Crystal Palace – why this club is NOT returning to top-flight football – by AD Bryce

Before you ask…

No, I haven’t just woken from a coma.

No, the Championship play-off result has NOT been overturned!

Yes, I am aware of the record books showing that back in 2004-05 Palace were relegated in their first season back in the top flight since 1998.

Yes, I am aware that during their 107 year history, dating back to 1905 – a year of founding which graces their team badge, Crystal Palace F.C. has spent 14 seasons in the top flight of English football.

Or so we all thought. However, there are people who think differently…

 

According to some people, the definition of a football club is akin to that which appears within UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules and regulations:

“a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions”.

If this “legal entity” is liquidated – the club is liquidated, because the club IS the legal entity, according to these people.

 

So, according to these people, the football club we call Crystal Palace Football Club is in actual fact, to begin formal introductions, the legal entity that is..

–  registered company no. 07206409 CPFC 2010 Limited. http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07206409.

There is no other “legal entity full responsible for a football team” in relation to Palace. Inescapably, for these people, CPFC 2010 Limited IS the “football club”.

 

So, according to these people…

This “football club”(legal entity) was incorporated on 29th March 2010.

This “football club”(legal entity) never existed before than point.

Therefore this “football club”, Crystal Palace Football Club, has…

– Never been in a Cup semi final against Man Utd.

– Never shipped 9 goals to Liverpool at Anfield.

– Never was founded in 1905.

– And certainly has never been in the top flight 14 times as it DIDN’T EXIST until 2010!

…according to THESE PEOPLE.

 

And what would these people say about the teams who have taken to the field bearing the name “Crystal Palace FC” over the years – well, they MUST have been playing for an entirely different football club (remember that UEFA ‘legal entity’ definition!) whose history no longer exists. One of three in fact, two of which now dissolved, as listed in this article… https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/rangers-fc-survived-3-indisputable-justifications-guest-post-by-ad-bryce/)

 

So – a question for you all…

Are you one of these people?

Are you one of these people who accept this UEFA definition that a football club is the “legal entity”?

Are you – therefore – one of these people who recognise the current football club – Crystal Palace Football Club (CPFC 2010 Limited that is) – as only existing since 2010 and so about to embark on the FIRST EVER top flight season?

If so – please introduce yourselves – you have not been shy in the recent past!

If you are not, please explain why you think these people are so mistaken.

Thank you.

Posted by AD Bryce.

Feedback to @bryce9a is welcomed.

Advertisements

56 Comments

Filed under Crystal Palace, Football, Guest Posts

56 responses to “Crystal Palace – why this club is NOT returning to top-flight football – by AD Bryce

  1. Adam

    Ra Rangurz are deed. Deal wif it sevcoian. 🙂

    • ecojon

      In a historical context I felt that today on the 125th Anniversary of Celtic it was unfortunate that a post noting that event had been left behind on the previous thread and I hope Paul has no problem with it being reposted here.

      Of course there is a historical context which links Crystal Palace with Glasgow’s east end and it’s the fact that the Great Exhibition of 1851 saw The Crystal Palace – a striking cast-iron and plate-glass building – erected in Hyde Park, London.

      And for those interested in historic time-lines The Crystal Palace Great Exhibition predates Glasgow’s 1888 Industry, Science and Art Exhibition by 37 years 🙂

      Jimmy bee
      May 28, 2013 at 7:23 am

      Hail Hail to our forefathers 125 years ago today when we played our first game and what a result.

      May 28, 1888 – this was just the beginning:

      IT was 125 years ago today, on May 28, 1888 that a crowd of 2,000 braved a chilly evening to watch the newly-formed Celtic Football Club take on the established side from the South Side at the first Celtic Park – or where the new-builds now are on Springfield Road.

      The Celts took to the field in their original outfits of white shirts with green collars with a red and green Celtic cross on the breast as they recorded a win in their first ever game against a side who were to become their greatest rivals.

      The game was won 5-2 with the honour of scoring Celtic´s first ever goal falling to Neil McCallum who, just nine months later, would also score Celtic´s first Scottish Cup final goal.

      The Scottish Umpire of the day said that Celtic played with: “a combination which could scarcely have been expected form an opening display.

      “It would appear that the newly-formed Glasgow club, the Celtic FC, has a bright future before it. At any rate, if the committee can place the same eleven on the field as opposed Rangers last Monday evening, or an equally strong one, the Celtic will not lack for patronage or support.”

      They certainly got that right and it´s thought that the 2,000 attendance could have been greater but for the International Exhibition taking place the same day though in the West End.

      The only surviving remnant of the 1888 International Exhibition is the Doulton Fountain, the world´s largest terracotta fountain and it now takes pride of place outside the People´s Palace in Glasgow´s´ East End…

      We like to think that a rather more authentic, focal and indeed international legacy of 1888´s Industry, Science and Art Exhibition still survives today just along the road a little deeper inside the East End.

      • Monti

        HAIL HAIL! ERIN GO BRAGH!

      • Niall Walker

        “It would appear that the newly-formed Glasgow club, the Celtic FC, has a bright future before it.”

        Was Celtic FC a club before it was a company and member of the SFA ?

      • Thanks Eco,a lovely end to what has been a great year,the celtic graves society,has been organising people to try and lay flowers today at the graves of those first celtic 11,and it has been going well,I have visited the resting place of jinky our greatest ever player,just to say thanks and remember them on this day,our club one love always have been always will be Celtic.Join with me hoops fans in raising a glass to those who have gone before us as managers players and supporters,may they rest in peace amen.
        Hail Hail

    • Ed Paisley

      Jeez Adam – I think you need to stop corresponding with carson, your spelling has gone to pot. Take a brain-boosting pill and wash it down with a litre of Little Big Shot (infused with rare sea bed minerals from the Sea of Japan) and you should be back to your normal intelligent self.

      • Ed Paisley
        May 28, 2013 at 9:48 am

        …you should be back to your normal intelligent self.
        =======================================
        I’ve never seen the words ‘normal’ and ‘intelligent’ ever before used in such an inappropriate fashion.

    • Monti

      Well said Adam!

    • Sam

      Unsure if this has been posted before:-

      Cohen & Stephen (Liquidators of Rangers FC) & Ors v Collyer Bristow

      7 Jan 2013 | By Katy Dowell

      Also in: The Top 20 Cases 2013

      AstraZeneca Insurance v XL Insurance & Ace Bermuda Insurance
      Harbinger Capital v Independent Valuer of Northern Rock; HM Treasury
      AADB v Deloitte
      Manmohan Varma v Mittal
      Ali Dizaei v Metropolitan Police & Ors
      Thomas Hicks; George Gillett & Ors v Martin Broughton & Ors
      Interflora v Marks and Spencer; Flowers Direct Online
      CF Partners v Barclays & Tricorona
      GDF Suez v Teesside Power Holdings& Ors
      R (UK Uncut Legal Action Ltd) v HMRC
      Madoff Securities v Stephen Raven & Ors
      Torre Asset Funding v RBS
      IP IPCom v HTC and IPCom v Nokia
      Graisley Properties & Ors v Barclays Bank
      Constantin Medien v Bernie Ecclestone & Ors
      Merrill Lynch v Comune di Firenze; UBS v Comune di Firenze; Dexia Crediop v Comune di Firenze
      London Underground v Freshfields; Herbert Smith
      Continental Capital Markets v GFI Holdings & Ors
      Ndiku Mutua & Ors v Foreign and Commonwealth Office

      Cohen & Stephen (The Liquidators of Rangers FC) & Ors v Collyer Bristow

      Late 2013, 5-10 days, Chancery Division

      For the claimant Cohen & Stephen (The Liquidators of Rangers FC):

      South Square’s Mark Philips QC leading South Square’s Stephen Robins previously instructed by Taylor Wessing partner Nick Moser, taken forward by Stephenson Harwood partner Stuart Frith

      For claimants the Trustees of the Jerome Group plc Pension Fund:

      Outer Temple Chambers’ David E Grant, instructed by trustees David Simpson, who is also a qualified barrister

      For the claimants HMRC:

      South Square’s Lucy Frazer

      For the claimants Merchant Turnaround:

      Maitland Chambers’ James Clifford and Matthew Smith of the same set, instructed by Macrae & Co’s Julian Turnbull

      For the respondent Collyer Bristow:

      3 Verulam Buildings’ Cyril Kinsky QC leading Matthew Hardwick of the same set, instructed by Clyde & Co partner Richard Harrison

      The financial collapse of Rangers FC put in the public eye the club’s relationship with its professional advisers, including Collyer Bristow and former partner Gary Withey.

      Withey quit the firm in March after he became embroiled in the Glasgow club’s administration because he had advised businessman Craig Whyte on his takeover of the club in 2011.

      Duff & Phelps were appointed as the original administrators of the club and, in March last year, announced it would take action against the firm.

      When liquidators Cohen & Stephen took over the wind-down of the club it pledged to carry on the case. The firm has lodged a Part 20 claim against private equity firm Merchant Turnaround.

      Collyer Bristow stands accused of “deliberate deception” over Whyte’s doomed bid for the club.

      The court heard at a pre-trial hearing in April that Collyer Bristow is alleged to have been involved in conspiracy, breach of undertaking, negligence and breach of trust, with Withey – who acted as the club’s company secretary – complicit in the allegations.

      It was revealed that when Whyte agreed a majority stake takeover offer in May 2011 he also pledged to pay off the club’s £18m debt to Lloyds Banking Group and invest £9.5m of “new money” in the club. This included £5m for players, £2.8m to HMRC and £1.7m for capital expenditure.

      That offer persuaded then director Paul Murray and the board not to launch an alternative £25m share issue to generate the money needed to stabilise the club. Instead, the court was told, they agreed to Whyte’s takeover, with Collyer Bristow acting for Whyte.

      Administrators were called in February 2012 and various parties – including HMRC, private equity firm Merchant Turnaround and Jerome Pension Fund trustees – lobbied to reclaim their stakes in Rangers.

      The firm says it will vigorously defend the claims. Withey had originally applied to intervene in the case, but has now withdrawn his application.

      This battle will be closely followed by firms and fans alike as it promises to lay bare the firm’s relationship with Whyte and the club.

  2. If what happened at Crystal Palace was the same as what happened at RFC(IL), i.e. club liquidated following a failed CVA attempt and creditors/taxpayer fleeced, then of course they are not the same club.

  3. ed

    Maybe the definition of CVA and Liquidation would help you understand the difference between Rangers (dead, debts not paid), Sevco (alive, no debts) and Crystal Palace (debts paid through agreement with creditors).

    Pay your debts, keep your club. Simple.

    • Ed Paisley

      @Ed
      Couldn’t agree more with you cousin Ed. If the legal entity/club fails to meet its financial obligations and uses liquidation to shirk those debts then it is “goodbye history”. Rangers debts were were comprised largely of tax on players earnings and VAT on club income – football debts in anyone’s language. Yes the fans will continue to claim the history and wear the colours, the shirt will continue to proclaim 150 years of history. But just as Lady MacBeth washed her hands and cried “out damned spot”, no amount of effort to rewrite history will remove this stain from the Rangers/SEVCO timeline.

  4. diamondtim

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/01/crystal-palace-saved-liquidation-cpfc-2010 perhaps this news article from the Guardian (one of the better broadsheets) is also wrong

    • Carlito Brigante

      The Guardian article will be discarded by Bryce as “propaganda” of some sort or he’ll know of a more recent article which refutes that. They believe simply what they want to believe. Not one Sevco fan ever answers one of the following questions:
      1) The club (1872) incorporated in 1899 to become the company. The company (ergo club) is now in liquidation. Did the club and company ever decouple prior to 2012?

      2) The myth that the “club” was sold. Can any Sevco fan tell me precisely what constituted the “club” that was sold?

      • Niall Walker

        I hope you don’t mind me answering questions posed to Bryce.
        It seems to me we must decide who determines what constitutes ” a club “, is it the SFA, Rangers fans, Celtic fans or the the Law.
        If a Rangers fan believes the club began in 1872 then they may not believe the club ” became ” the company in 1899, they may believe their club was attached to a company, an attachment irrelevant to the concept of their club.
        If a Celtic fan believes ” the club ” becomes the company then the demise of this company for them signals the end of the club.
        The SFA believes ” club ” status is theirs to give or take away, it is not the property of the company, the company does not own its club membership, it is bestowed on them by the SFA, and in the case of Rangers they transferred this status to a new company.
        The Law is only interested in the company not its status as a ” club “.

        I do not believe there is a definitive answer, it is purely down to ones subjective belief of what constitutes a club, even if the SFA accepted Rangers newco as a new member, a Rangers fan may believe it is the same club being given a new membership, and there is no argument because the fan does not define the club by its company status or SFA membership status. One cannot prove them wrong since ” their club ” existed before it was a company or member of the SFA.

        • @Niall
          If a Rangers fan believes the club began in 1872 then they may not believe the club ” became ” the company in 1899, they may believe their club was attached to a company, an attachment irrelevant to the concept of their club.
          ******************************************************************
          http://www.rangers.co.uk/club/history/club-history/item/505-the-beginning-of-glory

          do you see it, do you, CLUB/history, Club History………
          not company history, not the founding of a company, not separation of a club and anew company,

          **Club history…………………Wilton was rewarded with his appointment as the Club’s first Manager as Rangers formally became a business company. Rangers Football Club Limited was established in March 1899 and appointed its first board of directors under the chairmanship of James Henderson**

          what was this “RANGERS” that became a business if it was not the football club, that had played football since 1872, was there some other Rangers in existence, that became a business, if there was, why is this on the official web site under club history, it has been on the site a long time before administration struck.

          • Niall Walker

            ” do you see it, do you, CLUB/history, Club History………
            not company history, not the founding of a company, not separation of a club and anew company ”

            coatbrig,

            I would say you are not helping your case in posting this, it seems to confirm the club’s status is more relevant than its company status, since the original vehicle of Rangers did not define the club then why should a different vehicle define the club.

            There are two types of existence, things and concepts, the club can exist as a thing or as a concept, some believe in a club as a concept not a thing, they believe in the soul not the body.

            I am not in a position to prove their belief is false.

    • Carl31

      Thanks for the link to the Guardian report …

      Firstly, and importantly, in reply to the general point in the post:
      The principles and detail in UEFA rules are not set out in precisely the same way by the National Associations. So whilst these NAs need to implement UEFA principles within their rules, these rules are not identical. This means that comparison(s) directly with club insolvency(ies) outwith Scotland dont indicate anything reliable in terms of what happened in Scotland.

      … but leaving that aside, I’m happy to comment …
      I’m unfamiliar with the detail of the Crystal Palace situation and their latest travails, but it was good to see them achieve promotion. Ian Holloway seems to have his own unique passion about football and looks to play an attractive attacking game. It was refreshing to see when he managed Blackpool – and I hope there is more of the same now he is up with CP.

      It would be useful to know the details of the sale agreement between the administrators and the consortium – to compare with the asset sale agreement between D&P and whichever Sevco was correctly applicable. This evidence would allow an assessment of what happened based on documents drawn up for legal purposes and agreed by the relevant parties at the time, rather than newspaper reports or stuff on websites (not that I cast aspersions on the accuracy of newspapers).

      The report in the Grauniad does state that the current owners bought the club and its ground :- “… Steve Parish’s CPFC2010 consortium agreed a deal in principle for the purchase of the club and its ground.”
      I wonder if this is the club in common speech (clubFC), or the club as the entity that was the club (Clubco) that went insolvent. I guess it would be difficult for a club with no legal personality (clubFC) to go insolvent, since it cant enter any contracts, agree to pay anything, have a bank account or run up debts of any kind. So, I guess, it was the ClubFC.
      If so, that would be a clear distinction between the CPFC latest insolvency, and the RFC2012 insolvency.

      The report does say that Crystal Palace, “won reprieve from liquidation”, so, again, thats a stark difference from the Rangers insolvency last year, as we all know.

      In another less directly relevant contrast with the Rangers administration last year … “The club’s administrator, Brendan Guilfoyle, has run out of funds to pay wages and was forced to make 29 redundancies last week.” The administration of Rangers saw them lose £3m, but with no significant redundancies.

  5. AD Bryce

    Yet to see many respondents answering the question!

    • Carl31

      AD,
      The principles and detail in UEFA rules are not set out in precisely the same way by the National Associations. So whilst these NAs need to implement UEFA principles within their rules, these rules are not identical. This means that comparison(s) directly with club insolvency(ies) outwith Scotland dont indicate anything reliable in terms of what happened in Scotland.

      It would be useful to know the details of the sale agreement between the administrators and the consortium – to compare with the asset sale agreement between D&P and whichever Sevco was correctly applicable. This evidence would allow an assessment of what happened based on documents drawn up for legal purposes and agreed by the relevant parties at the time, rather than newspaper reports or stuff on websites (not that I cast aspersions on the accuracy of newspapers).

      We know that the RFC administrators sold assets to Sevco 5088/Scotland and the agreement does not list ‘the club’. Was this the case with CP admin?

      As I mention above, the report in the Grauniad does state that the current owners bought the club and its ground :- “… Steve Parish’s CPFC2010 consortium agreed a deal in principle for the purchase of the club and its ground.”
      I wonder if this is the club in common speech (clubFC), or the club as the entity that was the club (Clubco) that went insolvent. I guess it would be difficult for a club with no legal personality (clubFC) to go insolvent, since it cant enter any contracts, agree to pay anything, have a bank account or run up debts of any kind. So, I guess, it was the Clubco.
      If so, that would be a clear distinction between the CPFC latest insolvency, and the RFC2012 insolvency.

      IMO, if the ClubFC was bought (with the ground), then that would remain, through insolvency, as the “legal entity fully responsible for a football team” – so it would be the same Crystal Palace through insolvency. If it was separated into assets for the purposes of a sale, then it would be a sale of assets, and the new legal entity would be the new company that uses these assets to be ‘a club’.

      If assets were, in fact, the club, which continued eternally through liquidation, or liquidations, of the company that uses them, then this would be very damaging for football. It would be a systemic flaw in the whole integrity of the game.

    • The argument over Rangers/Sevco will be settled soon.

      When Sevco have their liquidation event I doubt that even the dimmest bear will be willing to donate to yet another new club.

      In the meantime enjoy however much of the 2nd division you can manage.

  6. AD Bryce

    Yet to see many respondents answering the question! Is the football club equivalent to the legal entity (therefore Palace will be in the top flight for the first time) or not? Yes or no really…

    • Monti

      I’ll try and answer AD, For me a football club is the Directors, the stadium, the players, the training ground, the football’s, the corner flags & yes in some cases the asbestos & crucially the History. Rangers were liquidated in 2012! Their History concluded!….it really is simple you know!

    • ecojon

      Having seen some of the comments on your twitter site about this blog and the people who frequent it and the comments about Celtic supporters I, for one, will be giving you the rubber ear.

      I do note however your long-standing obsession with the subject and would suggest that you try and get out more.

    • AD Bryce
      May 28, 2013 at 9:06 am
      Yes or no really…
      ============================================

      Yes or no answers are very popular with Sevco fans when its a Zombie asking a loaded question.

      Otherwise not so much.

    • TyroneBhoy Replies to the “Crystal Palace = Rangers” Post

      AD Bryce
      May 28, 2013 at 9:06 am

      Yet to see many respondents answering the question!

      You obviously haven’t read the following, dickhead.
      ============================================

      I do hope you’re not offended by my personal opinion of you.
      ==============================================

      TyroneBhoy

      Reply to the “Crystal Palace = Rangers” Post

      Your assertion that because a different company now owns “Crystal Palace” means that the club is a different club is not quite correct.

      Crystal Palace was incorporated as in 1905 and remained within this legal structure until 1984 when a new company was set up called “Crystal Palace FC (1984) Limited” and set ups as a subsidiary of “The Crystal Palace Football and Athletic Club Limited”.

      “Crystal Palace FC (1984) Limited” took over the operation of the business and assets of the football club but remained as part of the group structure of “The Crystal Palace Football and Athletic Club Limited”. It changed its name to “Crystal Palace FC (1984) Limited” in May 1986 before being placed into administration in March 1999.

      “Crystal Palace FC 2000 Limited” was set up in 2000 by Simon Jordan to purchase the club from administration and like you say it only purchased the assets and business of the club, not the company itself and so like the current situation with Rangers/Sevco, is not the same company and so could be treated as a new club.

      The difference with the Rangers/Sevco situation and the situation with Crystal Palace (and other teams in England) is that “Crystal Palace FC 2000 Limited” was able to purchase the single share in the league previously owned by “The Crystal Palace Football and Athletic Club Limited” and latterly “Crystal Palace FC (1986) Limited”. This was permitted by the Football League and so the football authorities in England consider this to be the same club, even if operated by a different company.

      Where your argument falls down in trying to link this case to Rangers/Sevco is that while Sevco was allowed to purchase the assets and business of Rangers Football Club Plc, it was not permitted to purchase the SPL share. Had Sevco been permitted to purchase the SPL share, we could argue that it was the same club as before. but, that argument is flawed.

    • Scot

      If Rangers were the same club they would have been seeded in this years Scottish Cup. They were not seeded because they have no history, they are a new club with a new legal entity.

  7. flump

    http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

    This website is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax.

  8. Carlito Brigante

    Yet another attempt by an same club “believer” to compare apples (Sevco) with pears (Palace, Brentford, Fiorentina etc) and come up with the desired comparative outcome.

    I’m really looking forward to the day when UEFA via the European co-efficient points calculations highlight beyond a shadow of a doubt that they’re a new club. Unfortunately, the few years that this will take will most likely see Sevco have their own liquidation first. At which point fans of “Rangers #3” will have to jump through incredible leaps of logic and defy all rational thought to convince themselves that they’re the same club again.

  9. Monti

    ” I was one of the first players to accept a 75% wage cut in order to help the ORIGINAL club” – Steven Naismith, fan & former Rangers player!
    If it was the same club, why did the players choose to leave?

  10. barcabuster

    http://m.scotsman.com/sport/football/top-football-stories/rumour-mill-celtic-rangers-lech-poznan-1-2945961.
    If Rangers had reached agreement with their creditors to “sort it oot”. then that would have been done. Unfortunately, they never!
    As a result, the creditors had no option but to turn to the law to sort it.
    The law, in their infinite wisdom, took the club fromthem, and is in the process of liquidating the club, in an attempt to at least gain something back for the creditors, on whose generosity the club previously leeched on.
    A new entity. Sevco now play in their place. It appears they may also be as unscrupulous as the dead club!
    A sweet little lady by the name of Charlotte, as now being reported in the MSM, is taking them to task on their unscrupulous behaviour.
    Sevco now appear to be back peddling at full speed, as outlined in the article above.

    • ecojon

      @ Barcabuster

      That Scotsman snippet is interesting and I have undernoted it. I always wondered about the calling of the Rangers egm and thought it was quite a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

      But is it part of the smokescreen – meaning that its purpose wasn’t really to install Easley and Chris Morgan – was it in fact to put Green back in place?

      If that is the reason for the egm – with the vote carried out on shareholding rather than a show of hands – then I would expect Morgan to be added to the Board and possibly Easely because he brings cash to the honey pot (formerly the warchest) as will ST sales.

      If Chico came back he could get his pal Ahmad sorted out financially as well which would help calm his jets. The thing about Ibrox these days is anything is possible and the Bears know that and are right to be worried.

      The sensible ones aren’t twittering about Crystal Palace but trying to ensure football continues to be played by Rangers – these are the ones interested in their club which is a world apart from the half-dead half-alive corporate carcase which is being fought-over by the vulture spivs.

      UNDERNOTE

      ‘New evidence’ surfaces in Rangers investigation

      An investigation looking into links between former Rangers chief executive Charles Green and Craig Whyte may be delayed after claims from Whyte’s camp that fresh evidence will cast doubt on Green’s account of the affair. The report, compiled by QC Roy Martin, is expected to be published in the next 48 hours, but Worthingon Group plc – the company pursuing Whyte’s claim – have promised to produce prima facie evidence of links between Green and Whyte.

      A leak of the report suggests Green will be cleared of wrongdoing, after which he could be free to return to the Rangers board. (Daily Mail)

      • barcabuster

        @eco
        Agreed mate.
        I think Sevco are trying the club v company trick again. i.e. We are the victims of bad owners. To an extent that is correct, but it must also include the tenure of David Murray.
        For the Rangers men, kicking a ba’ next season has to be the immediate goal, which means preserving the membership and license.
        Whoever is right or wrong in the asset buying could possibly take years to resolve. As such, not their most immediate problem.
        Dis-association of the club from the spivs is more time prevelant.
        The PM report will probably provide enough to satisfy a grateful SFA of this.
        Totally overlooking the various rules as to stadium ownership etc.
        According to reports, the NEDs were given the report some time ago. I suspect negotiations have been underway for some time to effect the continuation of TRFC while ownership is clarified.
        Charlotte has thrown a spanner in there by releasing stuff which could take years to see a courtroom.

    • barca As Sevco have just forked out a small fortune to what amounted to
      “the dog sniffing it’s own backside”, the tantalizing prospect hangs in the air of CW detonating another wee hand grenade
      Here was me thinking the season was over as well !!!!.

      • barcabuster

        @Mac Tomas.
        Although so far, the MSM have stopped short of mentioning Charlotte. I think it alludes to more “proof” that she knows the score.
        Tommo says he was informed of the letter from A N Other source, but we all know where it arose in first instance.

    • Maggie

      @Barca,eco & the bhoys
      Here we go,Sonny & Cher bursting into song,yes it’s Groundhog Day !!!!!! I can hardly believe this is up for debate AGAIN.
      Guys,save your sanity and your valuable time.There is literally nothing left to say,no other explanation to be given in the face of the wilful blindness and sheer intransigence of the Sevco fan.
      The more they try to manipulate the reality,the stupider they appear,every time,without fail. They’re a laughing stock.
      It would be more in their interest to try and mobilise into some sort of fans’ collective to demand answers from the Spivs currently in charge of the team they profess to love,but no,they trawl the Internet for non existent evidence that they didn’t die,and are on here denying reality and deflecting from quite obvious truths.
      If ever that overworked phrase “Get a life” was appropriate,this is it.

  11. Monti

    Where’s Cam? Is he still deep in Niall? I mean denial?
    If Cam & Carson are indeed the same entity, does that mean my size 10 boot is planted in Carson’s arse as well, so Cam, Carson if you pull a lace each,I’ll have my boot back now!

  12. JimBhoy

    Tad off course… Old Sticklebricks suggests today..

    ” THERE is now no way for Charles Green and Imran Ahmad to bulldoze their way back into Ibrox, despite all the recent scaremongering that the pair were lining up a return.
    At the heart of the blockade which would stop the Scottish Football Association ever allowing Ahmad to have anything to do with Rangers again lies the £137,000 paid into his mother’s account by Craig Whyte.
    And accusations by Whyte, plus the conman’s links with Charles Green, mean the SFA would block any bid by the sacked chief executive to try and bulldoze his way back into the Blue Room.
    Scottish Football Association chief executive Stewart Regan has already fired a warning shot across Ahmad and Green’s bows with his statements last week.”

    — I may have missed the ‘statements last week’ but it had been reported by sticklebricks and agent orange #2 and confirmed last week by Pinstrip masons that Green had no case to answer regards a tag team with Whyte to procure the rangers assets (again)…

    How can that be with sticklebricks statement above (if accurate)….

    Surely if Chico pyro pants and IamRangers have NO case to answer and ALL the SFA questions are covered in favour of Rangers then Regan can come out and issue a positive confirmation that Chico is/was fit and proper…

    OR maybe the PM report does show some vague concerns including some caveats (as Barca suggested yesterday) that maybe show it was a bit of a one sided report (as we all expected anyways) and there is some potential for further evidence to be made available….

    I expect the report will be displayed in part but in time the full report will be public domain whether leaked or not and will cast more doubt on the whole shoddy, shady affair..

    Old Sticklebricks statement above does somewhat contradict the fact Green and cronies were not in cahoots with Whyte (who apparently is sevco)..

  13. ecojon

    @JimBhoy

    To be fair I think Leggo’s heid has been birling in recent times – well maybe it’s been for a long time. But he has served so many different Masters in quick succession that even those who usually support him on Rangers fan sites appear to have abandoned him.

    However, he is adapting to the ever-changing and ever faster events at Ibrox and starting to fudge with a wee bit of each-way betting rather than his thundering announcements of Blue Room ‘Facts’.

    He hedges on tomorrow’s Ibrox Board Meeting by stating: ‘Looks like ousting Malcolm Murray as the first step to a better and more stable future’. I know I don’t have a direct conduit to a Blue Room leaker like Leggo – but from the outside I happen to believe that Murray is the one guy who has stymied Rangers being financially picked-clean by spivs. But he has to go as a first step towards a Blue Heaven. Strange one IMO.

    Leggo adds: ‘However, there are other and more compelling business reasons why Murray has to be removed as chairman and removed from the board, if Rangers are to progress’.

    Now it can’t be anything to do with his personal behaviour as he says its ‘business reasons’ so what new secret is hiding behind the red brick facade of Ibrox that has yet to emerge?

    I have never been sure about where Hart’s loyalties lie and that goes right back to his shareholding in the original Green consortium and how it was financed according to Green. It has always made me suspicious he is more likely to vote for Green than a Blue Knight position which he had previously been a member of.

    And Walter, well I’m sure Walter will look after himself and Ally and then do what he can for Rangers. His failure to act or pursue Bomber’s warnings is inexplicable for me. And why does the NED Cartmell disappear from the equation as he seems to have been a staunch Murray supporter on the board although he has already announced he would be leaving fairly soon for business reasons.

    Leggo adds: ‘If Malcolm Murray goes, and with Green also removed from the board, there is a reasonable chance that a compromise could be reached which would head off the need for the embarrassing bloodbath an EGM would surely turn into’.

    But he doesn’t say who the compromise will be with and studiously avoids mention of Stockbridge and Mather. Ahmad gets it in the neck for organising the dirty tricks campaign against Murray but no mention is made of Stockbridge and his video of Murray last September which was kept and then used much later. Don’t forget the video was taken 3 months before Murray was actually made chairman of Rangers International.

    And what about Easdale and King – has Leggo forgot about them? Surely not 🙂 However if Murray goes then so will Cartmell which does leave room for two slots on the board,

  14. Wow!…One year after Rangers entered the liquidation process and the Tribute Act started on their shaky voyage through the third division, you come up with this.

    I can sense the pain involved in such a journey, but I’m afraid its been a waste of time.

    Poor try, and no cigar.

    P.S. You use the phrase…”according to THESE PEOPLE” over and over.

    Is this some bizarre development of the Zombies oft repeated war cry…W.A.T.P?

    • Niall Walker

      ” Poor try, and no cigar.”

      Staunch rebuttal, full of facts, evidence and logic, are you head of the debating team ?

      • Bu Niall, I thought you were a champion of the “no evidence needed, only billions of believers” school of thought.

        Hypocritcal prick…

        • Niall Walker

          Carntyne,

          If the best you can do is invent my position and then attack it, then no wonder you limit your rebuttals to very offensive insults.

          You really hurt my feelings sweetie.

          • Niall Walker
            May 28, 2013 at 12:38 pm

            Carntyne,

            If the best you can do is invent my position and then attack it.

            No invention at all. Just using your own words, dickhead.
            ================================================

            You really hurt my feelings sweetie.

            That was the intention…dickhead.
            ================================================

            • Niall Walker

              Carntyne,

              Using my words out of context is inventing my position, didn’t you know that ?

            • Niall Walker
              May 28, 2013 at 12:50 pm

              Carntyne,

              Using my words out of context is inventing my position, didn’t you know that ?

              Which context is that dickhead?

  15. AD Bryce

    I think its quite funny that folk dont realise that personal attacks only make themselves look bigoted and blinkered, rather than knowledgable on the debate topic. I must say i laughed out loud at “ecojon” ignoring the subject and preferring to attack me with his “get out more” advice. Maybe he’s sick of being told that himself!

    • AD Bryce
      May 28, 2013 at 12:07 pm

      …maybe he’s sick of being told that himself!
      =================================

      Ooooh!…Bitchy! Aren’t you, by that remark, indulging in the same behaviour yourself?

      Another hypocritical prick.

    • barcabuster

      .@No doubt you will visit Tyronebhoy’s page and offer a reply, without resorting to whatabootery, deflection, or good old fashioned daftness.

    • Niall Walker

      AD BRYCE,

      You are forgetting Carntyne is a self appointed non-bigot and unblinkered bastion of fair play, heaven forbid he behaves as his opponents.

      It is quite amusing when he calls anyone a hypocrite.

      • Niall Walker
        May 28, 2013 at 12:44 pm

        It is quite amusing when he calls anyone a hypocrite.

        I don’t sense any amusement in your pathetic replies dickhead…

        • Niall Walker

          Temper temper sweetie, you are melting down, smoke bellowing out of the caldera, you are so easy. lolol

          • You’re just an arsehole, and providing proof of it every day.

            On second thoughts, calling you an arsehole is being generous…dickhead.

            • Niall Walker

              Carntyne,

              The proof is in our posts, mine consist of reasoned points, yours consist of playground name calling, and the proof just keeps pouring in.

  16. Budweiser

    Oh god – cue MOT !

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s