made up of assets.
You can call what was transferred the club, or the business, or the assets. The end result is the same.
there are several differences in the perpetual leeds/RFC NewCo debate.
Here’s another way of thinking about the debate. Can the history of a club be tied intrinsically to it’s membership?
As a parallel thought problem. Let’s say I hold a membership in a golf club. I participate in a competition in which I win. My mebership share, represented by my person, is therefore recognised as the winner of that competition and thence inscribed on the roll of honours for that competition. My club rules allow for no transfer of membership, as this would lead to the ludicrous situation of another person laying claim to the honours I accrued under that membership. In this situation, my contract of membership with the club *might* entitle me to sell on my membership to another person, but it would not be my actual membership which is transferred, merely the right of access to a membership share in that a sale would entitle a new owner to an automatic fresh membership upon completion of the sale.
Transferring this to the world of soccer. The organising body for the sport issues membership shares in an ongoing competition. Those shares being subject to certain conditions which may be periodically assessed (e.g. annual licensing etc). A business may own a share in the competion via the membership. In this line of thought, any honours accrued are accrued to that membership and are in fact transferable with the membership share.
This leads to the one fundamental difference I can see in the Leeds/RFC NewCo debate. The English FA transferred the membership, and thence the footballing share between the two companies. As the company was still in administration at the start of the season, and due to the transfer having been outwith the normal CVA procedure proscribed in the FA rules, they invoked the “exceptional circumstances” rule which was already written into the rules of english soccer to allow NewCo leeds to compete, retaining their honours as they resided with the membership share and that share was transferred, subject to starting the next season with a 15 point deduction. A meeting of english clubs APPROVED the transfer and conditions.
RFC NewCo applied for a transfer of the SPL share held by RFC OldCo but this transfer was REJECTED by SPL clubs. And with that rejection, the membership and share of RFC OldCo perished. A new SPL share was created and awarded to Dundee to allow them promotion to the SPL.
RFC NewCo then had to apply for a NEW MEMBERSHIP of the SFA and a share in the SFL both of which were awarded (under questionable circumstances) with various conditions attached to allow circumvention of the three years accounts rule for SFA membership.
I am unsure as to the fiorentina relevance, as I can’t find anything online regarding the Italian FA’s rules re membership’s. It might be a case that fiorentina’s membership was in fact transferred and with it the honours of the previous incarnation having merely been dormant in the intervening time.
The fundamental difference is that the members in the Scottish competition rejected the transfer, whereas the English FA members did not.
Jer
“RFC NewCo then had to apply for a NEW MEMBERSHIP of the SFA”
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10204
“Sevco Scotland Ltd bought Rangers Football Club PLC’s share in the SPL and membership of the Scottish FA as part of their acquisition of assets. Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements. “
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19120224
“”The Scottish FA can confirm that The Rangers Football Club Ltd have today received confirmation that full membership of the association has been transferred.””
Another myth busted. 🙂
I suspect that this arrangement may have been negotiated as part of the mysterious 5 way agreement.
I stand corrected.
my apologies. please disregard my post as I was in error re the membership. Let the ribbing commence.
No ribbing required jer. We all get things wrong and its a pleasant change to see someone hold their hands up. Thumbs Up from me.
Rangers Reanimated do NOT have the same membership. They were full members, Sevco are NOT full members, how? If it’s the same membership how van it be a different type of membership!?
jer.
http://www.scotzine.com/2012/07/the-legal-aspect-of-rangers-and-the-sfa-membership/
Rangers have ‘Associate Membership ‘ – that is why they were not allowed to vote in the recent restructuring talks. So I can’t really see why you are apologising – unless rangers have Full Associate Membership !
One slight problem. The article you link to was in July however the Full membership was not confirmed to 3rd August as per “The Scottish FA can confirm that The Rangers Football Club Ltd have today received confirmation that full membership of the association has been transferred.”
Adam.
They are still ‘associate members’ to this day. Again, that is why Green was moaning about not having a vote during the restructuring talks.
Rangers are an associate member of the SPL. They are a full member of the SFA as membership was transferred from oldco to newco.
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/1623-sfa-confirm-full-membership
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=3218&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10287
Sorry I meant SFL not SPL
Sevco were given temporary SFA membership upon agreeing to certain conditions (stop laughing at the back there) and they changed names from Sevco to The Rangers.
Then the big scam started to kick in and they reverted from The Rangers to just using Rangers.
They then got full membership.
But they were only given associate membership of the SFL.
Now someone tell me how a club could possibly get temporary / associate membership unless it is a new club?
Because beforehand liquidation Rangers FC were full members and there is no documentation anywhere (and why should there be?) to suggest the club was downgraded.
Look at how the SFA name your club in the above quote Adam.
Jesus wept! THEY DON’T HAVE FULL MEMBERSHIP! It’s a Club you purport to follow yet you don’t know that they are NOT full members!
Rangers were in administration/liquidation only the assets of the club could have been sold. The business side of the club that holds Rangers fc history could not be sold on while that business was in administration/ liquidation.
Utter rubbish. Administration is not the same as liquidation, and they happened at completely different times. The job of the administrator was to get the best deal for the creditors, and that involved selling the club, which is what happened.
So Club shares are bought and sold? What utter nonsense.
you will actually find there was no new sfa membership applied for the sfa membership was actually transfered
Well said JohnBhoy. No more need be said.
So, Adam et al…
Could Partick Thistle, or Dundee, or Airdrie Utd, or Celtic or any other club buy the asset that is the history of Rangers FC from the newco? Celtic could in one transaction add 54 titles to their collection….Is that right? In fact it doesn’t even need to be a football club. Any entity could theoretically by your reckoning, buy the Rangers FC history and claim it as their own. I am sure the entries would look lovely on the honour board in my local bowling club. Perhaps Celtic could buy the Manchester Utd history and lay claim to two Champions League trophies and 20 top flight English League titles. Are you serious?
I did suggest last March or April on here that Celtic fans should get together and offer a couple of million to buy the contents of the Rangers trophy cabinet from D&P. Not that it would mean anything, but it would have been extremely funny to watch. Especially the Rangers fans scrabbling together enough funds to match it, and provide more of a return for the creditors.
I seem to have travelled back in time to early 2012…
Anyone who believes that Rangers are dead will continue to do so, no matter how many times you argue that they’re not.
And anyone who believes that Rangers aren’t dead will continue to do so, no matter how many times you argue that they are.
So lets move on. Please!?
I see that The Rangers have finally started to sell next year’s season tickets. And that they’re the same price as this years. Well done. Congratulations.
But as income hasn’t been increased, I guess that means the playing budget is getting cut, right? Well, only an idiot would see his or her club/company running at a loss of £1m per month and think, “Hmm…I know, i’ll freeze the amount of income and increase the wage bill. That should fix everything!”
Agree on all points COYBIG.
On another note, i see that football365.com has confirmed Rangers had the highest average league attendance in the WHOLE of Scottish football last season.
An incredible feat if, as some claim, this is a brand new company and club. 🙂
@Adam
Celtic’s 1,268,152 fans through the home gate this season has only been beaten by Man Utd and Arsenal in the UK. FACT.
Well done. 3rd in Britain for overall attendance is an excellent result.
2nd in Scotland for overall league attendance is not bad either. 😉
Should repeat “average league attendance” before eco pulls me up. 🙂
@Adam
Celtic’s average League attendance of 46,811 takes them into the top 5 league attendances in the UK behind Man Utd, Arsenal, Newcastle & Man City. The Rangers are 6th with an average attendance of 45,744. FACT. Well done on finishing 6th tho.
Good job for The Rangers we ain’t talking about income generated from ticket sales. There’s a MASSIVE gulf between Celtic and The Rangers on that front.
365 football has Rangers at 45.744 however they have Celtic at 44.964 http://stats.football365.com/dom/SCO/PR/attend.html
I do see that Scotprem has the higher figure mind you.
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics”
– Mark Twain
It’s all about the advertising,and a good sales rep who can flog snow to the Eskimos if required. Just say watp we will get an orange strip,our trophies are not for sale blah de blah and they will come.
Football365 was in error. They credited Celtic with zero attendance for the St. Johnstone. Add in that attendance (43,000+) and Celtic’s average league home crowd was 46,917, the highest in Scotland. as it has been every year since the expansion of Parkhead except one.
I don’t care what the papers say I don’t care what anyone says I don’t care what the animals say Basically I don’t care
I would love it if all Scottish football fans could unite in a boycott of all things trfc. Write to their clubs and withold money until the clubs demand that this poison is removed from the game. I am truly sick of this unending fiasco. Between rfc and the sfa they have ruined any enjoyment to be had from watching football in this country. The theft, the cheating, the rioting, the religious hatred would not exist if rfc and now sevco could be purged from the game entirely and forever. They have always believed they are above the rest of us in a spiritual sense and will never accept being equal. Even in death they continue to stink the place out by transplanting this poison into a new entity, they blew the chance to start a new club free from all that holds Scotland back from maturing as a nation. When sevco go bust, and they will, there must be a total uniting by everyone else to ensure they never come back. When the time comes, decent fans nationwide must withold all money from our clubs, sponsors, sky and bt, bookies, and anyone else that is involved in professional football in this country until the spare league place is filled by Spartans or whoever else wins the vote to join. If a new govan club forms at the lowest reaches of the game, it must be thoroughly scrutinised to ensure no poisonous elements of the previous govan clubs has been included in its dna, no spivs, no cheats, no thieves, no liars, no religious baggage, no influence in the governing bodies and no msm lies. The first instance of sectarian chanting to be met with withdrawl of membership. Rangers and its recent and future guises are a throwback to unlightened times, we dont want this, we dont need this, and we can have a healthy game without them. Do not debate with them on wether they continue or not, they dont, we know this, we justify them by debating it. Just be ready to mobilise when the new version dies and lets end this once and for all. Oh aye, and lets get rid of all the sfa enablers at the same time
A few other FACTS for you Adam:
Celtic are Scotland’s most watched club on TV with an average of 229k watching their games on Sky/ESPN. The Rangers average 121k.
And 4.3 million viewers (combined between ITV and ITV HD) made Celtic vs Juventus the most watched UCL game of the season until then.
Here’s another wee FACT that I just read:
The Rangers have the 2nd highest wage bill in Scottish Football. On 1/30th of The Rangers budget, QOS have amassed 9 more points in a higher division.
But Ally keeps saying he needs more players, hmm…
Last one:
During Neil Lennon’s reign as Celtic manager, he is £5.95m in profit in the transfer market.
I know I said that last post was the last one, but I found this wee gem:
Zinedine Zidane was never caught offside in his career.
Its kind of a false economy though given the £10m he got for Aiden about 10 games into his managerial career.
@Adam
So that £10m is fake?
He cashed in on an asset and spent the money wisley. It’s not as if he’s added £20m of Negative Goodwill to try balance/cook the books.
Not saying its fake, simply that he was fortunate enough to take over at a time where a huge asset sale was being realised.
McLeish was similar with a few huge sales not long after he took over with players he never bought nor brought through.
But to be fair, Ally is clueless.
@Adam
Don’t tell him that tho. He’ll be running about trying to buy one.
So easy to say of a coach/manager only close up in a match would i be able to say for sure… As a coach he allows others to get the team fit and at the age of player he works with you would expect a good level of competency so the next thing is, can he inspire the player to add 20% to their game on matchday… For the younger ones to improve knowing that expectancy, it often dies with the level of player you are up against and players are lazy Or it is too easy, need to get them out of that but it is hard…!!!
Often requires 2 things one a more experienced pushy leader on the park and a better class opposition over time.. The latter the most important imo..
@JohnBhoy
I, for one, think that the insolvency laws are not fit for purpose. They are too easily manipulated and subverted. It beggars belief that administrators can sell off all the assets of a company at a knock down price and leave only the toxic remnants as “the scraps from the table” for legitimate creditors to fight over.
You present a very cogent and persuasive argument, the crux of which, if I understand it is to the effect that the crucial element is the fact the the oldco was liquidated and that this fact leads to the winding up (death) of all the business dealings of oldco. Can you clarify something for me though?
Was oldco at that point in time (the liquidation) still directly linked with the club or had the club and all associated assets already been bought by newco or did the liquidation and the sale of assets all happen at the same time? I genuinely don’t know and only ask because I see it as critical to your argument. If the newco purchase happened before the liquidation and newco owned the club at the time of the liquidation then they would be able to claim that the liquidation of oldco had no bearing on the operation of the new company or the status of the club within it. If on the other hand the liquidation and sale of assets all formed part of the one deal then your argument is very convincing.
“Was oldco at that point in time (the liquidation) still directly linked with the club or had the club and all associated assets already been bought by newco or did the liquidation and the sale of assets all happen at the same time? ” Honest question, here’s an honest answer. By the time of the liquidation (Oct 2012) the only thing that was left connected with Rangers were the non-footballing debts, plus the prospect of a fine when the commission on dual-contracts reported. All the assets and everything that makes up the club had been sold to Sevco in June 2012.
“If the newco purchase happened before the liquidation and newco owned the club at the time of the liquidation then they would be able to claim that the liquidation of oldco had no bearing on the operation of the new company or the status of the club within it” Exactly. This is the point that so many on here fail to understand.
Boys and girls. This is all getting needlessly complicated. It’s very simple if you know the history……
Rangers FC was formed as a football club (d’oh really?)
The club became incorporated as a Limited company to protect the players and staff from personal liabilities. This was not a holding company, it was the club.
Rangers FC Ltd then became a PLC as it needed to be to trade shares on the stock market. This was the same entity as the Ltd company just a change in status for legal reasons.
With me so far?
So when the PLC when belly up, the Ltd company that it once was also did and the club that was the Ltd company beforehand went the same way.
There was never a holding company.
Murray International Metals owned majority shares in Rangers it was not the holding company. It was not MIM that went bust, it was Rangers PLC that was liquidated (or still in the process thereof)
As I said, simple really.
Usual abuse expected from those that don’t agree……
“the club became incorporated as a Limited company” So, in detail, what actually happened when it incorporated?
“This was not a holding company, it was the club” So when a club is sold to new owners (through an asset sale, not a share sale) how is that carried out if the club is indivisible from the company?
Like thousands i bought shares in Rangers International as they claim to own Rangers fc, now why dont you go down to the local police and tell them that Rangers International have fraudulently sold shares claiming to own something you claim is no longer there. You know you want to hoopy
ps, dont forget to let us know how you get on
Rangers fc
now, then and forever
The rest just dont matter
@GlesgA1 that might come my friend I hope you didn’t spend too much I too have an emotional investment in the Celtic… I do not expect to redeem a profit.. Good post though..!!!!
Tell that to the shareholders of Rangers prior to the insolvency event.
Carl31
Not forgotten my response to your post. I am taking your questions seriously. It has developed into a much longer piece which I will submit to Paul for possible inclusion as a guest blog.
I am one, thanks for your concern though
@ProudScot
An admirably succinct summary of the life and death of Rangers FC. Well done sir.
@JohnBhoy
Brilliant post JohnBhoy. Very well researched and with impeccable logic you have shown that the club who were liquidated in 2012 are dead and gone: they are now a mere footnote to our sporting history. No-one outside of the bluenose community will mourn their passing.
I especially enjoyed the infantile bleating of the usual suspects – they are the Violet Elizabeths to your Just William, they will th’cream and th’cream until they get their way. Well bluenoses, you ran away from your debts and that has cost you your history. Blame David Murray and not his patsy Craig Whyte.
Nevertheless, in the spirit of fellowship, here is some music to enjoy:
@Proud Scot
You will note my opening gambit. I don’t think that the insolvency laws are fit for purpose and I was simply wondering whether or not newco had found a loophole. I don’t dissent from anything you say but you do not address the question I posed. Was the liquidation and the sale of assets all part of a single deal, in which case I think the club died with the oldco. If however the deal to sell the assets to newco was entirely separate from, and occurred before, the liquidation event then “the club”, it could be argued, was not part of the company that was liquidated because it had already been transferred to newco in a similar fashion to the earlier transfer from David Murray to Charles Green which JohnBhoy accepts did not alter the status of “the club”.
My own view is that if the club should be regarded as dead and that if they are not then it is because the have taken advantage of laws that are not fit for purpose.
Others, who are better informed as to the detailed history of the events than I am, may be able to confirm whether or not there is any validity in what I suggest.
Hi Brian, a business that has been liquidated is dead, kaput, no more – and that includes its timeline. Clubs haven’t found a way round the legal consequences of liquidation. All that has happened is that Rangers is exploiting a weak SFA who are too scared to overtly challenge the pretence engineered by the Rangers hierarchy.
Notice that before liquidation, Rangers and Charles Green et al were all greetin’ that liquidation was the end of Rangers (because they knew the law) but once they cottoned on that the SFA was willing to create an accommodating illusion then we entered the world of Ally in Wonderland.
Brian
Don’t let yourself be misled by those with no legal or accountancy training in this field, and who have no practical experience of it. A business that has been liquidated is dead, but the liquidation does not invalidate acts done before the liquidation (except in certain defined circumstances, such as gratuitous alienation), or is retrospective in any way.
“that includes its timeline” That is pure incoherent babble.
“Clubs haven’t found a way round the legal consequences of liquidation” Clubs are no different from other companies in this regard. If the assets and the business are sold when in administration but prior to liquidation, then so long as they sold for value, then the assets and business that are sold have nothing to do with the subsequent liquidation.
“Rangers and Charles Green et al were all greetin’ that liquidation was the end of Rangers” They were greetin’ this only when it appeared the liquidation might take place when Rangers was still owned by oldco Rangers. That is not what happened.
brian….. david murray transferred nothing to charles green………..read the terms of the sale by d and p with greens consortia where both the cva and cvl were incorporated then post your thoughts.
Hey Adam.
Still swimming against the tide I see 😀
Its more like clutching at straws.
another major item to be added to the consequences list if its the same club:
ticketus loaned rangers £18 mill or so as advance payment for season tickets for three seasons. rangers used the money to keep afloat by repaying a loan from lloyds bank. fair enough but have they paid a cent back to ticketus yet? nope. they are pocketing the season ticket income for three
years for a second time, ie a fraud. a ruling against all natural justice by somebody
allowed this travesty to occur and the bears say nothing to do with us ask the old club.
Rangers were nothing to do with Ticketus, they loaned Whyte money before he bought Rangers. That is the reason they sued Whyte, and not Rangers for the money, and they have won that case.
glesgA1. I beg to differ. ticketus were a lot to do with rangers. without the ticketus loan rangers would not have been able to settle with Lloyds. even if ticketus get their money through whyte it doesnt change the fact that rangers have been paid twice and that doesnt seem to trouble your
conscience.
I think you will find for every pound Whyte put in he cost us a million, has your conscience let in the fact that Rangers are a victiim of fraud, that Whyte bought the club through fraud, ran it through misapropriation of company funds ?
Glesga1
What fraud ? Do you mean ‘ Alleged fraud?Or are you declaring a criminal act has been committed – if so – what was it ?
It has already been deemed in the civil case Ticketus won against Whyte that he misrepresented himself and defrauded Ticketus out of the money, there by purchasing Rangers through fraud. I can see by your response that is not somwthing you wanted to hear. One minute Whyte was a villan to the celtic minded but, now he is your hero according to your warped songs and posters
Glega1. That’s right it was a civil case. Whyte had given personal guarantees to ticketus. Whyte either couldn’t or wouldn’t pay up. Ticketus took him to court IN A CIVIL ACTION to recover their monies. No question here of criminal fraud. Also nothing to do with ‘defrauding rangers’. The case had nothing to do with sevco or rangers.
There may be charges brought against poor wee craigie, chico minty or others at some time, but in the real world, not in your wishful world, at present every body is innocent,unless you are of a ‘fiery cross,’disposition ?
‘One minute Whyte was a villan to the celtic minded but, now he is your hero according to your warped songs and posters’
You must be new here. I am a St Mirren fan and have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about re songs and posters. For your information, because of chico’s appearance at St Mirren park recently,and the speculation which arose, I have been personally [ and teamwise] been called ‘ A hun in disguise ‘. Just can’t win it seems. However rest assured there is no doubt in my mind as to your affections.
Gleswhatever he is a fekin Shyster who Duped your man apparently with photoshop account evidence and then a major financial investment company with a text and a phony photocopy, such is the due diligence checks of our major companies in this country..
I have a pal who will send you by fax you a jillion pounds if you email your credit card details, address and security code to me a JBHoywtf1888.co.uk…. FFS..!
@Glesga1 OK second post to ya, i like your attitude.. Bought a company thru fraud? Maybe more thorough checks should have been done to safeguard your beloved club… OR maybe Murray should be checked out.. I would then say Octopus did not do the most basic of checks, like you saying to bank manager I would like a 10k loan ok, You working or can you pay us back? erm (tramp on the street) yah np..
It was not company funds that is what paid D&P and many more their huge salaries all above board and legal apparently..
The fraud has long been our Sh!t tax system from Murray onwards… A man who bought the rangers for nowt, it all started then…
@Bud i thought you represented a beer, you dirty proddie supporting bun in disguise Gilmour loving league reconstruction death bitch Chico whore..
As Adam would say what libelous fact do you have to that comment…. Only this one… fekin Jokin’!!! FACT!
Ok Time for the bunk….. Sleep well fella.. Oops this might go thru moderation so enjoy tomorrow my friend..
woohoo no moderation…
I cannot personally disprove any of what you say but two wrongs dont make a right. the income from season tickets for this season and the next two rightfully belongs not to rangers but to another organisation. if you dont see the immorality of rangers actions on just this issue, then there is nothing further to discuss. it occurs to me though that the £20 mill raised by the share issue is not being spent because rangers are probably aware that some day they will have to hand over the ST money to someone.
I am trying to think what Rangers, outwith Whyte have done. I am on record at the time reporting Whyte to the City of London Police alleging that he might well have bought my club through fraud having recieved the Ticketus money in his bank account 3 days before he bought the club. Rangers oldco at the moment owe around £40m +. BDO are in the process of sueing Whyte’s lawyers for £25m + punative damages, they might well be in a position to sue others, there is in fact a possability that once things are cleared up there could in fact be a surplus.
SDM has been blamed for selling to Whyte but, at the same time it has been claimed Lloyds forced through the sale, it is either one or the other. The web connecting so many from people in the bank, who were connected to Ticketus, who were connected to D&P, and who were connected to Whyte. It appeared unbelievable to me at the time the court allowed D&P to act as Admin
I was also the 1st to go on BBC Radio and clarify that when Walter put an offer of £6m D&P made it clear that they had a legally binding agreement to sell to SEVCO5088 but in fact sold the assets straight to SEVCO Scotland. To clarify, they didn’t have an agreement to sell too Green personally but a specific company , which they have not done.
Personally i was delighted to head BDO were going in as they have powers that D&P didn’t have.
Unless someone can correct me, the only people to benefit from Whyte, is Whyte himself, and Celtic plc.
I have asked Doncaster on one occasion what happened to our £2.45m in prize money, and he has refused to say, that money was earned in 2011/2012 and should have gone straight to the creditors pot.
My main concern is people who have condemned the whole club and support before the whole story has unfolded, they have done so through a mixture of ignorance, hatred and bigotry.
Bleathering on and on and on Together as sevco pests. . .
Pub quiz:
1/Which famous club in Scotland was the very first club in the U.K to win the European Cup and has 125 years of. . .UNBROKEN HISTORY?
2/ Which club died in 2012 and has a tribute act to entertain their dwindling and deluded support?
( a clue is that their name five letters and the first letter begins with ‘S’)
3/ Which famous football club plays in Scotland and has over their 125 years of UNBROKEN HISTORY become the PRIDE OF SCOTLAND?
and finally, for the chance to win ONE share in Sevco football Club (loser get’s 100 shares)
4/ What happened to Ranger’s football Club in 2012 that has never happened to Celtic football club in their 125 years of UNBROKEN HISTORY.
Clue: ( it has four letters and begins with D – – – )
You don’t have too long to answer because the clock is ticking. . .tic. . .toc. . .
1) Rangers;
2) Which club died in 2002 and has a tribute act to entertain their dwindling and deluded support? Celtic;
3) Hibs;
4) Turned terrorist-supporting bigots away from the door.
close
Billy McNeil said you are an Irish club, and who are we to argue with Billy
I seem to remember Clydebank, before their re-emergence as Airdrie, wanting to re-locate to Dublin, but still be part of Scottish football. I seem to remember Celtic being against that for fear it would cannibalise their Irish support, as they were the Irish team.
Infiltration . Think about it ! It’s only a matter of time before most high profile people / football clubs come under scrutiny . just some are better at covering their tracks . I’m on the fence with the whole charade .
Can the SFA transfer membership from one company to another company ?
I would have thought that would be pretty much illegal by altering the value of both companies ?
Or would it transfer membership from one club to another club ?
First of all, a membership can only be given to a club. The entity that gets membership IS the club. Sevco(Scotland) got the membership.
Second, transferring membership is prohibited – unless the SFA agree to it.
Two clubs couldn’t transfer the membership themselves but the SFA can sanction it if they please.
depends… Does someone have the rules handy? If not then yeah..!!! But Shhhhh!!!
I witnessed on here one poster congratulating another with their sense of being able to hold it together whilst others revert to mockery or bluntly , hatred . That is a sign of camaraderie . So wouldn’t it be quite obvious then that there has to be a camaraderie for a reason . just imagine , what would it be like to go to the opposite side and seeing exactly how they welcome other people with their views and very valid points . Two tribes , two views , two bombs !!
is it me ? or is there an endless loop of going round and round and round and round in circles ultimately getting nowhere apart from stoking the flames !
@johnBhoy
Oh dear God JB,look what you’ve started with that post,brilliant though it is.
The delusional bears are having apoplexy trying to convince themselves that they’re still the same entity,despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
What is left to say to them ? We’ve pretty much all,at one time or another,said the same things to the point of feeling like every day is Grounhog Day.I expect to hear Sonny & Cher any second now 🙂
You can tell that the permarage is becoming terminal,especially with that
Marching on Together person.Light blue touch paper and stand back 🙂
It’s SO funny reading their posts,but not quite as funny as Mr Whyte’s
new release from his greatest hits collaboration,with that artiste of international ill repute, Chico Verde.
What are they going to come up with for Admin Part Deux, the sequel ?
This seasons blockbuster,coming to a football club near you this summer.
Always have been,always will be Celtic.
Hi Maggie! Wow, who would have believed it – necrophiliacs have feelings too!! Their sensitivity is touching, if somewhat strident, but live and let die, as they say.
@Magster totally groundhog day as more trolls join… Groundtroll day… Actually some of them i like if honest..Cannae be easy being a Sevconian Zombie troll (Jeez I own that film title) If we ALL went for a night out it would be awesome..Jails could be full… 🙂 Joking
You mean once was Celtic 1888, then was Celtic 1897, then was Celtic 1994 and now are HMS (402) Ltd.
Celtic then Celtic now Celtic forever. 125 unbroken history.
Always have been. Always will be Rangers.
I guess my posts aren’t adequate for such a well balanced space in webdom . I know what I know I know ! Coming to a town near you soon
Been out all day. Have I missed anything lol.
@MOT
When a person is wrong this should own up and move on. I own up: Leeds, like Rangers, is a new club.
The info I had on Leeds was from a premature report by KPMG and the Yorkshire Evening Post, both announcing that a CVA had been agreed. Told you one should not trust the media! Later reports, eg Guardian in May 2007, clarify that Leeds was liquidated and did not, in the end, exit from a CVA, although you, like me, had also taken the view that a CVA had been agreed (“although the CVA was agreed as you say, and eventually HMRC did drop their appeal”: MOT, May 18, 2012, 3.30).
Leeds was allowed by the Football League, under some daft “exceptional circumstances” rule, to pretend to be the old club. Under insolvency law when a company ceases, their business activities cease – transferring everything to a new company and declaring that the old business continues as is and unbroken is contrary to insolvency law. If Leeds and Rangers want to pretend otherwise, supported by cowardly leagues, then they live in a crooked bubble that does not reflect reality.
Jesus, your old club was a dodgy bunch and so is your new one! Hell, they even tried to appeal their 15 point deduction. Now I understand your pain – you had so much to lose if the truth came out. Thanks for updating me on this matter. Much appreciated. I’m forever in your debt. Big hugs.
Ooops… “…they should own up..”
“I own up: Leeds, like Rangers, is a new club.” Just digging a deeper hole. Now you are claiming that every club who has ever suffered an insolvency event is a new club.
“Leeds was allowed by the Football League, under some daft “exceptional circumstances” rule.” The Football League have this rule, the SPL had unfettered discretion, in practical import, no real difference.
“Under insolvency law when a company ceases, their business activities cease – transferring everything to a new company and declaring that the old business continues as is and unbroken is contrary to insolvency law.” You clearly have no idea how ridiculous and inaccurate that statement is. Go find an insolvency practitioner or lawyer who will agree with your claim. You are talking solely about liquidation, NOT about administration. The old business most definitely continues under administration – that is the who point of it. Administrators frequently in these circumstances sell the business to a new company and the business keeps on trading. It happens every week in the UK. You clearly do not understand the difference between administration and liquidation, and as such your entire original blog is a joke, ridiculed by any serious person.
“they even tried to appeal their 15 point deduction” True. As their competitors in the same division who had the most to gain from the imposition of a penalty sat in judgement and confirmed the penalty, then it was only right and proper that they should appeal against this breach of natural justice. And the Justice who determined the appeal, agreed on this point and advised the Football League to reconsider their procedures in that regard.
@Johnbhoy.
Sorry I have not had time tonight to reply to what is an excellently documented serious of events, which you have rationally detailed.
But still the Sevconians put forward totally irrational argument…..It beggars belief!
I have tried to see their point of view, but quite simply….I can’t! It is too far fetched!
I wouldn’t be bothered in the least, ifguys like Adam, who is biased, but not bigoted, put their pound in and tried to keep them afloat.. I would even allow them their little charade.
Unfortunately it is not. It is the pound of hatred that is going in. And it is going in for one reason….Because they want to hate!
For this reason alone, they and anyone in the governing bodies who has assisted them, should be shown the door.
Corrupt to the very core
Hi Barca. I can understand the reaction of fans when they are told that their club is dead. The truth hurts. I don’t think Adam and MOT are bigots – not in the religious sense – but they are quick to level that accusation against those who disagree with them. If they engaged in reasoned debate, then all and good, but they are for the most part clutching at straws. MOT did update me on Leeds’ liquidation and lack of CVA and I took that on board, but the unfortunate consequence of that info was that his old club died (he should have kept me in the dark!). However, much of the response is entering the abusive stage – a sure sign that an argument has been lost. I agree: the governing bodies are corrupt.
JB
We must all be ‘ bigotted bile /hatred filled rangers haters in Scottish football ! Go to any fans forum and they say sevco, and these are fans who [ mostly ] have no interest in titles/history etc.
If I can summarise, briefly, then MOT argues that rangers scenario=leeds scenario , therefore both are alive and kicking today [ same club etc etc ].
Your view is , ok, both entities ARE the same, but according to insolvency law, both are deceased.
Myself, I take the view of an earlier poster, that when leeds were liquidated, nobody was willing to challenge [ or were even aware of ] issues of history/ titles etc . There was no internet in those bygone days. How would fans have protested at the ‘ dead club’ claiming history/titles ? The EFA, exactly in the same way that the SFA, at present, wanted a continuation Of Leeds Unt,FC. and evoked ”exceptional circumstances’ – much like the 5 way agreement.
In the Leeds case, at the time, there was no questioning by fans of other clubs, like there is in the rangers case.[ no internet to view and discuss issues – no fans forums to unite against perceived injustices ]. Perhaps if there was then the Leeds case would have turned out otherwise , eg fans from other clubs pressurising the EPA . Who knows . In the same way’ the same club’ advocates, evoke plymouth, crystal palace etc etc , but in the REAL world of insolvency law they are all zombies. In the surreal world of fitba they exist .
Anyway, your view of both clubs being deceased has at least given me pause for thought and a smile, but I don’t think it will puncture the arrogance and pomposity of MOT.
“There was no internet in those bygone days.” ROFLMAO. This was 2007, not the dark ages. I have been using the internet since the mid 1990s. It might have taken a bit longer for civilisation to have reached the east end of Glasgow, but not that much longer. In 2007 I was using the internet (web, forums and e-mail) to advise Leeds supporters groups as to what was going on with Leeds.
“The EFA, exactly in the same way that the SFA, at present, wanted a continuation Of Leeds Unt,FC. and evoked ”exceptional circumstances’” It had little to do with the FA. It was the Football League.
“no internet to view and discuss issues – no fans forums to unite against perceived injustices” Do you know how stupid you sound? There were countless fans fora around at the time, both club specific and more general.
“arrogance and pomposity” I would rather be those than be ignorant and deluded like you.
Nobody but nobody ever claimed that Leeds died after their administration. This was a concept that developed ONLY after Rangers went into adminsitration. and was devlepped by those hwo hate Rangers and want to see them dead. Now, to satisfy the twisted logic of those Rangers-haters, you have to proclaim that all clubs who underwent an insolvency event have died. Portsmouth, Dundee, Livingston, Dunfermline, Bournemouth, Rotherham, more than a quarter of the clubs in the Football League, have all died. Just to satisfy the blood lust of Bigots’R’Us over at Celtic Park.
I’ve just ordered a replica of the US Olmpics team outfit from 1936, then changed my name to Jesse Owens, and have offered his family a fiver for the goodwill towards him to be transfered to me. I’ve booked a flight to Berlin, I’m gonna have a wee run about and a bit of a jump into a sand pit.
I will then be quadruple Olmpic gold medallist!
Is that how it works then?
I have to say when something draws a line in the sand then there is no real argument if the lines crossed , I think !
Go dude be rooting for ya… Hope you win many medals..
Off topic.— I see Wigan have been relegated and I sympathise with the underdogs. During the cup final it was mentioned that Wigan has a population of 74,000 ? Jeez- how did they manage to stay up so long ? Also see that Maloney scored tonight. In the final, although Mc Manaman got awarded ‘ Man of the Match’, deservedly imo, Maloney wasn’t too far behind him. I really didn’t recognise him as the player at celtic – he seemed to be at the heart of everything in midfield.
For celtic fans I suppose the fact that Wigan are down, means that another parkhead favourite, Paul Lambert, has more time to consolidate his team at Aston Villa .
@Bud 1-1 for a long time but arsenal pace in attack won the day… If Lennie ever left Martinez (married to a Motherwell lass) would be a great replacement, plays good passing/move footie and with a wee bit more quality in players he could go to the top imo..
@MOT
“I’m sure that most people look at Leeds and agree that, that is not the real
Leeds.” I am sure that most people would look at that statement and think what the **** is he babbling on about.
In 1919 Leeds City dissolved and a new club Leeds United were formed in 1920. Different club, but connected, many of the same supporters.
In 2007 Leeds United continued in an unbroken line with an unbroken history. Same club, same supporters.
MOT now post the date of Leeds CVL and therein lies the problem we all have and the DIFFERENCE between the two scenarios………………………..
The SFA need Rangers and The Rangers as two clubs for very good reasons its in LNS verdict if you can read between the lines……………………
The Leeds United Association Football Club Ltd went into voluntary creditors liquidation on 15 Feb 2008.
I don’t see the point you are making.
Thanks………….its this ‘scam’ deal d and p have done with greens consortium where only one bidder got the opportunity to buy via cvl at ‘point of sale’ so to speak…..upfront or pre-pack CVL for want of better….
LNS judgement assists the SFA with this ‘local difficulty’ and their defence mechanisms…………………………………………………………………………….
Thanks. That is a fair point, but irrelevant to whether Rangers died or not.
For what it is worth, there were 4 bids for Leeds to the administrators, but enough of the creditors said they would vote against any bid other than the Ken Bates fronted one, to make it effectively a single bid or pre-pack.
Whether BDO will unravel what was done with Rangers is a topic for another day. Personally I doubt it.
If the newco pay the debts of the oldco I’ll recognise them as Rangers. Nothing more and nothing less. If Rangers’ fans had any pride they would agree.
Work work workin on ma shit ! infiltration remember that word when the time is right . congratulations you have just met >>>>>……….
opened and should be closed case . why argue the shit out of it , big question here . why not just shake hands on the fact that we agree to disagree . Let football continue under , in my view , a very overcast looking football association . why not ? Hasn’t it been the way for so long now ? I believe in my surroundings , people I know , this divide , so f’kin divided it hurts is a big part now of , not only football , but a growing amount of people zoned in on being right and being right with no back down ….. EVER … iot does my head in ! Out …. let the true Scotland speak . I don’t think the true Scotland wants this divide . my opinion , nothing more .
MOT, Adam from way earlier…. re: Big Jock…. Nice comments..
Jeez well what can i say… I do not think any celtic fan liked how big Jock was treated when an overpowered board thought he was over the hill.. It would not happen now with the mad keyboard clatterer’s power..
Big Jock was always a threat as he had that presence and player backing… I loved his biography.. When left to the money men football is fukd that’s a clear message then and now (rangers)..
I know his grand son and the saddest piece in the book was Jock’s dad disowning him when he was a Celtic player and/or manager I always get this wrong ECO..?? His Da never spoke to him again… All the rangers men used to meet at Burnbank cross and I guess his da got it rough for that..
I remember the game he died and the fans outside saying i wish we didn’t qualify to have Jock back… Talk about a man who gave his life for football, apparently he didn’t take his BP meds because it debilitated him in training..
Sad.. Big Jock is up there with Shanks, Busby, Fergie and Wattie (a nice man in my experience), no disrespect to those other greats i have only read about..
Jock Stein was also manager at Leeds after his shafting by Celtic. He made a big impression there in his 44 days, in a good way, not like that other 44 day fanny at Leeds, Clough. There was genuine sadness, but understanding, when he left.
When it comes to honour in the game, and winning and playing in the proper manner, Ferguson is not fit to lace Big Jock’s boots
Haven’t commented on Leeds Utd today but loved the team way back when full of scots… The Grays, Lorimer, Bremner and more, total respect.. And Notttm forest, Liverpool etc… Loved the old sticker cards from late 70s and 80s
Enjoy…
Half the Scotland team were Leeds at one point. Harvey, Frank Gray, McQueen, Bremner, Eddie Gray, Lorimer, Jordan, Stewart. Never all played in the same team, but the squads were full of them.
Is the celtic v leeds European cup semi still the largest attendance? My dad still goes on about those 2 games yet, says the attendance given was no where near the crowd that was inside and outside the ground at Hampden that night.With him being a proud scot,think he enjoyed those games more than Lisbon.
Officially 136,505, reputed to be much more. Largest ever UEFA club match attendance. Never will be beaten. Your dad was a lucky and privileged man.
That goal by Gray v Burnley was called the goal of the century in the media when it happened. Oddly enough it was the second goal he scored in that game. The first was a lob of the keeper from the half way line, and Gray always said that in his view that was the better goal.
The norwegian Blue Indeed…..this will explain to the sevconians in simple terms
Just substitute parrot to ranjurs
I think its safe to say that without doubt MOT skelped the lot of you on this blog.
Adam and MOT, the Tango and Cash of “naw wur no deid”.Bravo!
Please no encores anyone,,,,its boring.
@MOT, @Adam
You are both dancing with a corpse, hence the denial; one concedes and the other must follow. Both joined at the hip. If your position is that Leeds only exited from administration as the result of a compulsory liquidation then under the law of the land, we have Leeds 2007 = a new club = Rangers 2012. The Insolvencey Act 1986 is not babble, but I understand your pain. Big huddle and keep believing.
Mike Tyson est 1966, incorporated as Mike Tyson Inc in 1983, stripped of his licence in 1992, Liquidated in 2002.
Are you saying the Mike Tyson who regained his licence and fought until 2006 was someone else, and died Tyson die along with his company and original licence ?
Capped doffed to Johnbhoy as he makes a hell of an attempt here at creating a case for Rangers somehow being “dead” despite all the facts being against him. Former captain of the school debating club?
I would like to make a few points:
– The Leeds example is an unfortunate one as it is factually incorrect. Leeds were liquidated, the club carried on thanks to an asset purchase. There was never any suggestion that somehow the club’s history was broken in any way.
– Football debates particularly those between Rangers and Celtic can go on forever, I’m sure there are still offside decisions from the 60’s furiously debated in pubs today. Generally these arguments will never be fully settled but this one is unique in the respect that an independent law lord has looked at it. Nimmo Smith was explicit in his view that Rangers are still the same club, that was enough for most but I understand when it comes to the “Old Firm” even a judge won’t be independent or informed enough for some.
– The various governing bodies of our game have been clear and consistent in their view that Rangers are the same club. You mention this being a stain on the SFA’s reputation, now I am no fan of the SFA but I’d just like to make a point on this. UEFA, the ECA, the SFL and an independent law lord have all ruled Rangers are the same club. Against this backdrop how safe a legal position would the SFA have to say Rangers are a new club, a statement which would seriously devalue the brand? I think we both know the answer. Yes you passionately believe Rangers history was broken as do a small but very vocal number of Celtic supporters for the various reasons you outlined above but you wouldn’t make as reliable a witness in a defamation case as Lord Nimmo Smith.
It strikes me that the reason for your post and continued interest in this aspect of the Rangers saga stems from the first part of your post focussed on the media. The media in the sensationalist way that they do built the CVA up into an all or nothing situation, meaning many came to expect the club to die, some I’m sure even hoped they would. Yet when the CVA failed Rangers still somehow survived, a very confusing state of affairs I’m sure for those who had been promised this wouldn’t happen.
Hopefully over the next few years as Rangers rebuild scottish football will become stronger along with them and the whole mess of the last year will be a distant memory for all of us.
If Lord Nimmo Smith truly believed TRFC were the same club he would have fined it.
JohnBhoy, What a lovely, well thought out post. Your fantastic post will sort out any wavering from fans of the toxic club. No amount of bending the truth will change what any sane and rational person knows already. Rangers FC died and no amount of rule spinning, twisting the inevitable, screaming from the rooftops or howling at the moon is going to change that.
Your new club starts at nil. Embrace the new and remember the old for what it was……a racist, sectarian, bigoted, twisted excuse for a football entity. In the pursuit of the chosen ones, you combusted from within. You are dead and no amount of wishing is going to bring them back.
Ps. Congrats on your first ever championship. It might be the crap version of what the toxic club is used to but beggars can’t be choosers. Toodle pip.
Well 358 varieties of ” aye yis ur” and “naw we urnae” later did that make some folk feel better?
The logic chain of course can be shown to be flawed by Celtic fans still referring to The Rangers, or Sevco for the under 12’s, as the huns.
Current wisdom or propaganda states that “huns” are Rangers the club,the players,the fans and any referees or officials or journos,bloggers with a perceived bias towards Rangers.
The Rangers being an entirely new team therefore cannot be called “huns” unless of course the flexible bendy term means something else.
This will result in an interesting puzzler for devotees of the hun endearment and hopefully will occur when they are filling out their application for more welfare benefits.The resultant brain freeze should free up some cash for the genuine claimants.
Oh btw, good morning.
morning cam… gotta get out o here……………….
easy one that I’m afraid for the tics legions………. ‘THE Huns’ same as Atilla ‘like’…..apols coooodnt resist it……….melon for brekkie??
I sense that you’re suffering from melon fatigue.Dr Cam recommends 3 months golfing,no mention of gratuitous alienation,a total ban on visits to Fife,and you must delete all copies of the SFA articles of player registration and embrace Bryson’s law of perpetuity.
Stay out of the bunkers unless you intend to get your hole in one.
Ta for the advice but a’ bloody well live in Fife…..and sup wi’ that lang spoon…..Niall is givin gods kingdom and the vist fife campaign a helluva batterin toorist bookins are way doon ye ken………………………………….
blew the medal on saturday out in 31 then played ‘sevco’ golf on the back nine… hav a good un
Lord Glennie, 6th June 2012,also made clear the distinction between club and company when he said:
“This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as “Rangers”)”
and today that quotation would read…..
this is a petition for judicial reviewby rangers international plc, a company presently trading ( at a loss). That company presently operates The Rangers Football Club ( to whom I shall refer to as The Rangers)
Clearly not a member of Bigots’R’Us down at Celtic Park.
Correct I cant stand ‘the old firm’ and would be delighted if they played elsewhere. I am disgusted at what rfc and the sfa have done.
Why nobody is into duff and phelps as yet is beyond the pail…. one day hopefully…….
@Marching On Tmazipan
You are completely tangled up in an intricate web of self-deceit. Running around in your pre-2007 Leeds Utd strip, loudly knocking on everyone’s door, waking up the neighbours and pleading for someone to listen to your convoluted story smacks of desperation and only undermines your already paper-thin credibility. Such a pitiful sight. Keekaboo! The Football League made a crooked exception for Leeds, some thing that it had not done for the 41 previous clubs that had become insolvent since 1992. It blinked and allowed them to pretend that they were the same club even though they had not exited administration with a CVA. Similar blinking went on with the SFA’s handling of Rangers 2012.
Allow Dr JohnBhoy to unpick your difficulties and point you in the direction of clarity: Leeds 2007 is a new club. Rangers 2012 is a new club. Now, repeat after me: “Liquidation = New Club”. Doesn’t that feel good! No need to thank me – we are all here to help each other. Big huddle. You too Adam, don’t be shy.
To faciltate your recovery and integration back into normal society, perhaps you could start a web site similar to Friends Reunited. May I be of further assistance and offer, free of charge, a title for your new site: Dead Clubs Reunited. Or, in honour of Adam, you could all it The Adam’s Family.
In the meantime, keep taking the drugs – it will lessen the pain.
“The Football League made a crooked exception for Leeds, some thing that it had not done for the 41 previous clubs that had become insolvent since 1992.” No other club had suffered HMRC objecting to the CVA. HMRC changed its policy after the ranking of creditors in insolvency was changed by legislation so that HMRC was no longer a preferred creditor. HMRC took on Leeds as a test case in their objection to the “must pay 100% football creditors rule”. Without HMRC’s policy driven intervention, the CVA wuld have gone through and there would have been no need for the “exceptional circumstances” rule to be applied. You clearly know little about this based on your previous posts and your demonstrable ignorance of insolvency generally. The FL has done similar for other club subsequently, including Rotherham Utd. Not crooked at all, completely in line with FL rules.
All the rest of what you typed, I wont even bother with, as you clearly don’t understand the issues and you are just another C&P merchant, regurgitating shite from hate sites.
That UEFA have not enforced their rules does not mean the rule and the principle it upholds does not apply in principle.
Your club did not have the required 3 years association membership as a legal entity as defined by the over reaching European football authority. It did not have permission to be treated as an exception because a well founded case could not be made as the relevant rule required in order to claim unbroken membership..
As regards your other point the key matter is not what a club/company enntity is called, names and structures change all the time. It is the company number that retains the history from one name change to another.
If you look here http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//companysearch
you will find Celtic PLC have the same number since incorporation in 1897 where as you will be hard pressed to find any mention of a Rangers Club/company who began before 2010.
Goodness knows where the original records have gone, maybe buried.
liquidation of the old company hasn’t happened as of yet, bdo ( the liquidators) didn’t step in until november a few months after the cva got rejected by hmrc up until then the administrators were still in control of the running and sold the club to charles green’s consortium ( sevco scotland). Hmrc stated that with the rejection of the cva the club would continue as the same club and there would be no debt connected to the club, all footballing authaurities recognise rangers as the same club fifa and uefa have on their sites established 1872 along with the sfl and some1 from the sfa said on camera same club and the eca released a statement in december I think it was saying we are the same club and the only difference is we are a new established company running things and lord nimmo smith was another person who also confirmed that companies and clubs are seperate entities, if it was a new club then we would have needed to apply for a new sfa membership but that didn’t happen we got the membership transfered there was also a vote to decide wether the club would remain in the spl or be demoted charles green also had to agree to giving up the spl membership now if we were a new club he wouldn’t have a say we are also full members of the sfa but we were blackmailed into giving up our voting rights, tv rights and other stuff. we also had to agree to paying off football debts that were still owed when the old company was running things now if we are a new club like celtic fans claim why should we be paying debts for players that have never played for us seems a bit strange to me that and the club has been called the rangers football club since 1872/73. Ive seen alot of celtic fans say that leeds are the same club as they were from the start even tho leeds old holding company had a failed cva and went into liquidation surely it can’t be 1 rule for rangers and another for everyone else and also on company house website they have celtic as being dissolved but yet they still claim to be the same club.
So now you can just buy parts of a club you like while they’re in administration before they are liquidated. Wow, that easy, I’ll have all the good stuff thanks but I’ll let someone else take over the debt, no problem, that’s totally fair & legal !!! If it were my club I too would probably be in denial BUT the Laws and the facts are old rangers ceased trading. New rangers have no history unfortunately, hard to accept I know but that’s what Sir David Murray allowed to happen, unfortunately all at SFA with no balls have made this matter worse & made Scottish Football a laughing stock…
As for oldco, I wouldn’t go as far as to say they cheated by using EBT’s, they just gained an unfair advantage over the rest, BUT the mistake they made was to break SFA rules by not informing them of their contracts structures WHICH probably implies they knew they were operating outside the laws of our game. The tax side is for the appropriate authorities to make judgement.
IMO honesty and integrity should overcome everything else. If that means Scottish Football becomes like the Irish league (no offense intended) then we all have to live with that & come back stronger. Could be a new beginning for grassroots football too and that is probably more important than any one club.
This will probably affect my club too but rules should not be bent to accommodate a massive business or country’s asset. They say no player is bigger than any club, well no club is bigger than any country no matter how bad the outcome.