THE DEATH OF RANGERS FC – Guest Post by JohnBhoy

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

Advertisements

418 Comments

Filed under Football Governance, Guest Posts, Rangers, SFA

418 responses to “THE DEATH OF RANGERS FC – Guest Post by JohnBhoy

  1. Adam

    No matter how many times Celtic fans try to portray this myth, Leeds United were liquidated.

    Also, in relation to European Football, have UEFA confirmed Rangers cannot compete in European football?

    • smallteaser

      Rangers, then and now, haven’t competed in European football for a number of years now. Especially since Ally became the manager.

    • ocuilte

      Adam – of course UEFA did! otherwise why did newco not take part in their rightful place in UEFA as befitted oldco’s 2nd place in SPL?

      • Adam

        Because the SFA never gave them approval due to them owing the taxman as at December 2012.

        • eastside

          Oh my God, you actually believe that!

          • Adam

            “A failure to produce audited accounts by March 31, as well as the failure to meet overdue payables to the tax authorities due from up to December 31, 2011 by the same deadline, means the Scottish FA will not give their approval for them to participate in Europe in 2012/13.”

            • scot

              12
              Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence
              Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant
              1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a LEGAL ENTITY fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions which either:
              a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter: registered member); or
              b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football company).

              2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. ANY alteration to the club’s LEGAL FORM or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or TRANSFERRING STAKEHOLDINGS between different clubs) during this period inorder to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a
              competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual
              relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.

            • eastside

              How can you issue audited accounts if you’re dead? If I die and don’t fill in my tax returns I might a warning letter or a fine sent to my address, I would still be DEAD! Cleverly worded nonsense from the corrupt governing bodies only fool those who want to be fooled.

        • tykebhoy

          And the SFA can’t give them a licence/approval for at least another 3 Euro campaigns because of the 3 years AUDITED accounts rule. Of course that rule also applies to domestic football too but the SFA and SFL ignored that one presumably as aprt of the 5 way agreement.

          • Adam

            The SFA have answered the audited accounts question. As for UEFA, have you read the actual rules in relation to 3 years accounts ?

            Do you have a link to them and the particular point in relation to it ?

          • Adam

            “The UEFA administration may, in accordance with Article 4, grant exceptions on the following matters:

            (d) Non-applicability of the three-year rule defined in Article 12(2) in case of change of legal form or company structure of the licence applicant on a case by-case basis;

            A.2 Exceptions related to item d) are granted to the individual club that applies for a licence.

            A.3 An exception is granted for a period of one season. Under specific circumstances this period may be extended and the UEFA member association may be placed on an improvement plan.

            A.4 A renewal of the exception is possible upon a new request.”

            • Sam

              Adam
              I fully appreciate & understand your continual support but ffs, c’mon, you must understand Charlottte 18. You know its going Nuclear when the money trail is exposed…..

        • scot

          and what is the reason for lack of seeding in the Scottish Cup ?

        • Daniel O'Connell

          The Rangers do not have a UEFA license because as a new club, they do not meet the criteria for a UEFA license.

          UEFA don’t need to state that.

    • Adam
      If Leeds Utd were liquidated, and I don’t give 2 hoots either way, then the current club trading as Leeds Utd is not the same club.

      • Marching on Together

        You are welcome to come down to Elland Road and announce that. Should be an interesting discussion.

        The suggestion that clubs in the circusmtances of Leeds Utd and Rangers ‘died’ was never made in the case of Leeds, only when it happened to Rangers. Why is that?

        • Adam

          I think I know the answer to that one MOT. And to be fair, if the boot was on the other foot, the exact same arguments would be getting spouted as well from the Blue side.

          Not me though.

          • scot

            Leeds United CVA approval squeezes through
            http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/1785903/leeds-united-cva-approval-squeezes

            Don’t let facts get in the way of denial

            • Marching on Together

              C&P moron. That was on 4 Jun 2007. Subsequent to that HMRC lodged a court challenge, as they were entitled to do within 28 days of a CVA being in principle agreed by the creditors. As a result the administrators and supervisors of the CVA KPMG issued an abort certificate for the CVA on 16 Jul 2007.

              The CVA never happened.

              Don’t let the facts get in the way of being a dleuded moron.

            • Adam

              Check the date, then research July KPMG HMRC and “Don’t let facts get in the way of denial”

              I mean come on ghuys. You need to do better on this one for goodness sake. 🙂

            • scot

              CVA was challenged by HMRC but later dropped by them

              A private sale was accepted by the instead. The league accepted this sale of the CLUB under exceptional circumstance rules. Sevco bought the assets not the CLUB. Did Leeds have to apply for new membership?
              did they lose their seeding in domestic cups.

            • Marching on Together

              “CVA was challenged by HMRC but later dropped by them” Their court challenge was dropped AFTER the CVA had been withdrawn on 16 Jul 2007.

              “A private sale was accepted by the instead” Same as Rangers.

              “The league accepted this sale of the CLUB under exceptional circumstance rules.” Not the sale, but the transfer of the golden share in the FL, on conditions they imposed. Just like Rangers oldco & newco entered into the 5 way agreement.

              “Sevco bought the assets not the CLUB” Sevco bought the assets which taken collectively make up the Club. Just like Leeds.

          • scot

            The arbitration panel found against Leeds United citing the following two reasons:

            A director of Leeds United FC signed an earlier agreement not to commence any proceedings against the League.

            Leeds United waited 7 months before commencing the action, which brought unnecessary sporting consequences on other promotion chasing clubs, specifically Doncaster Rovers, who would no longer be in an automatic promotion spot if Leeds’ 15 points were restored.

            In summary:

            Leeds United AFC Ltd’s administrators achieved the necessary 75% support for a CVA.

            They withstood the challenge from HMRC, paid creditors and concluded the transfer of assets, including League share, to Leeds United FC Ltd, according to the terms of the CVA before winding up the old company. No loose ends were left.

            This is not a Liquidator’s Charter. Provisions in football only exist to transfer a League share from one company to another if creditors are satisfied, either by being paid in full or, as with Leeds United, with 75% agreeing to accept a diminished amount.

        • JimBhoy

          @MOT More easy access to tinternet, to public media sites and weblogs etc… celtic v rangers rivalry more fierce than anything leeds utd??? Rangers were a bigger club…. yadda yadda..

        • Monti

          Because not only is it a fact, Rangers were also SCUM!

        • allyjambo

          Because nobody was as interested in Leeds United’s circumstances. They were not claiming world records, they were guilty of mismanagement, not cheating; but basically, nobody could care less so the question was never raised. It might have been, of course, if they had qualified for Europe! Still, Johnbhoy has explained the difference, they cleared their debts with a CVA being agreed, however reluctantly by HMRC. You should be happy to accept that, as a Leeds United supporter.

          • Marching on Together

            “they cleared their debts with a CVA being agreed, however reluctantly by HMRC” Shite. No CVA took place, HMRC never agreed to anything, and the non-footballing debts were paid only with a fraction in the pound. Exactly the same as Rangers.

            “Because nobody was as interested in Leeds United’s circumstances. ” More shite. In England we were the team that everyone loved to hate, and Ken Bates was the person they all hated. When we went into administration after being relegated to take the 10 point penalty that season rather than next, most of English football was outraged. Not proud of it, but I know that its true.

    • eastside

      So Leeds were liquidated? Why would the European bodies state that Rangers Reanimated can play in Europe? It’s like them issuing a statement saying a basketball team cannot play European football, what would the purpose of that be? There’s one glaringly obvious LIE, the purchase of goodwill is not possible, nowhere in business history has the goodwill of a company been bought seperating from a company being liquidated. There is no provision for such a thing, you either purchase the entire entitywhich includes the history or you purchase the assets or some of the assets. If Sevco fans want to pretend they are still following Rangers then let them get on with their delusions, just don’t expect the rest of us to appease these delusions.

    • Monti

      No matter how many times rangers fans portray the myth they did not die……THEY DID! DODO……

    • Stephen

      Apart from it being in UEFA’s rules, It’s in the RIFC prospectus – the club can’t play in Europe until it has three years trading history …

      A club with 140 year old trophy history but with less than 3 years trading history …

      http://www.twilightzone.com

    • ocuilte

      Leeds United were not liquidated. The challenge to their CVA by HMRC was withdrawn by HMRC and the club was sold by the administrators without liquidation to Ken Bates as a running club, paid its debts!!! and continued as Leeds United. See Wikipedia for details.

      • Marching on Together

        Celtic were placed into receivership in 1994. This was done at the instance of the Bank of Scotland. Fergus McCann bought the assets of the dead club from the receivers. See Wikipedia for details.

  2. Marching on Together

    “HMRC did eventually agree to a CVA and Leeds was saved from compulsory liquidation.” Utter shite. At no point did HMRC agree to a CVA – the CVA proposal was withdrawn after HMRC went to court to block it. HMRC’s court challenge was withdrawn after the CVA had been withdrawn. The Leeds oldco went into liquidation in Feb 2008, after the club had been sold to newco Leeds.

    Celtic went into receivership on 1994 and were bought out of receivership by Fergus McCann, who you all booed when he unveiled the league flag. Celtic 1988 died when it incorporated, died again when it went into receivership in 1994, and died for a third time when the business of the football club was transferred from the original company to HMS (402) Ltd in 2002. Hope all you HMSonioans are having fun watching your thrice dead club.

    • Beyond utter shite and you know it.

      • Adam

        I think the sarcasm from MOT may have been lost on you 🙂

      • Marching on Together

        Posters on here, including those doing the original posts, have been posting utter shite on here about my club for months, despite being repeatedly corrected, and despite Paul doing a blog post months ago definitively ruling on the topic.

        So I feel free to post stuff about other clubs, that may or may not be true. See how you like it.

        • Kev

          “Paul doing a blog post months ago definitively ruling on the topic.”

          So Paul’s the defining authority and what he said, which I haven’t read btw, is the final ‘ruling’ on the matter?

          Seems like you may be picking posts/topics/points selectively to suit your current purpose.

          I’m sure Paul would be the first to agree that all comments made are open to interpretation.

          • Marching on Together

            “AS FAR AS THIS BLOG IS CONCERNED, LEEDS UNITED THEN = LEEDS UNITED NOW.” By Paul, 4/12/2012.

            • Kev

              So that means everyone HAS to agree, the matter’s closed, and everyone should just accept it?

              Despite numerous people believing they have evidence supporting another outcome?

              That’s the point I’m making?

            • Marching on Together

              Have you never heard of Pauline infallibility?

      • Keltic then
        The Celtic now
        If you knew your history

    • tomtomaswell

      Quite a lot of deaths for the one club there.

      Do Celtic have the same company number as they have always had?. Yes. Do newco Rangers? No.

      There endeth the lesson.

      • Marching on Together

        Actually no. The football business is operated by Celtic FC Ltd according to Celtic plc’s annual accounts, not by Celtic plc (the original company). So according to your argument, Celtic have died.

    • Marching on Together,,, U just said the Leeds Oldco was Liquidated AFTER the Club was SOLD to Leeds Newco, so the Leeds United Football Club was not Liquidated..

    • ocuilte

      You cannot just make up “facts”, they have to be FACTS – clue is in the name! Admittedly company law is difficult for someone who cannot discern facts from their OWN fiction!

    • campsiejoe

      There is some argument about what actually happened with Leeds
      There is absolutely no argument that Celtic have never been in receivership, and McCann therefore did not buy them out of receivership

      • Marching on Together

        Try looking at Wikipedia, and you will see that you are wrong. There was a media conspiracy to keep it quiet at the time. Receivership of a thrice dead club.

    • eastside

      Jesus wept.

    • MoT,
      I understand that you had close dealings with the situation with the Leeds insolvency event.
      I have previously pointed out that, despite the numerous EU FAs having to align their rules with various articles of association of UEFA and FIFA, the individual FA’s rules are not identical. So, whatever might have happened to Leeds (Utd or FC or both) cannot be held up as definitive for the Rangers insolvency.

      However, out of interest in your standpoint, I have a few questions…

      If, as you have previously stated, this insolvency event with Leeds is as close a replica with the Rangers insolvency event as you could find – why is it impossible that a ‘sale of assets’ occurred in the Leeds case – as it did with the Rangers case? What made it a ‘sale of the club’?
      If it happened as you explain – the club was sold from an oldco facing liquidation, to a newco – where is the evidence that the assets involved in the sale represented the ‘club’?
      What is a ‘club’ in the context of the Leeds case, that also mirrors the Rangers case? Are there assets listed in an asset sale agreement, similar to those quoted in the piece above?

      Assets :
      Goodwill
      SPL Share
      SFA Membership
      Leasehold Interests
      Player Contracts & Registrations
      Stock
      Plant & Machinery

      Do these comprise a club? What collection of assets comprise(d) a club in the Leeds case? Could they be set out as definitive, or strongly indicative of ‘the assets that comprise a club’?

      LNS opinion of 12 Sept last year indicates that “… it would at least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.” – para 46 of that doc.
      Most of those mentioned are covered in the Rangers’ sale of assets.

      Are these covered in the Leeds’ sale of assets?
      What are your general thoughts on this LNS view of what a club might be?

      • Marching on Together

        Not ignoring you, just doing a lengthy detailed response, while trying to do multiple other things.

    • arb urns

      ” afters ” eh…… u got it at last mot………….. happy days……….. happy days

    • scot

      Leeds United Football Club creditors have signed-off a Company Voluntary Arrangement that will allow the club to live on.

      http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/1785903/leeds-united-cva-approval-squeezes

    • scot

      HMRC therefore challenged the Leeds CVA (which had the requisite majority agreement), which led to the administrators collapsing it and being forced to complete a private sale. Due to this legal challenge Leeds incurred the automatic 10-point penalty when the club went into ­administration, then accepted a further 15-point deduction in League One when it failed to achieve a CVA (HMRC did not eventually follow through with its challenge to the CVA).

      http://www.thelawyer.com/paying-by-the-rules/1003055.article

    • Monti

      DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED! HA.:D

    • scot

      “The Football League Board agreed that, notwithstanding the manner in which this administration has been conducted, the club should be permitted to continue in the Football League,” said a statement.

      “Consequently, the board has decided to make use of the ‘exceptional circumstances’ provision within the League’s insolvency policy, for the first time, and agreed to transfer the club’s share in The Football League to Leeds United 2007 Ltd. Accordingly, the club’s share has now been transferred.

      “However, it is acknowledged the club did go into administration and has been unable to comply with the terms of the League’s well-established insolvency policy.

      “As a result, the board determined this transfer of membership should be subject to Leeds United having a 15-point deduction applicable from the beginning of the 2007/08 season.

      “Leeds subsequently have lodged an appeal against this sanction, which will be heard at a special meeting of all League clubs, to be arranged in due course.”

      Football League chairman Lord Mawhinney met with both KPMG and Bates, telling them to change the CVA, which governs how much creditors will get.

      AGREED TO TRANSFER THE CLUB”S SHARE…the board has decided to make use of the ‘exceptional circumstances’ provision within the League’s insolvency policy,

      BUT THIS DID NOT HAPPEN TO RFC / SEVCO
      the cases are clearly different as “the club should be permitted to continue in the Football League”

      Nobody is saying that Leeds cease to exist. The seeding in Scottish cup would have been challenged by Mr Green if he thought he had a chance. No prize money given to Sevco and again no challenge from Mr Green. Why are there no fans from other clubs coming forward in defense of Sevco / RFC ?

      MoT – you have great tenacity and obviously are well versed with Leeds history so forgive the rest of us for C&P.. we are trying to catch up. you post at a phenomenal rate and make good points.. but i type with two fingers. Good luck with your climb back to the top , my sister married a Leeds fanatic and I am genuinely surprised that they have not been able to get back to their former glory. THE Rangers will not face the same difficulty climbing the Scottish Leagues…
      This site will not change any readers mind… most fans made up their minds on the day the CVA was refused.

      • Marching on Together

        “Football League chairman Lord Mawhinney met with both KPMG and Bates, telling them to change the CVA, which governs how much creditors will get.” He may or may not have done prior to the CVA being binned, but the fact is the CVA never took place.

        “Nobody is saying that Leeds cease to exist” All the Rangers-haters are. Why do you think I spend so much time on here arguing for the continued existence of a club (Rangers ) I actually despise. if the arguments about Rangers are accepted, then my club and every other club which suffered an insolvency event has also died.

        “Why are there no fans from other clubs coming forward in defense of Sevco / RFC ?” Ahem. I am a fan of another club. There are others.

        “you have great tenacity and obviously are well versed with Leeds history so forgive the rest of us for C&P” Fair enough. It is just that I have been responding to C&P stuff from people who do not understand what they are C&Ping on here for over a year now, hence my description of such repeat offenders, who I have corrected previously as C&P morons.

        “most fans made up their minds on the day the CVA was refused” l laughed heartily on that day, not because I thought Rangers died, but because of the problems it would cause for them. I also posted on another site on the day they went into administration that there was no chance of them managing to do a CVA due to the views of HMRC.

        “Good luck with your climb back to the top” Cheers. We have a deal with Ticketus to whom we owe much of next season’s season ticket money ,so should be a stroll eh?

  3. Honest question here…once BDO finalize the liquidation of oldco, what organization, if any, has responsibility to make a judgement of RIFC operating as a pheonix business? Having a look at all that is said about their continuance, including the same website, same logo’s etc, they very much appear to be operating as the same business but without the liabilities.

    • Budweiser

      Jono.
      A doppelg[r]anger ?

    • Den

      Jono,

      I am no expert but I believe that the key issue is whether it has the same or substantially the same ownership, even if they are using others as fronts.

      Resurrecting an old business is seen as good so is given a lot of leeway.

      If the insolvency was merely a way for the owners to ditch the Creditors and then carry on it will be investigated. Craig Whyte’s tapes are evidence that he was attempting to run a Phoenix operation. The fact that he was apparently conned out of the business complicates matters.

      My guess is that there will be some noises but in the end nothing effective will be done.

      Same with gratuitous alienation. It just gets bogged down with lawyers and is eventually too expensive to pursue.

    • eastside

      Chris Graham says so and that’s enough for the Sevconians!

    • Michael

      An illegal Phoenix company is when the same directors are involved in a newco which trades as the same company.

      But it is perfectly legitimate for a newco with different directors to buy the assets, websites, trading names, copyrights and trademarks from a company in administration as those are saleable assets for the administrators to get cash for. The newco can then trade under the old branding as they bought them. It would be the oldco which couldn’t use them in that case, as they no longer own the right to use them.

      In Rangers case the administrators then changed the old company name so the newco could use the old company name – all to make it look like the same company, if people weren’t paying attention!

  4. ocuilte

    Excellent summary JohnBhoy. What it shows is that although SFA and MSM and a few others have ignored the facts, there are a large number of unavoidable unpalatable facts proving the demise of RFC(IL).

    It is such a shame that even the ASA have been hoodwinked or persuaded by the attempt to change the facts. I have provided most of the same evidence you quote to ASA in challenge to their draft report and I await their response but suspect they will ignore facts and rely on opinions instead.

  5. Black Jack

    Adam, is that the best you can do? The post is pretty comprehensive. Instead of cherry picking two points that you think are worth contesting, you might, just for once, address all the arguments put forward. It might do you good to acknowledge and concede those points that you are unable to counter.
    This post blows away the counter-argument peddled a few days ago.

    • Adam

      BJ – this argument has been done to death. Every week or so there is a new blog with the same regurgitated points being made by both sides.

      Nothing will change.

      Celtic fans will say the club is dead. Rangers fans will say it isnt.

      What i would say is difficult though is when someone tries to justify one side of the argument then gets an important aspect of his argument wrong. What he has actually done there is stated that “not having a precedent” is evidence to support his argument, so when it is proven that he is 100% wrong, then he should accept that he has blown it.

      In my opinion of course.

      Is there a single Celtic supporter out there incidentally who accepts that Leeds United were liquidated and that MOT is 100% spot on in regards to Leeds United ???

      • eastside

        CCeltic fans? No, let’s get that myth squashed, it’s not just Celtic fans, it is fans of every single Club, it is every right minded person who has looked at the issue. Trying to portray it as a Celtic v Rangers issue is telling, why would you do that? Because to admit it is fans everywhere doesn’t tie in another Sevconian myth.

        • Adam

          ” it is fans of every single Club”

          Leeds fans as well ???

        • Marching on Together

          Fans of every club which has gone into administration disagree with you, because what the Rangers-haters are saying is that their club died. Whereas, going by the logic of the arguments of the Rangers-haters, Celtic have died three times.

          • Kev

            MOT, why do you automatically call anyone who disagrees with the flawed logic that Sevco = Rangers, “rangers haters”?

            Can’t it be that there are perfectly decent people who don’t want anything to do with the nonsense that’s been spouted over the last year or so?

            Nothing but lies and propaganda have emanated from the top of the ‘marble staircase’, from the complicit SFA backed by an extremely compromised CO, and by the SMSM who have been desperate to sell papers at any cost therefore played to their highest demographic? Sevco fans…

            Where in amongst any of that lot has there been ANY unbiased reporting, or ANYONE willing to be objective and provide honest fact?

            Sorry, but no-one believes it for a reason…

            • Marching on Together

              Nobody but nobody ever claimed that a club whose ownership company suffered an insolvency event prior to Rangers had died if the club itself continued under different ownership. What is different with Rangers? Simply that many many fans in Scotland hate them. Some of it is inspired by bigotry, some of it may be justified, but this hatred is what drives the call that Rangers is the first and only club to have died in these circumstances.

            • eastside

              Of course anyone saying secco are not rangers are just rangers hating Celtic fans, nobody else would ever comclude a liquidated club was liquidated unless they hated the club and supported their ex rival!

      • listentoyerda

        YES! ME!

      • Kev

        Not just Celtic fans Adam.

        I don;t actually think any other fan base in Scotland, other than the fans that used to support Rangers , actually believe the 2 separate entities to be the same.

        The old Rangers did too much damage, then subsequently the new Sevco boasted and bragged about leaving hundreds of people in debt and out of pocket by ‘shedding debt’ and claiming to continue to be the same club?! I’m afraid no decent person would have bought into that lie.

        The fact that a plainly biased media and a blatantly corrupt SFA continue to peddle lies, avoid following rules, create new rules and do it quite openly show that Sevco are not Rangers, if they were why all the nonsense being flouted publicly and causing outrage amongst those decent fans in ‘Planet Fitba’?

        Rangers dies, Sevco are not too far off apparently, and I’d be interested to see which new story they come up with for ‘RaPeepul Pt3’

      • Steve

        The only thing MoT is “spot on” with is the CVA was challenged by HMRC, who subsequently dropped it to allow the Club to be sold. Which it was. Rangers, on the other hand, weren’t. RFC plc WAS RFC. Check the accounts, shareholding and debenture contracts. Check Craig Whyte’s agreement of sale with David Murray. Every piece of legal and corporate documentation confirms RFC plc was RFC. No holding company (e.g. Leeds Sporting & LUAFC etc.)

        Celtic have never suffered an insolvency event. They never even entered receivership. Which is why it’s the same Club. It can be renamed as many times at it likes, and floated or delisted, but it’s the same sporting club founded in 1888, unless it is liquidated.

  6. we all know rangers are dead its only rangers that dont know it
    they are all stupid and believe that they cannot be touched by anyone or
    the sfa when will they ever learn never never never I HAVE HEARDTHAT
    BEFORE SOME WHERE MAYBE IN PAISLEY?

  7. Swell

    One or two aspects I’m still trying to grasp and hopefully someone can oblige.
    Re liquidation is this a journey or a destination?

    By that I mean is it a journey that, technically, factually or legally began the day the CVA was refused or some other date after this? Eg the day BDO became involved.
    Or:
    If it is a destination I assume this would be reached the day they are dissolved? Or is liquidation arrived at the day BDO appeared, for example, or some other date?

    Leaving aside the preposterous notion of buying history, does the date of legal/factual liquidation not have a bearing on buying the assets? If they were technically not in liquidation until some months after the CVA rejection then is there a breach of insolvency law? I assume if liquidation began on that day then a breach would be self evident.
    Cheers to anyone who can talk me through this….

  8. the poor sevco fans, ha! good post johnbhoy and as Arte Johnston of LAUGH IN WOULD SAY “very interesting,BUT NOT VERY FUNNY”, I.E. if you’re a M . H. Bd, of course, the bunz is still living in lala land,no doubt the drums of good ole orange order will bang loudly away merrily this summer in scotland and the north of ireland in the hope that nothing has changed, as for the S F A , WHERE IS OUR HERO TURNBULL HUTTON,I SUSPECT HE HAS BEEN BOUGHT OFF BY THE POWERS THAT BE, SO SAD THE DECENT FANS OF SCOTTISH FOOTBALL ACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT THEY HAD A HERO IN T.H. HIS SILENCE MEANS ONLY ONE THING ,HE HAS HAD HIS MOMENT IN THE SUN AND NOW HE IS GONE, TOO TOO BAD HAIL HAIL

  9. adam

    have you ever heard the story of the emperor’s new clothes ?

    as someone else said, you cannot come up with logical ‘arguments’ for every single example johnbhoy gives as to why rangers fc are not dead, gone forever to be consigned to the history books, beside third lanark and clydebank et al

    ===========================================

    graham spiers, are you looking in and taking notes ?!

    • Adam

      “Rangers are dead because there is no precedent”

      “But there is a precedent”

      “Oh right, well Rangers are dead because they cant play in Europe for 3 years”

      “But UEFA havent ruled that Rangers cant play in Europe for 3 years”

      “Oh right, they are dead coz a pure said they wur. fact. Right !”

  10. Niall Walker

    The club’s unbroken history is part of its unbroken membership, game over, the SFA and Lord Nimmo Smith are not wrong because certain Celtic fans want to be right.

  11. Monti

    Johnbhoy, good stuff! Rangers are dead,their history concluded! They died trying to emulate Celtic & Britain’s greatest club side, home grown talent & style of play that conquered Europe! Sevconians GIRFUY! 😀 HA!

  12. Taxman pulls out of Leeds United court challenge –

    Yorkshire Evening Post
    The taxman has formally withdrawn a challenge to Leeds United’s administrators KPMG.
    By Paul Robinson
    Leeds United’s summer of discontent took a dramatic final twist today as the taxman abandoned a legal challenge to the club’s administrators.
    The concerns of HM Revenue and Customs about the way accountancy firm KPMG handled United’s time in administration were due to be heard at the High Court on Monday.
    Today, though, the Revenue confirmed it had formally withdrawn its challenge.

    However, it said it would continue to take all possible steps to secure a “fair return” on the £7.7m in tax and VAT it was owed when Leeds went into administration.

    News that the legal challenge had been dropped was welcomed by Leeds United Supporters’ Club chairman Ray Fell. But he also questioned the motives behind the Revenue’s decision to take KPMG to court in the first place – a move which indirectly led to United being docked 15 points by the Football League.

    He said: “If this challenge had never happened there would have been a lot less heartache and worry for fans.”
    The taxman’s unhappiness with KPMG related in part to the voting process used at a meeting on June 1, when United’s creditors backed a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) deal to resell Leeds to chairman Ken Bates.
    The CVA would have been worth just 1p-in-the-pound to creditors like the Revenue.
    Its opposition prompted KPMG to scrap the CVA and put the club on the open market before again agreeing to sell to Mr
    Bates. That second deal could be worth as much as 52.9p-in-the-pound to creditors.
    Yet the Football League claimed that, by failing to exit administration via a CVA, Leeds had breached its insolvency policy.
    As a result the club began its first ever season in the third tier of English football on minus 15 points.
    United have said they will appeal to the Football Association against that punishment.
    Today a spokeswoman for HM Revenue and Customs said its legal challenge had become “academic” when the CVA was ditched in early July.
    She would not be drawn on why it had taken the Revenue nearly two months to formally kill off the case.
    The spokeswoman was unable to elaborate on what steps the taxman now intended to take regarding the money owed by United.
    KPMG declined to comment.
    A United spokesman said the club was “following developments with interest”.
    paul.robinsons@ypn.co.uk

    Last Updated: 31 August 2007 12:42 PM

    • Marching on Together

      So, HMRC did not accept a CVA according to that. Quite right.

      • scot

        HMRC eventually dropped their challenge… as the sale went through on a PRIVATE basis.

        • Marching on Together

          Their challenge was dropped after the supervisors of the CVA issued an abort certificate in respect of the CVA on 16 Jul 2007.

          “the sale went through on a PRIVATE basis” True. As did the the sale of Rangers to Rangers newco.

          • scot

            Not quite… ASSETS were sold to SEVCO but the legal entity known as The Rangers Football Club PLC was not purchased. That football club is now in the process of liquidation.

            • Marching on Together

              So what is the legal entity? According to LNS and every other lawyer in Scotland, it is not a legal entity, legal person or whatever you want to call it?

              All the assets which collectively make up the club were sold to newco.

  13. ? If they are the peepul ? Who are their mothers and fathers ? Who owns this mob ? supernatural beings, ancestors ? Was Chuck the Prophet ? ally demands to know , how Lenny’s got 2 in a row

  14. Oh dear…. It seems Sevconians love to twist facts. A CVA was achieved by Bates at Leeds Utd as over 75% of the creditors voted for it. This was challenged by HMRC very similarly to the challenge of the CVA of Portsmouth in 2010 which they lost in court and didn’t appeal

    http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/1808193/hmrc-wont-challenge-portsmouth-cva

    As most of you already know the Football Creditors Rule exists in England, but not in Scotland.

    http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/what-is-the-football-creditors-rule

    Cutting all the bullshit out. A CVA was achieved in June 2007. HMRC appealed on the very last day of the 28 day period for any creditor to challenge the CVA. The appeal wasn’t to be heard until Sept 2007. KPMG estimated that the club couldn’t survive until then and put Leeds up for sale. A bid was accepted by Bates and an administrators sale took place, rendering the CVA redundant.

    http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/leeds-united/latest-whites-news/united-caught-in-battle-between-taxman-and-football-league-1-2168794

    ” HMRC were until recently preferential creditors but their unsecured status left them in line to receive around 77,000 of the seven figure tax bill they were owed, while United’s football creditors received full repayment.

    Confirmation of HMRC’s legal challenge saw administrators KPMG collapse the CVA and complete a private sale to Bates’ company.

    The move brought Leeds out of administration, but it conflicted with another area of Football League rules which requires insolvent clubs to implement an agreed CVA before their membership of the League is returned.

    United’s failure to move forward with a CVA in place began the sequence of events which saw their golden share returned through an “exceptional circumstances” clause within the League’s regulations – but at the cost of a 15-point deduction.”

    Leeds were never liquidated, it really is that simple. I won’t even waste my time with the ” Celtic were liquidated propoganda”

    Sevconians the floor is yours!?!?!?!

    • Adam

      LOL – There is no need to take the floor. Your links prove that a CVA wasnt achieved and that oldco was liquidated. 🙂

      But if you are in any doubt whatsoever, go to http://www.companieshouse.co.uk and do a search on company 00170600 then come back on and update your views.

      • Oh dear. You must not be canoeing up the Zambezi with your shares in RIFC tucked into your back-pocket,safekeeping them to pass down to your grandchildren You must have found a way to get access to the internet Mr Mitty.

        You’re a proven liar and I won’t get involved in any discussion with you.

        • Marching on Together

          Oh dear. You must not be canoeing down the Styx with your shares in HMS (402) Ltd tucked into your back-pocket,safekeeping them to pass down to your grandchildren You must have found a way to get access to the internet Mr Mitty.

          You’re a proven moron and decent people won’t get involved in any discussion with you.

        • Adam

          Nice ass covering.

          “You are a proven liar”

          Really ??? Prove it !

          “I won’t get involved in any discussion with you.”

          Coward !

      • Marching on Together

        Adfam

        That would involve him doing something other than C&Ping stuff already posted on Rangers-hate sites for deluded bigots.

    • Marching on Together

      Yet another C&P moron who doesn’t understand what he is reading.

      KPMG as administrators issued an abort certificate on 16 July 2007, bringing the CVA to an end, following the court challenge from HMRC.

      A CVA NEVER HAPPENED. Same as Rangers.

      Leeds oldco was liquidated in Feb 2008 tp newco, after the Club was sold. Same as Rangers.

      “Leeds were never liquidated, it really is that simple.” Sorry, you really ARE that simple.

      Meanwhile, Celtic have three times died. When they were incorporated, when they went into receivership in 1994, and when they transferred the assets (not the club or history) to Celtic FC Ltd in 2002. Have fun you HMSonians.

  15. dicky merrick

    Look children. Lets all agree Rangers are a new club and the old club are dead and we can all just get on with it. The fact that Celtic have an unbroken history having never been in administration or liquidated is neither here nor there a is the fact that Rangers only won a micky mouse European trophy. Now everyone Come on be adults!

  16. JimBhoy

    I have said my piece on this and have to agree reluctantly with Adam that ranger fans will see them as the same and other fans may see rangers as a new club. it will be argued for decades…

    One thing I would like to add is looking back at the rangers history would you still want to be associated with that..? I wouldn’t if my club had all that past baggage..

  17. Auldheid

    Adam
    Oh dear.

    The SFA not putting Rangers forward for the reasons stated does not mean the UEFA rule on being a member of a national association in which UEFA define a member does not apply.

    It just means the rule under which UEFA would have rejected any SFA submission was not tested publically but had anyone enquired ( and I think UEFA were asked) they would have been told of the failure to comply with the 3 year association membership rule.

    Now that rule which I cannot reference is quite clear on what consritutes a member and it specifically excludes any entity that has gone through a “restructuring” for the purpose that Rangers did – to avoid debt. In short there is a principle behind the UEFA rule that should apply to all national associations under UEFA but the SFA avoided having to uphold the principle as it suited there purpose to prolong the myth that Rangers were still the same entity.

    As ever Adam the scrupulous mind looks for a literal interpretation of rules that suits the desired outcome rather than apply the justice principle on which the rules are based.
    Whatever the SFA ( who are by now totally discredited when it comes to matters of principle) might have put or not put to UEFA, the principle on which UEFA rules are based make it quite clear that in UEFA’s eyes The Rangers are a new club whose membership of the SFA began last August.

    That UEFA choose not to point this out to the SFA is an old boys club matter.

    • Adam

      Thats all opinion based on what you want the answer to be.

      In UEFA’s rules it clearly states that each case would be looked at on an individual basis.

      Neither you nor I know how UEFA would rule on it. But the fact remains is that they have not stated anywhere that Rangers would NOT qualify. Thats just a myth.

      • Monti

        @Adam Rangers aren’t in FIFA 13……HA! BECAUSE THEY DON’T EXIST, YOU ARE MAKING A NOEL HUNT OF YOURSELF! FRIENDO……:)

      • Auldheid

        Adam
        Check the UEFA rule. No wriggle room to interpret as suits.
        Lets assume Rangers had produced audited accounts, perhaps qualified and had no unpaid tax but had gone into liquidation but the SFA ignored the UEFA 3 year association membership rule and put them forward.
        Would UEFA have ignored their rule on 3 years continous membership which specifically defines membership as the member being the same legal entity?
        They could not because that would have left the door open to all clubs to do a Rangers to avoid debt including social taxes with no fear of the consequences and UEFA simply could not allow that to happen. Which is why their rule is watertight and in place.
        If I were guilty of two criminal offences but the police only charged me with one would that mean the other crime had not taken place?
        I have no problem with an argument that the spirit of Rangers lives on, it clearly does but the body that spirit inhabited is dead. Leave it in peace and let a new spirit prevail going forward free from what killed the old body.

        • Adam

          I have copied and pasted the 3 year exception rules from UEFA website above. Have a read at them. You cannot hypothesise as to what you think may happen but the truth is that its only an opinion.

          • Auldheid

            Oh yes the exception clause. I remember that. If SFA thought they had a case to make an exception by arguing it was the same club why did they not pursue it?
            Uefa were asked about eligibility as I recall but no one knows what they were asked or the answer given but the rule requires an exception to be argued which means the rule applies unless an exception is requested and granted.
            No request to be exempt was made so the rule applies.

            • Adam

              The SFA didnt pursue it due to the amount owed to the taxman as at 31st December 2012 which meant Rangers did not meet the SFA requirement for a UEFA licence at that given point.

  18. Monti

    Haven’t seen a single Sevco player or their manager linked with a move AWAY from the asbestos dome, yet Lenny is going to Everton, Stoke & any other job they make up, whilst half the Celtic team are leaving, Forster,Wilson,Matthews, Ledley,Forrest,Wanyama & Hooper are regularly linked with moves away? Lee Wallace & David Templeton are 2 players I rated highly while at Hearts, now at Sevco, surely clubs in a higher league would want these players? Interesting.

    • Adam

      Its not really interesting at all. Rangers were murder last season. The manager is murder. Of course they arent going to attract the same attention as the players you listed.

      • Monti

        I think it is interesting! Not remotely concerned whether you thought my interesting point was interesting or not! 😉

    • Marching on Together

      Everyone wants away from HMS 402. Rats leaving sinking ship.

  19. Let’s face it, the chances of Rangers needing to apply for a European license are slim in any case so it is unlikely we will see Uefa turning their application down any time soon. It is likely they would reject their application – just as they did with Derry City post liquidation – but I guess we will never know. Battering on about it is pointless.

  20. listentoyerda

    “To Most Fans, on the Govan side of the Clyde” ….. Some people want the Truth So Badly: But even after it has been Presented to them, They deem it Unacceptable. In the End, they create Their own version of the Truth, which is more Acceptable to their Perception. They DENY the TRUTH, Worship the LIE! ( their new motto: Deny,and We won’t Die!

  21. Geddy(Hall of Fame) Lee

    It’s facinating how Smith , MCcoist Traynor etc were allowed by the laptoployal to say what they said before the CAV was rejected about rangers dying, but then never ever be taken to task after their actual extinction.

    The papers should be demanding answers from the SFA, especially as to why rangers had to compete in the first rounds of the SFA Cup. Had they been the same club, they would never have accepted that. Why should they ?

    But of course, this is Scotland so no chance there. The cowardice and hypocrisy of “the rangers men” however, is par for the course.

    It’s obvious to everyone, including most rangers fans, that Green’s club are very much a new entity, yet they don’t have the moral fibre to accept that. Look how Traynor now has a 6 figure salary , actually working for the new club, and not so much as a peepout of the fans,

    Hear No Evil, See No Evil. I believe this is the new club’s motto.

    Oh and yes, may I add my voices to those who have already pointed out LEEDS were NEVER Liquidated. That’s just another of those urban myths doing the rounds of the Govan pubs.

  22. During the administration process, why didn’t a single businessman happen to mention that liquidation is no big thing really – it just means the club survives and the debt is dumped? Who wouldn’t want that at the top of their list??

    Why did Duff & Phelps say that the club had to “start afresh” if things are the same? Why did Charles Green want a CVA “to preserve the history”?

    Someone should tell Bill Miller he didn’t need tens of millions to “keep the club alive”, all he needed was 5 or 6, liquidate then say you’re the same thing. Why did he not understand?

    The fans know.

  23. Monti

    THE HILLS HAVE EYES………WOOOOOOOOO 😀

  24. SairFecht

    For those who have been missing hearing Charlie the Entertainer’s voice in recent weeks…

    http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/rangers-green-and-whyte-audio-clip-emerges-1-2927930

    • JimBhoy

      @SairFecht Wouldn’t mind a translator on what this is about…Is he just tying in Stockbridge with Chico Pyro pants emphasising the word ‘conned’ a couple of times… I would hope more to come.

      • JimBhoy

        Maybe the next couple of soundbites he can do a voice over and include some context or just a narrative.. A prologue Star Wars stylee…. 🙂

        • SairFecht

          Don’t know JimBhoy but it would make a great ‘sound’ jigsaw. No wonder he’s thinking of making a movie out of this. I particularly like the ‘Brian knows’ reference at the end. The man is a twisted genius.

  25. Monti

    The character ‘Mr Dead’ from the Harry Enfield series reminds me of Rangers…..DEAD!

  26. castlerockbhoy

    MoT, the flaw in your argument is that the assets of Rangers 1872 were bought from the administrators. however as we all now, Charles Green was unable to strike a deal with the required number of creditors to stave off liquidation. Had CG been able to do so then a CVA would have been struck that would have allowed everyone to get something back, yes even the facepainter that Kevin bridges like to lampoon you about. that a CVA was not struck mean only one thing liquidation. However, liquidation does not mean that a new company supplying the same goods cannot start trading from the same address. Ass CG had not been directly responsible for the old club being liquidated, why would anyone try and stop him starting a new Rangers playing out of the same address. Remember the Rangers fans were unwilling to touch CG`s team until the Court Jester asked them all to get on board.

    With regards to Celtic, Fergus Mc Cann has repeatedly stated that it would have been cheaper to let Celtic be liquidated and then buy back the assets, but he wasn`t willing to do that. Why? Is it because a new Celtic wouldn`t have been able to claim ownership of the ` jug ears cup`?

  27. It’s really quite simple. Look up ‘liquidated’ in the dictionary.

  28. Jim smith

    You lot seem to spend more time going on about Rangers history than your own. Anyone would think you were obsessed or something!!!

    Anyway lets put this new club/old club rubbish to bed by using the example of Fiorentina, They went bust in 2003 and stopped playing for a full year yet uefa lists full history.

    http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=52817/profile/history/index.html

    Also take note of Middlebrough who were liquidated in 1986 and are still the same club.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middlesbrough_F.C._survival_from_liquidation

    Hibs are another club that have gone bust and still retain history.

  29. Marching on Together

    “MoT, the flaw in your argument is that the assets of Rangers 1872 were bought from the administrators.” True. before liquidation. Just like Leeds. What the assets were are what makes up the Club. Just like Leeds. After the Club was sold to newco, the oldco went into liquidation, owing money to creditors. Just like Leeds.

    • castlerockbhoy

      So MOT if as you state the new Rangers are the old Rangers, then all the creditors of the old Rangers will be able to pursue you for the debts of old Rangers.

      • Marching on Together

        You clearly don’t understand the difference between a club and the company which owns it.

        • Cheap Suit Charlie

          You clearly don’t understand that there was no company that owned the club, the club was the company.

          • Marching on Together

            How did the club become the company? If you say, incorporation, what exactly happened in 1897 at that process to magically transform the club (or unincorporated voluntary association as it is correctly termed ) into a new company?

            Because you don’t know what happened, you wrongly think that club=company. Because I do, I know that this is untrue and can never be true.

            • 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”)”

              Over 40 yrs of defining Law and all wee hoopy has to back his claims is his DNA

          • Cheap Suit Charlie

            The answer is in the question, I can’t help it if you don’t know what incorporation means. I assume you have access to a dictionary or google if you need help defining it.

            • Marching on Together

              Unlike you I know perfectly well what happens in the process as I have done it. You clearly have no idea, which is why you bluster and prevaricate. If you had any idea what is involved you would not persist in such ridiculous notions as club=company.

              Last chance to explain.

            • Cheap Suit Charlie

              If you think that I’m wrong you’re more than welcome to explain to me what incorporation means, in particularly the incorporation of Rangers in 1899, and how I’ve misinterpreted, “just because i said so” won’t suffice.
              And you can have two chances 🙂

  30. Monti

    WHERE’S REGAN? I HAVE DIRECT QUESTIONS!

  31. Geddy(Hall of Fame) Lee

    Why did Green have to change the club’s name to “The Rangers”

    Adam, do you have a theory? or even a perfectly logical explaination.

    I realise such questions are stictly taboo normally, but seen as your here fighting the club’s corner, I thought I’d ask.

  32. Auldheid

    One aspect not mentioned is the TUPE factor.

    If it is the same club in continuity why did the SFA not stop Naismith etc leaving?
    They had contracts. Who with?
    If the same entity then those contracts should have been honoured and a transfer fee secured for the ongoing entity under its slightly different name.
    Was the players contracts at £2m plus the full value of the squad including the TUPE leavers or did they belong to the club in liquidation who by going into such freed them from their contracts?
    It seems to me that the TUPE principles that allowed a goodly amount of transfer money that could have gone to pay more to creditors is as good an example of evidence that the old club ceased to exist and the new club is just that.
    It puzzles me why D&P never sought to put the high value assets that were saleable up for sale before liquidation in order to do their duty to creditors.

    • Jim smith

      FYI Rangers received 800k for Davis, as well as money for Fleck and a few others. The rest of the players contract situations is still the subject of a legal despute. Rangers still hold the registrations of the players who left and they were given termpory one’s to sign for other clubs, as this blog pointed out a few weeks back when it ranted about squad numbers.

      As for the sale of the club by D&P (yes club), £5.5m was the top bid. End of story.

      All the trophies Rangers have won are still in the Ibrox trophy room and any new trophies won go right in the same place as before.

      Deal with it!!!!!!

      • castlerockbhoy

        So if Rangers win their case, will the creditors receive the cash, after all they were assets of the club that went bust and never received a penny of pay from the new club?

      • JimBhoy

        ‘Jim ‘End of story’, ‘Deal with it’… Listen to yourself, you sound like ADAM.. 🙂 lol

      • Did Davis TUPE over? If not his contract was with the entity in liquidation and it is they or the liquidators who should get the fee. BDO will be chasing that £800k unless Davis TUPED over.

        Had THE CLUB that the players who TUPED away from not ceased to exist, then they could not have walked away for nothing because the CLUB with whom they were in contract had breached that contract (by ceasing to be that club).

        Quite simply there is a price to be being recognsied as the same club and that is to pay the debts of that ame club, Even if it takes 50 years at increasing amounts as finances improve (assuming they will) that is the price to pay.

        It is wanting it both ways that annoys most supporters as it would you if positions were reversed. In terms of integrity and honour you are supporting a bankrupt club but perhaps that is of no concern to you and should really be no concern of mine.

    • castlerockbhoy

      Did CG ever get the money from UEFA for the Rangers players that were playing at Euro 2012?

  33. Stephen

    I’ve never understood how Sevconians can focus on Leeds as thougth it was relevant when Lord Nimmo Smith said that Rangers ceased to exist as a club.

    Maybe i’d be the same if I was in their boat, I suppose.
    But forget Leeds for a minute – let’s look at something that is relevant to here & now.

    Europe? Less than 3 years accounts – you can’t play.

    Sevco had to apply for SFA membership? (Why – if the club already HAD membership … )

    Rangers FC had full membership status – Sevco were given associate membership.

    If Rangers survived they would be in the 3rd round of the Scottish Cup, but ….

    Duff & Phelps said that in the event of a CVA being rejected, the players registrations would revert back to the SFA. Why? The registrations was with the club, not a holding company …… Does that mean the club WAS the company as well?

    Let’s look at the Steven Davis saga:

    “Oldco Rangers were not entitled to the money because it sold the players’ registrations to the newco, and the newco cannot take any money for Davis either because it is not a football club until it has SFA membership”

    http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/sfa-poised-to-freeze-rangers-cash-for-steven-davis.18249886

    Oldco is not a football club – newco is not (yet) a football club

    WHERE IS THE FOOTBALL CLUB ???
    It’s gone. Read again at the top what Lord Nimmo Smith said.

    Talking about Leeds over & over (oops!) won’t make a blind bit of difference to any of the realities here – but carry on if it helps you get through the day.

  34. Marching on Together

    “when Lord Nimmo Smith said that Rangers ceased to exist as a club” No he didn’t. He was talking about the club’s SPL membership.

  35. scot

    The league eventually sanctioned the sale to Bates without the club going through a CVA under the “exceptional circumstances rule” but imposed a 15 point deduction due to not following football league rules on clubs entering administration. On 31 August 2007 HMRC decided not to pursue their legal challenge any further therefore accepting Bates’ final offer.

    The difference here being Bates bought the CLUB whereas Mr Green bought the assets.
    exceptional circumstances rule – no such thing happened in Scotland. Leeds did not have to re apply for membership.

    Eufa’s own definitions talk about the CLUB & COMPANY as a legal entity. This is the key phrase … the application for licences are made by the legal entity … and that is no longer the same entity in rangers / sevco case

    SEVCO and old RANGERS FC are always capitalised when in official / legal documents…. because they are both separate LEGAL ENTITIES
    and one of them will cease when liquidation is completed.

    • Marching on Together

      “The difference here being Bates bought the CLUB whereas Mr Green bought the assets.” According to what the Leeds administrators KPMG said in their report to creditors dated 24.7.2012 what was being sold was the “business and assets”. It also states that “we re-offered the Club for sale”. Same as Rangers.

      • Stephen

        Maybe when they mentioned “club” back then, they were in the same kind of denial you are in now.

        The word “club” is often used but if you listen closely enough you can detect the subtle nuances.

        For example – Charles Green sold shares in Rangers International Football Club but now and then when interviewed he would say “shares in the club”.

        This gives an entirely different outlook to the gullible – because if you take a step back and believe the nonsense that a club can’t be liquidated and that only the “company” can have accounts, well you can’t buy shares in the “club” either, can you?

        It’s all in the detail.

        • Marching on Together

          OK, where in the Celtic plc balance sheet does Celtic FC (the club) appear? What is the defintion of a club when its ownership is being transferred? Must a club always be indistinguishable from a company?

    • Jim smith

      Forget the Lees utd rubbish, and just goggle what happend to Fiorentina and how uefa class them as the same club despite going out of business for over a year. As for Hibs they went bust for almost 2 years and still claim trophies won before that.

      CASE CLOSED.

  36. charliedon

    In my opinion, an excellent and perceptive post by JohnBhoy. We can argue forever about the technicalties of company/club in relation to liquidation, the similarities/differences to the Leeds Utd scenario etc etc. But JohnBhoy has made some irrefutable points.
    If newco Rangers are the same club as oldco Rangers, with continuity and an unbroken history, then they would have to still be playing in the SPL because they were not relegated and they would not have played in the early rounds of the Scottish Cup. They would also have qualified to play in European competion this season. And I reject the arguments that UEFA haven’t actually ruled on this. Newco Rangers would no doubt have fought to get to play in European competition if there was any chance of this being allowed.
    The fact that they did none of these things proves conclusively that they have not been treated as the same club for the purpose of Scottish football rules.
    Having started afresh in Div 3, some convoluted and contrived arguments have then been put forward to claim they are the same club but these arguments are futile given the facts in the previous paragraph.
    End of argument.

    • Jim smith

      @charliedon

      Think you’ll find that Rangers were voted out of the spl, i know this cause they had a vote 11-1 against. Maybe that is the reason they don’t play in the spl now, just a thought.

      Rangers also played in the early rounds of the Scottish cup cause the club played in sfl3 at the time of the draw, much like when Livi were put down to sfl3 for an insolvency event after being in sfl1

      • the vote was 11-0 with 1 abstention.

        the rule on being in the draw for the early rounds of the SC is not based on who is in sfl3 in that season, but instead is based on placings from the previous season.

        • John

          Notice no reply once their argument has been disproved??

          Adam and MoT, Please just answer this one question with no reference to any other club, if trfc are rfc why did they start in the early rounds of the SC? Both of you have been asked this several times and I have yet to see a responce that makes sense! Above MoT had to be schooled on how the draw is seeded so probably not the best peepil to ask but hey, never know?

          It’s all a bit laughable reading the craziness and non-logical responces from Adam and MoT! I am a recruiter, work with several administrators & liquidators on a daily basis, not one has not laughed when I show them some of the claims of these two, and others to be fair, and the most common question is “Are they real?” They don’t actually believe anyone could be so stupid hahaha

          Peter Lawell for Overlord of Scotland 🙂

          • charliedon

            @Jim smith
            Rangers weren’t voted out of the SPL. They applied to have oldco Rangers SPL share transferred to them and the SPL clubs voted 11-0 to turn this down. If they were the same club, they wouldn’t have needed to have the share “transferred”, they would have it already.

            • John

              Again Charlie, don’t hold your breath for an explanation! Never heard one trfc ran admit that they weren’t voted out?? Strange strange peepil 😉

          • Marching on Together

            “f trfc are rfc why did they start in the early rounds of the SC” Because the SFA said so.

            “not one has not laughed when I show them some of the claims of these two” Its called humouring the village idiot.

  37. Daniel O'Connell

    We can ignore the appeal to LNS as evidence The Rangers are the same club because that is not what LNS said.

    He ruled on whether TRFC had an interest in the dual contract investigation and a right to be represented at the hearing.

    He used the SPL definition of a club (which is typically cack-handed) to rule that TRFC did have an interest and a right to be represented as the decision could affect their business.

    He did not say RFC and TRFC are the same club.

    • Thats a common and overlooked factor.
      There have been numerous opportunities for various organisations to simply, clearly and straightforwardly state that the current club are the same club as the club that went bust last year.

      There’s plenty of opinion flying about, though.

  38. Spuds

    http://www.thelawyer.com/paying-by-the-rules/1003055.article

    “HMRC therefore challenged the Leeds CVA (which had the requisite majority agreement), which led to the administrators collapsing it and being forced to complete a private sale. Due to this legal challenge Leeds incurred the automatic 10-point penalty when the club went into ­administration, then accepted a further 15-point deduction in League One when it failed to achieve a CVA (HMRC did not eventually follow through with its challenge to the CVA).”

    Dated: 11th January 2010

    Case closed??

    • Marching on Together

      That piece focused on HMRC, not on what eventually happened to Leeds oldco. Try looking up Companies House, or is that beyond you as it does not involve Googling and then pasting any old stuff you find?

      • Spuds

        It addresses your claim that HMRC did eventually follow through with their challenge to the CVA – they did not.

        • Marching on Together

          I have never claimed any such thing. They issued a court challenge within the 28 day statutory period, the CVA was withdrawn on 16 July, and HMRC withdrew its court case on the eve of the first court date, after the club had been sold to newco and the CVA withdrawn, and as the judge would have thrown it out as irrelevant.

          • Spuds

            Dec 5 2012:
            “The essentials between what happened to my club and Rangers (apart from the bit about them being a bunch of cheating bigoted b*stards) are the same, and nobody has yet been able to demonstrate otherwise.”

            Dec 3 2012
            “So, oldco goes into administration (same as Rangers), CVA tried and blocked by HMRC (same as Rangers), asset sale including the club to newco (same as Rangers), oldco goes into liquidation (same as Rangers), same club lives on with history intact (same as Rangers).”

            By my reading of the above, you claim that, as happened in the case of Rangers, HMRC followed through with their objection. However, I can see where interpretations may differ.

            • Marching on Together

              Both CVAs were blocked by the actions of HMRC. The only real difference is that with Rangers HMRC had the votes to block it and needed to do anything further thereafter, but with Leeds they did not have the votes, and had to go to court to stop it. They lodged the court papers within the statutory time-scale but did not do anything more as by the time it came to court the whole CVA issue was irrelevant and had been withdrawn. HMRC did not follow through with their objection, but they did not have to as the mere act of filing court papers meant that KPMG had to follow a different route, and private sale of the club and its assets, sale as Rangers.

  39. ecojon

    @Adam

    The question is quite simple: If the oldco Rangers is the same as the newco Rangers why was McCoist’s contract transferred to TRFCL as revealed in the AIM Flotation Prospectus of RIFC Plc.

    It’s not a trick question and I have raised it previously because of your long-standing contention that current Rangers players still have the same contract of employment as they had prior to administration. You have also stated you have seen at least one of these contracts and the employer is given as Rangers Football Club which I have previously rejected as impossible.

    My reason for rejection is that RFC could not and cannot legally deduct the PAYE Tax and NI that an employer is legally obliged to do.

    I have pointed out that the players you talk of may well have the same terms & conditions as pre-admin but as their employer has changed they have a new contract of employment.

    For some reason you appear unwilling or unable to accept that fact and I can only assume it is part of your deflection strategy aimed at proving that Rangers never died but lives on exactly as before.

    It also raises the position of the players who joined the club after admin. Who is their employer? And what about the legion of new players being talked about for this year – who will be their employer?

    And which legal entity will Sandaza take action against when seeking compensation for his dismissal?

    • Adam

      Firstly, i did not state that the employer was “Rangers Football Club” (or at least i dont think i did) I stated that the contract was on Rangers Football Club headed paper which is what I did see.

      Secondly, and you make this point again as if I have been avoiding answering it in relation to McCoist. Can you please link me(or copy and paste) to the part of the prospectus you are referring to for me to pass my opinion as im not sure i understand your point.

      Thanks in advance.

      • ecojon

        @ Adam

        Perhaps it was Broxi Bear’s contract you saw.

        However, what did your last slave die of?

        Do a google search for the flotation document and when the pdf comes up do a Control-F and then type in ‘McCoist’ in the search box and you’ll eventually come to his contract details.

        The point I am making – which I reckon is crystal-clear – is that McCoist’s employer after admin is no longer the same as his employer before admin. That to me is a pointer that something has changed.

        I would say that change took place for all employees at the club and the only reason that it isn’t actually mentioned in the AIM Prospectus is probably because McCoist and Ahmad are the only two key employees listed for RIFC Plc. I would also state that if 1 of only 2 key employees gets shown the door that may well be matter for announcement to AIM but you would probably disagree with that.

        Adam I have no intention of searching back to the numerous posts we have had on this issue but it is my clear memory that your position was that RFC was the employer. You repeatedly refused to accept that legally that was impossible for the reasons I have already stated. It would appear that perhaps you have changed your mind on the issue.

    • Jim smith

      One final point on this cause it’s boring, but here is what hmrc said after they turned down the cva.

      A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years.

      (Note : Company not club)

      So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. Liquidation will enable a sale of the football club to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start.

      (Note : Rangers can make a fresh start)

      Rangers still the most successful club in Scotland.

      Aye but it’s pure no Ranjurs cause a wee guy on Kerrydale st says so.

  40. Stephen

    Can one of the Sevconians describe to me what a club IS?

    If someone came in to buy the CLUB, what would they be getting for their money?

    • Marching on Together

      The assets as listed in D&P’s report to the creditors, and that were transferred to Sevco.

    • Marching on Together

      Can one of the HMSOnians show me where on Celtic plc’s balance sheet Celtic FC (the club) is placed?

      • Ed Paisley

        @MoT
        Leaving aside the view of the plainly self-interested SFA. Do you think that a football team who failed to honour £35m in debts has the moral right to claim an unbroken history?
        Bear in mind the dishonoured debts are largely comprised of tax/nic on players wages and VAT collected on CLUB income – these are certainly football club debts.

        If you sincerely believe that there has been no breach of the timeline, is there any kind of stain left by this sorry affair?

        • Marching on Together

          Do you think that a football club which facilitates its supporters celebrating and promoting the blowing up of kiddies has the moral right to pronounce on anything?

          • Ed Paisley

            @MoT
            I thought it was a perfectly fair question. I realise it strays into the tricky question of moral obligations. You clearly don’t want to engage on that level and I respect your decision to not to. Have a very pleasant evening.

            • Marching on Together

              I used to go to Celtic Park fairly regularly, say around 5 or 6 times per season, plus some away games, when Leeds were not playing. I stopped going because of the repugnant attitudes of many of their supporters and the club’ tolerant attitude to them. Celtic supporters can say jack sh*t about moral issues.

              However, to answer your questions, morality has not been part of football for decades, either on the pitch or off it. I am only interested in what is legal or according to the rules, not its morality.

          • Been a Celtic supporter all my life. Never once celebrated or promoted anything remotely – as in north pole from south pole distance – resembling such action. I have a strong dislike for anything that associats Celtic with unChristian values and behaviour.

            • Marching on Together

              Good. Not enough are like you.

            • Stephen

              @MoT –

              I am glad you don’t go to Celtic Park now. Hope you never come back.
              Because if our lot gave your lot tickets – if your new club is anything like the old club – there’s every chance we won’t get our money.

              Every club in the land has to pay its bills – with honesty and dignity.

              Your lot couldn’t or wouldn’t and left everyone with nothing – and instead of being honest or showing some dignity we always heard about – you laughed at creditors and then pretended to be the same club.

              Dignity? Scottish football is better off without you.

              Remember this – every ball that is kicked by one of your players – is done by favours from the SFA. You didn;t even get into Division 3 by your own merit – it had to be facilitated by handshakes and deals within the corridors of the SFA.

              You didn’t even meet the conditions to join Scottish football.

              Whilst every other club earns the right to be there – you are only there out of favours. I’ll take no lessons in morality from you.

              Your club paid money it never had and never could pay back in order to buy players that won you trophies.

              You ditched the debt and still want to keep the trophies? It takes a special kind of arrogance to want to do that – but that is one world record you lot certainly have.

              Oh – and new clubs can’t play in Europe for the first three years of their existence. Just for the record.

            • Marching on Together

              You seem to be confusing me with a Rangers fan. I am not. I am a Leeds United (born 1920, one continuous history) fan and always have been. I used to have Celtic as my diddy or second team, but no longer due to the attitude of the bigots, racists and terrorist-lovers who infest Celtic Park. You seem to be in good company.

            • Stephen

              @MoT

              Apologies for confusing you as a The Rangers fan – you certainly showed all the credentials – it was an easy mistake to make.

              But I still stick to my original point – i’m glad you don’t come near Celtic Park.

            • Marching on Together

              Apologies accepted. I am glad I don’t go near Celtic Park either – I am less tolerant than I used to be of bigotry and racism, so am afraid I would be getting ejected for challenging the club-approved racists and bigots.

          • Budweiser

            mot.

            http://www.network54.com/Forum/283664/thread/1325979092/best++football++riots+you+ve+been+in+!

            Aren’t you a bit ‘holier than thou ‘? I can copy and paste[lol] numerous other examples of Leeds fans rioting if you like ? Paris ? Bournemouth ?
            Glass houses/stones ?

            • Marching on Together

              I am aware of my club’s history, and as such I made no pronouncements on moral issues relating to football. It was not me that raised the moral dimension and tried to take the high moral ground.

    • Jim smith

      @Stephen

      A football club is the fans, staduim and tradition, not a bit of paper with numbers on it as so many pacific shelf 595 fans think.

      When McCann bought The Celtic football and athletic club and changed it’s name,crest & Company number did the fans of this old club stop supporting this new incarnation?

      Not that you had many fans at the time but you get the drift.

      • Kev

        Correction Jim, please purvey facts in their correct context, it avoids you looking extremely silly if not a little deluded. From threads on this blog over the last 2 days I’ve seen ‘Adam’ and ‘MOT’ go from seemingly educated fellows to childish taunting, name calling and ‘whatabouttery’ of the highest order. It seems discussion is best not even attempted with them. I’m unsure if you are of the same persuasion, but please represent facts as they are, not as you would like them to seem:

        “Celtic were formed in 1888. The officeholders of the club accepted personal liability for all debts until the club became a limited company on 12 April 1897. On that day registration number SC003487 was given to The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Limited – a private limited company.

        In 1994 Fergus McCann opened the club up to 10,000 supporters by making the club a public limited company, which then became known as Celtic PLC. It is the same company, with the same registration number, SC003487. On the same day the company became a PLC, Fergus, in his wisdom, registered a new company, with exactly the same name as the old company (The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Limited), in order to prevent another party registering the name, which retains an historical association with Celtic. The new company is wholly owned by Celtic PLC.

        Celtic now have in the region of 29,000 shareholders. They, alongside every shareholder in our 125 year history, have made sure that every debt was settled.

        Go to Companies House web site, click ‘Find Company Information’, search ‘CelticPLC’, for 115 unbroken years of limited liability history.”

        Extremely smart marketing by Mr McCann, protect the name of the old club before some ‘fly-by-night’ decided to take advantage of the old name…

        Of course, in 1994 we didn’t have a lot of fans around. That was mainly because we were active in removing a failing board. We succeeded. Rangers on the other hand stood around shouting “We arra peepul” and died… now Sevco appear to be going the same way. Have the Sevco fans learned? Have they heck… so on trundles the farce and everyone’s getting ready for round 3.

        • Marching on Together

          “I’ve seen ‘Adam’ and ‘MOT’ go from seemingly educated fellows to childish taunting, name calling and ‘whatabouttery’ of the highest order” I respond in the same way as directed at me. if someone posts utter shite about my club, I feel entitled to respond in kind about theirs. if people take positions that imply their own club is dead, I will point it out.

          “until the club became a limited company on 12 April 1897” The club did not become a limited company. If you had any idea what is actually involved legally when an unincorporated voluntary association (what in the law of Scotland, Celtic were until 1897) ‘becomes’ a limited company, you would not post such rubbish. The assets of the unincorporated voluntary association are transferred to the new limited company and the unincorporated voluntary association is then dissolved on a voted by its members. if Celtic supporters argue that you cannot transfer a club by transferring the assets of the club to a new company, as they apply it to Rangers, then Celtic died in 1897.

          “Go to Companies House web site, click ‘Find Company Information’, ” Why should I go to Companies House? The C&P morons who infect this site steadfastly refuse to do likewise for my club despite Adam and others posting the link to demonstrate that Leeds oldco did go into liquidation.

          “On the same day the company became a PLC, Fergus, in his wisdom, registered a new company, with exactly the same name as the old company (The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Limited), in order to prevent another party registering the name, which retains an historical association with Celtic. The new company is wholly owned by Celtic PLC.” You clearly know little about your club. The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Limited is largely a non-trading company. Celtic plc does not operate the football business of Celtic, but Celtic FC Ltd (formerly HMS (402) Ltd) does. All according to Celtic plc’s annual report. Or are they lying in that report? According to the argument put forward by Celtic fans that you can’t transfer the club to a new company, when Celtic plc transferred its football business to Celtic FC Ltd in 2002, Celtic as a club died.

          Make your arguments if you wish, but accept the consequences as it applies to your own club.

      • Stephen

        Fans, stadium & tradition.

        OK I can see how you can buy a stadium – but a stadium does not equal a club.
        If someone bought the San Siro, what club would they be buying?
        So let’s put that one to rest.

        How can you “buy” fans? Were they listed in the sale when Murray sold to Whyte for example?

        What “tradition” did Charles Green buy? How do you define a “tradition” when preparing it for a sale?

        Aren’t you perhaps confusing emotion with legal entities?

        Lastly – you are correct – Fergus changed the name. But it’s still the grand old team it always was, not liquidated, and still standing.

        • Jim smith

          @ Kev every debt settled?, nope still think you owe the Glasgow council tax players many millions for the land your club bought from GCC 1p.

          Could also go on about the tax avoidance of image right companies that let Japanese players get away with not paying millions in tax.

          Could also bring up the film right companies used by Celtic players to avoid tax, Or even that the old Celtic football and althetic club used its chartable status to aviod tax as well.

          And lets not go into false attendances at Celtic park in the 60s,70s.

          Believe me you lot have not even begun to pay back what you owe.

          • Kev

            So as a result of my previous post, MOT resorts to type, and Jim replies with nothing more than ‘whatabouttery’…

            Excellent work chaps…

            • Marching on Together

              If by “resorts to type” you mean ” puts forward argumetns based on facts that I can’t refute so don’t try to” then spot on.

              If however you don’t understand what the grown-ups are saying, just say so.

            • Kev

              Again, inferred insults… excellent.

              You really are a credit to Sevco, MOT.

              I think I’ll stick to my initial thoughts on yourself and Adam, and just steer clear of most of what you have to say, it’s practically all nonsense, has been shown to be such by countless members on countless occasions and is a shame as you do, on occasion, make some decent points, it’s just the ‘type’ you resort to which undervalues them as contribution. If someone disagrees with you then they are automatically wrong, they don’t understand, they’re blinkered/biased, they’re “rangers haters” and if I had the time to read more of your posts I’m sure I’d find more.

              Unfortunately instead of looking forward to a decent discussion, I really just wait to see what retort you post while attempting to take a position of superiority, all too common amongst “ra peepul” unfortunately.

              However, I’ll leave you to have the last word, judging by your post count you appear to have very little else to do, I’ll away back and mess around with real life again.

              2 days reading this blog has been eye opening…

              Good day 🙂

            • Marching on Together

              You pointedly refused to answer the serious points I made on (1) what is actually involved legally when an unincorporated voluntary association ‘becomes’ a limited company – by your silence I will take it that you do not know, so any of your conclusions based on your assumptions in that connection can safely be ignored; or (2) the fact that the company which operates the football business of Celtic is NOT Celtic plc – clearly you were not aware of that.

              You refuse to engage with the logical arguments that if Rangers died as a result of the transfers of its assets, then Celtic also died in 1897 and 2002 when the same transfer of assets took place.

              You are the one that will not engage in reasoned debate, based on actual facts, but resort to name-calling and abuse when your tired old myths are exposed as untrue.

          • Kev

            @ Jim

            If GCC think CFC owe them any money then they should provide an invoice.

            If HMRC believe there’s been Tax Avoidance then I’m sure they’ll investigate.

            Film Companies used by Celtic players? Well they were used by plenty of Rangers players also, and were not used to ‘avoid tax’ but were used because a loop hole in the law allowed for a ‘tax break’ (similar in outcome but different mechanism of working) for those investing in future development of the British cinema and film production. As it was players of both sides invested poorly, loosing fortunes to daft fly by night companies who set themselves up to take money off investors then fold soon afterwards… not an uncommon story these days.

            False attendances, well I’m not old enough to remember the 60’s, but I’ve heard these claims all to often, and if I’m being honest it’s not something I’ve lost any sleep over, because even today I see games on TV where claimed attendances don’t match what my eyes are seeing…

            What does any of this really have to do with Rangers being a defunct club though?

            All I see continually is the ‘whatabouttery’ and deflection… Rangers died, so much info says so, and aside from the nonsense about Leeds, any other info to the contrary comes from what is either basically a corrupt source, or from a blatant attempt at misinformation.

  41. Adam

    May 14, 2013 at 3:15 pm

    The SFA didnt pursue it due to the amount owed to the taxman as at 31st December 2012 which meant Rangers did not meet the SFA requirement for a UEFA licence at that given point.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    There were two reasons not to pursue it, the one given and the failure to meet the 3 year association membership rule that The Rangers clearly do not meet under UEFA rules unless UEFA are asked to and grant an exception that was never requested..

    The Exceptions route which would have allowed the SFA to pursue entry on Rangers behalf says

    ” 2. An exception request must be in writing, clear and well founded .

    The SFA would appear to have reached the sensible opinion that they could not make out a well founded case. They could have if they thought it had a chance of success but faced with that difficulty as well as the other unpaid tax reason of which UEFA had been well alerted from the previous season, they elected not to pursue.

    In doing so the SFA chose not to challenge the 3 years association membership rule so it applies as written and The Rangers are not Rangers in UEFA terms until an exception is pursued and granted. No one wants that to happen for fear UEFA says there is no case for an exception (although experience suggests Rangers are good at benefitting from judgements when all the evidence suggests otherwise).

    Now that would really nail it and I’m surprised Rangers supporters have not asked UEFA how they would have ruled had they been asked to grant an exception to the 3 year association membership last season had a case been made to do so. Until that case is made The Rangers by default do not have the required 3 year association membership in UEFA’s eyes.

  42. In the words of the great Neil Lennon:
    125 YEARS OF UNBROKEN HISTORY. . . now that just about sums up the great mighty Celtic. UNBROKEN HISTORY and the EUROPEAN CUP WITH ELEVEN LOCAL PLAYERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

    WOOOOW! That is one hellava mighty achievement for one Scottish Club.
    They are the PRIDE OF SCOTLAND. . . and the whole of Europe recognises this and that is why the mighty Celtic are so revered all over the world.

    On the other hand. . .unfortunately . . .
    The DEED RANGERS and their tribute act The Zombie. . .sevco eleven aren’t even trying to play down their former clubs tag of being . . .SCOTLAND’S SHAME. Bigotry, institutional sectarianism, racism, riotous supporters, decades of cheating, doping, tainted titles, sporting cheating, creditor complacency (250+ businesses left in the cold), smugness, deluded-itous, violence, bigotry, bigotry, bigotry. and many other shameful tags that they seem to want to claim the right to and which in effect will be their undoing; just like their old former dead club. It’s only a matter of time.

    I suspect that many of their ilk that visit these sites are doing it to get away from the awful news of their own terminal wee club; and who can blame them. They are the feral fans of a footballing cash cow and they are to be pitied. . .NOT!

  43. Will your glorious sellick celebrate ALL it’s ” history ” in it’s new museum ……..warts and all ….?

    • Ed Paisley

      Dear Carson.
      I am sorry to hear that your genital warts are still giving you problems – as I told you before, the key to recovery is a rigorous personal hygiene regime.
      Remember – when I advised you to change your underpants twice a day I don’t mean turn them inside out. Fresh and clean, twice a day, keeps the Sevco warts at bay. You can do it fella!

    • Kev

      It’s only bitter, twisted, disgustingly deluded Sevco fans who actually believe what you have succinctly described as “warts and all” in a pathetically childish attempt to soil the name of the club and the memory of a great man, it the desperate attempt to have something to cling onto, bringing Celtic FC down to the level of Sevco FC.

      Unfortunately, accurate reporting at the time was completely re-written by hate filled bigots from the south side, and these days, decent Celtic followers don’t even rise to the bait anymore.

      In 1971, the late GREAT Jock Stein was on the pitch at Ibrox carrying the dead and wounded, tending to the injured on that horrific day. How do the patrons of that place thank him and remember him? As the decent, law abiding guy who helped anyone who asked, or indeed even didn’t? No… they sullen his name with complete nonsense and false allegations, not even backed up by fact, but only because they came from the mouths of other vile, disgusting ‘sickos’ who couldn’t bare his great name and memory from being celebrated.

      Sad, sad people, coming to a well deserved end…

      As I’ve said before, once the cancer is removed from a patient, that patient can go on to recover…

      • Jim smith

        @Kev

        The late great Jock stein?, oh you mean the guy who was kept off the Celtic board due to his religion?

        You lot keep the man from getting a postion of power at Celtic when he was alive due to him going to the wrong School, now after he has passed you get all misty eyed about him hmmmm???

        • His religion was only one of the reason,s. Having found out that celtic had re employed Jim Torbett to run the celtic shop some time after he had kicked him out his office door. Stein did eventually threaten the board he was reporting him to the police if they didn’t sack him. This being another reason he was not admitted to the board

        • Kev

          I’m not getting all misty eyed about him, I think you confuse things.

          Firstly, I’ll agree with you that the Kelly’s et all handled Big Jock terribly, and it would never have happened these days. I’ll admit that, it was nothing short of disgraceful but it is a measure of the man himself that he still loved Celtic FC till the day he died, and never held anything against the club, or the fans… the board however, that would be anyone’s guess.

          I would think it was a bit far fetched to say ‘us lot’ as we, the fans, never had any say in any appointments to the board, or do you mean “you lot” in another term… I would hate to suggest for one second that you would tar all Catholics with the same brush in whatever point you were trying to make. After all you DID mention religion, so apologies if I’ve jumped to the wrong conclusion. “You lot” could almost be a bigoted term at best, or even verging on racist, should the easily offended and hysterical want to jump on the quote, at worst.

          Secondly, you rather conveniently disregarded the jist of my post that there are disgusting elements that resided within the defunct Rangers and who now occupy space in the new Sevco support that continue to perpetrate the myth surrounding Jock and the abuse scandal.

          The fact that someone would even try ‘point scoring’ or use that sort of suffering to make themselves feel better about their ‘enemy’ speaks volumes…

          Anyway, this thread has just gone the way of virtually all posts on this site.

          Flawed, compromised logic/argument given to support the myth that Rangers survived, and when no-one believes the rumour that Rangers/Sevco are one and the same, it resorts to ‘whatabouttery’

          Back to real life for a while I think…

          • Marching on Together

            “Flawed, compromised logic/argument given to support the myth that Rangers survived, and when no-one believes the rumour that Rangers/Sevco are one and the same, it resorts to ‘whatabouttery’” As no-one will actually respond to posts citing facts and which make logical comparisons based on reason, then whatabouttery is all that is left.

          • JimBhoy

            @Kev I go away for a couple of hours and we are hijacked by zombies with threatening language based on all the real info they have and historic facts they know sh!t all about and even us Celtic fans condoning killing kids and religious claims.. This is typical of the mentality of the undead, no-one else can be correct as they have all the true facts and they will argue inanely ad nauseum, because of their deflective nature.. Everyone else on this site (other than the undead) are a supposed Celtic fans and Catholic, so fair game on the topics above apparently….

            This is a defence mechanism to stop them thinking about the whole world of crap that is all things rangers old/new whatever, I don’t give hee-haw for their past, they only started defending that when the CVA chance died… (“Chance” !! jeez only Chico Pyro pants and Dumb & Dumber spouted that nonsense)..

            The pretentious superiority complex and dogmatic style will never go away mate so don’t let these eejits budge your opinions and views. They often attack in packs but they more than meet their match on this site… They are just a Zombie trolling act.. Pathetic and funny at the same time.

            Some really good salient points mate, stay your ground… Taking their posts to bits with logic makes their brains overheat and that usually brings their true elements of disgust out in rants…Then you point the finger and laugh… 🙂

      • Adam

        Can i just be on record as saying i dont agree with any of the sheit Carson posts on this issue and he should be banned alongside Monti for bringing the whole blog down with this purile nonsense.

        Jock Stein was a hero of mine.

        Still is.

        I cried the night he died. Fact !

  44. Niall Walker

    Come on the Fifers.

  45. 61patrick

    5 years today since the followers of deadco tried to destroy a city because the telly broke.
    Some sevconions are delighted to be rid of the Scotlands shame tag, others though pine for bygone days with things no longer here.
    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh memories

    • 72 years since celtic became the only club to be banned from playing within the city limits of Glasgow for rioting,this resuled in their ground being padlocked for 1 month

  46. TheBlackGooseyCorsicaKnight

    “Blah, Sevco, Blah Blah Zombies, Blah, Blah, Blah their deed”

    Sorry to disappoint you old chap.
    Fact is Rangers are a Football Club.
    Not a company.
    I know you want to twist, write screeds of hatred & kid yourself on until the tears run down your face like a petulant 3 year old having a tantrum, (actually I think the tears of rage were flowing freely as you wrote your “blog”) but, ill say it again. Rangers is a Football CLUB.

    Now take deep breaths, get a brown paper bag out & breathe into it deeply.
    You’ll be fine. Just try to tone down your tantrums & don’t write blogs of hatred. Get out to the park. Have long walks in the countryside. The world is a beautiful place & Rangers Football Club is part of it. xx

    • It’s true. Rangers ARE a football club. Just not the same Rangers club that won 9 in a row. As that nice Mr Phelps said, you’re starting afresh.

      • arb urns

        “Blah, Sevco, Blah Blah Zombies, Blah, Blah, Blah their deed”

        Sorry to disappoint you old chap.
        Fact is Rangers were a Football Club.
        Not a company.
        I know you want to twist, write screeds of hatred & kid yourself on until the tears run down your face like a petulant 3 year old having a tantrum, (actually I think the tears of rage were flowing freely as you wrote your “blog”) but, ill say it again. Rangers were a Football CLUB.

        Now take deep breaths, get a brown paper bag out & breathe into it deeply.
        You’ll be fine. Just try to tone down your tantrums & don’t write blogs of
        hatred. Get out to the park. Have long walks in the countryside. The world is a beautiful place & THE Rangers Football Club is part of it. xx

  47. TheBlackGooseyCorsicaKnight

    With respect to Airdrie one further point. The company whom set-up the club bought over the now defunct Clydebank to set themselves up. Interesting to note that the new company also took on the old Clydebank history of awards. See SFA website

    http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/airdrie-united/

  48. ccl

    Airdrieonians died, Leeds United died and Rangers died. They’ve all been cobbled together but they will never be the same as before.

    • Marching on Together

      You are welcome to come to Elland Road to articulate that view and hear other opinions.

      Celtic died in 1897, 1994 and 2002. According to all the Celtic fans. You really could not make it up.

      • Stephen

        Actually, it’s you that’s making it up.

        You are trying to equate a club that never liquidated, never even went into administration in fact, with a club that went into administration and eventually liquidated.

        You are trying to equate a club that paid off every bill with a club that left a trail of debt which could be over £100m.

        You really could not make it up indeed.

        • Marching on Together

          According to many of the Rangers-haters on here, it was not possible for the club Rangers to be transferred in its ownership to Sevco, only the assets. If that is accepted, then that equally applies to 1897 when the club Celtic 1988 transferred its assets to Celtic newco, and in 2002 when Celtic plc transferred its football operations to Celtic FC Ltd.

          Can’t have it both ways. If Celtic did not die, then neither did Rangers.

          “a club that went into administration” Can’t happen. It was the company which owned the club which went into administration.

          • MoT,
            Thanks for the continuing reference to ‘Rangers-haters’. Way to get taken seriously.

            Either there can be an asset sale, or a sale of the club (referring here to the ‘club’ as the clubFC – the sporting activities and general FC business of the Clubco). The latter involves the continuation of the same clubFC uninterrupted and able to honour the same commitments and contracts, etc. (shares still have some worth) – the former involves a ‘break up’ and separation of the collection of assets that has been used as an FC into the individual assets and a sale of these. Even if this ‘break up’ is only for a short period, and the same assets are re-collected into the same arrangement by a newco to then carry on with what appears to be very similar sporting activities at the same ground, with the same colour strips, and under the same association, it is a key aspect of the process that the legal commitment(s) to creditors and to honour contracts were lost.

            The Rangers insolvency event resulted in the former, by available evidence. I wouldn’t agree its ‘not possible’ for there to be a sale of the clubFC, its just that it didn’t happen in Rangers’ case.

            It doesn’t equally apply to a transfer of assets in other cases where the originalco remains solvent and can, for instance, pay its debts and creditors, or honour contracts – so saying it equally applies to the Celtic examples you quote is not true.

            • Marching on Together

              Prior to Rangers entering administration the concept of a club dying on entering an insolvency event had never been heard of in UK football. Only after it happened to Rangers was it discussed. Why? No other reason than hatred of Rangers. We can discuss whether such hatred is driven by bigotry, or other reasons, but it is there. As for being taken seriously, I take it you disregard any post made that references Rangers fans as zombies or Sevconians, as there is no difference.

              You at least seem to reject the nonsense that club=company and can never be sold unless as a share sale. If I understand you correctly, the club can only be sold if the entirety of the business is sold as a collective, including the debts and liabilities. If the debts are left behind, there is no sale in the entirety hence no sale of the club. Fair enough, that is a logical and reasonable argument, based on reason. Its just that I disagree with you. In non-football business life businesses are sold stripped of their debt in this way all the time, but in fairness it does not seem to matter to most people whether Joe Bloggs Trading continues or not. However with football clubs it does matter, and the problem is that there are numerous examples of clubs being sold, comprising the assets without the liabilities to a newco following administration, and nobody has ever said that these clubs died. Until Rangers.

              “the former involves a ‘break up’ and separation of the collection of assets that has been used as an FC into the individual assets and a sale of these” Even accepting your premise, I do not agree that the assets were separated even for a short time. All the assets were transferred into Sevco Scotland, collectively, and there was no break.

          • Auldheid

            Nowhere in Celtic’s history has the club/ company whatever the make up the legal entity that is Celtic as defined by UEFA ( see initial posts) consists of has a liquidation event happened.
            Indeed they never entered administration either having been rescued by an up front donation by a suppoter whose name escapes me then taken from the threat by Fergus McCann
            On those facts rest the difference and only in Rangers history has liquidation occured.
            That is now part of that history and folk will give it what meaning that suits.
            Legally no longer being the same entity provides the benefit of not having to pay the old entity debts. So legally they have gone and that is a legal fact.
            Footballingly there are benefits to football as a whole in being the same club in that debts to football have to be cleared.
            Had those debts been more substantial and incapable of being repaid football, as in the SFA , would have seen no financial benefit to the game in terms of getting footbal debts repaid to treat them as the same although the fear of stating otherwise and the loss of a substantial customer base cannot be dismissed as motivating factors.
            The problem is that football has a set of rules and principles which in Europe come under the UEFA umbrella and are codified in UEFA FFP 2010.
            Under those rules had Rangers been put forward by the SFA for a UEFA competiton they could only be admitted if the met all the requirements.
            They failed on unpaid tax and audited accounts but also failed on having three years history as a legal entity that was member of a national association. The key word and where the two worlds collide is legal.
            Rangers could have been allowed to compete if an exceptional case to be treated as the same legal entity was made, but it never was so until it is they cannot be the same legal entity in UEFA eyes and as UEFA make no distinction between legal and football issues, in European football rule terms they are a different legal entity and so a different club until such time as an exception is made.
            Uefa do not like to interfere in national association affairs and have been relaxed on how the SFA attempt to square the circle but that is what the argument about being the same club is about and the SFA and The Rangers will have to live with the consequences as they continue to unfold.

            • Marching on Together

              UEFA don’t give a flying **** what the Scottish football authorities do to Rangers, despite the thousands of e-mails sent by Rangers-haters to UEFA pleading with them to do something.

              OK, so Celtic have never undergone liquidation. But if you accept the argument put forward by many on here that the club=the company and the club can never be sold separately form the company, then the logical implication of that is that Celtic died in 1897 and 2002 (as did Rangers in 1897), when Celtic did transfer the assets of the football club to another corporate entity. So if you claim that Celtic never died, then by logic, the club =company argument is a proven fallacy. Which makes statements such as “Legally no longer being the same entity provides the benefit of not having to pay the old entity debts.” as wrong.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s