Jump to content

The Sevco existential debate - ***SEE ADMIN NOTE IN POST #1***


Scotch Corner

Recommended Posts

Scotch Corner

***READ THIS BEFORE POSTING.***

 

This thread has been split off from the main "Rangers soap opera" thread to allow a debate about the existential state of Rangers - whether they are alive or dead, new or old, treated fairly or unfairly, should be in Scotland or England.

 

We have some Rangers supporters with a different view to ours, and this is the thread for debating these different viewpoints - not the main thread.

 

 

 

 

I am a Rangers fan. Despite our troubles, which are still considerable, and whether you agree or not, Rangers is still here.

 

The situation in the last few years has been the stuff of nightmares for Rangers supporters, but I can understand why fans of other clubs want to put the boot in. When the biggest guy in the class gets cut down to size after throwing his weight about, who doesn't savour the moment?

 

I note the more extreme negative comments in the thread, and while I'd be a liar if I said they didn't disappoint me, there is a tendency on football forums for fans to become 'uber' in their views, and on Rangers forums, we're no different. In the real world, I like to think that there are plenty of Hearts fans who have not been overcome with hatred and bitterness.

 

Outside of the visit to Parkhead, which has been temporarily suspended of course, the trip to Tynecastle is the best away game of the season for Rangers fans. I hope the situation at both our clubs allows this fixture to resume in the future.

 

Hearts FC is one of Scottish football's biggest clubs. You need it to survive - we all need it to survive. Anyone with an appreciation of Scotland's football heritage surely cannot want Hearts to disappear. Edinburgh is a growing and vibrant city. If Hearts can get through this, the next fifty years could be a lot more successful than the last half-century.

 

I wish you well for the future and while some of you won't reciprocate, I can live with that.

 

Good Luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a Rangers fan. Despite our troubles, which are still considerable, and whether you agree or not, Rangers is still here.

 

The situation in the last few years has been the stuff of nightmares for Rangers supporters, but I can understand why fans of other clubs want to put the boot in. When the biggest guy in the class gets cut down to size after throwing his weight about, who doesn't savour the moment?

 

I note the more extreme negative comments in the thread, and while I'd be a liar if I said they didn't disappoint me, there is a tendency on football forums for fans to become 'uber' in their views, and on Rangers forums, we're no different. In the real world, I like to think that there are plenty of Hearts fans who have not been overcome with hatred and bitterness.

 

Outside of the visit to Parkhead, which has been temporarily suspended of course, the trip to Tynecastle is the best away game of the season for Rangers fans. I hope the situation at both our clubs allows this fixture to resume in the future.

 

Hearts FC is one of Scottish football's biggest clubs. You need it to survive - we all need it to survive. Anyone with an appreciation of Scotland's football heritage surely cannot want Hearts to disappear. Edinburgh is a growing and vibrant city. If Hearts can get through this, the next fifty years could be a lot more successful than the last half-century.

 

I wish you well for the future and while some of you won't reciprocate, I can live with that.

 

Good Luck.

On my mobile and just getting up so 2 quick points.

 

Certains bits I agree and a load of my anomisity is down to the bullying, intimidation and 2 faced nature of not just the fand but some really horrible people connected with Rangers led by Smith and McCoist, not elped by a continuing complicit damsge limitation media. Oh and useless football authorities.

 

You said if we get liquidated we shoukd start at the bottom, until it hsppened

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldcastlerock2012

I am a Rangers fan. Despite our troubles, which are still considerable, and whether you agree or not, Rangers is still here.

 

The situation in the last few years has been the stuff of nightmares for Rangers supporters, but I can understand why fans of other clubs want to put the boot in. When the biggest guy in the class gets cut down to size after throwing his weight about, who doesn't savour the moment?

 

I note the more extreme negative comments in the thread, and while I'd be a liar if I said they didn't disappoint me, there is a tendency on football forums for fans to become 'uber' in their views, and on Rangers forums, we're no different. In the real world, I like to think that there are plenty of Hearts fans who have not been overcome with hatred and bitterness.

 

Outside of the visit to Parkhead, which has been temporarily suspended of course, the trip to Tynecastle is the best away game of the season for Rangers fans. I hope the situation at both our clubs allows this fixture to resume in the future.

 

Hearts FC is one of Scottish football's biggest clubs. You need it to survive - we all need it to survive. Anyone with an appreciation of Scotland's football heritage surely cannot want Hearts to disappear. Edinburgh is a growing and vibrant city. If Hearts can get through this, the next fifty years could be a lot more successful than the last half-century.

 

I wish you well for the future and while some of you won't reciprocate, I can live with that.

 

Good Luck.

 

Rangers as an 'institution' had a chance to clean up their act, apologise for their sectarian signing policy, clamp down on their worst fans, bring young players through, curtail their spending, stop influencing the media and at least pretend to take responsibility for their own actions. They completely failed in every way to do any of that, so they deserve everything they now get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On my mobile and just getting up so 2 quick points.

 

Certains bits I agree and a load of my anomisity is down to the bullying, intimidation and 2 faced nature of not just the fand but some really horrible people connected with Rangers led by Smith and McCoist, not elped by a continuing complicit damsge limitation media. Oh and useless football authorities.

 

You said if we get liquidated we shoukd start at the bottom, until it hsppened

Hit enter half way through - doh.

 

Then when liquidation hsppened it's been nothing but bkame 'enemies of Rangers and continued threats bullying and intimidation.

 

Re the vote out of SPL that would have happened to any club and would have been the way Rangers would have voted too..And if this had been Celtic we all know how you would be feeling too re everything having to be investigated and each case dealt with individually and punished separately.

 

Im hoping if Hearts come out of this we act with a lot more dignity than some of our clubs actions during the Romanov era. I was hoping the same of Rangers too. Indeed how bizarre is it to think that during my time as a football watcher the old Rangers pre Murrays all inclusive Rangers has probably been the most palatable regime of them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
I am a Rangers fan. Despite our troubles, which are still considerable, and whether you agree or not, Rangers is still here.

 

The situation in the last few years has been the stuff of nightmares for Rangers supporters, but I can understand why fans of other clubs want to put the boot in. When the biggest guy in the class gets cut down to size after throwing his weight about, who doesn't savour the moment?

 

I note the more extreme negative comments in the thread, and while I'd be a liar if I said they didn't disappoint me, there is a tendency on football forums for fans to become 'uber' in their views, and on Rangers forums, we're no different. In the real world, I like to think that there are plenty of Hearts fans who have not been overcome with hatred and bitterness.

 

Outside of the visit to Parkhead, which has been temporarily suspended of course, the trip to Tynecastle is the best away game of the season for Rangers fans. I hope the situation at both our clubs allows this fixture to resume in the future.

 

Hearts FC is one of Scottish football's biggest clubs. You need it to survive - we all need it to survive. Anyone with an appreciation of Scotland's football heritage surely cannot want Hearts to disappear. Edinburgh is a growing and vibrant city. If Hearts can get through this, the next fifty years could be a lot more successful than the last half-century.

 

I wish you well for the future and while some of you won't reciprocate, I can live with that.

 

Good Luck.

I've been about as critical as anybody over the rangers saga but I appreciate there are plenty decent fans who have been let down. I'm from a Rangers supporting family really and my old man especially is one of the most brainwashed huns I've ever came across when it comes to this subject. Everybody has been out to get them, everybody is kicking them when they're down, it's all been a big taig conspiracy blah blah blah and the hanging on Charles Green's highly inflammatory rally calls has been cringeworthy in the extreme. You seem pretty sensible but I know plenty rangers fans and their knowledge of what has went in and the subsequent happenings and I have no sympathy for them at all. The way Sally's mask has slipped during this has been an eye opener for me also. He's not the cheeky chappy he put across for years. Drop the SFA conspiracy stuff too it's frankly embarrassing. Nobody has had more things go for you or blind eyes turned to your dreadful behaviour than you and your other half at the other side of Glasgow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scotch Corner

Very true, If King does get control he'll have to pump millions into Sevco to get them through this season & the next before their in the Spfl at the earliest..

The stigma that surrounds their liquidation & rebirth plus claiming titles that they did not win as a club formed in 2012 won't go away either.

 

1st King will have to get control from people he said he would'nt work with i.e. the Easdales .. But King has proven himself a spiv way above the easdales league ..

 

The club remains the same despite all that has happened. There is no old club, no club that died and no new club - just the same club that has been around since it played its first game in 1872:

 

"The Scottish FA can confirm that The Rangers Football Club Ltd have today received confirmation that full membership of the association has been transferred."

 

http://www.scottishf...=3&newsID=10287

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldcastlerock2012

The club remains the same despite all that has happened. There is no old club, no club that died and no new club - just the same club that has been around since it played its first game in 1872:

 

"The Scottish FA can confirm that The Rangers Football Club Ltd have today received confirmation that full membership of the association has been transferred."

 

http://www.scottishf...=3&newsID=10287

 

Aye it was transferred from the old club to the new one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NotVincentGuerain

Oh good! Sevconians in denial again on this thread. Cue the music!

 

certainly won't be the champion's league music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scotch Corner

Aye it was transferred from the old club to the new one.

It was transferred from the company in liquidation to the new company.

 

The club survived.

 

I won't deny that it was a difficult time for Rangers fans, but with a domestic history like ours, it was vital that Rangers lived on.

 

Our next league championship title will be our 55th, but it may be a while yet before we win it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldcastlerock2012

It was transferred from the company in liquidation to the new company.

 

The club survived.

 

I won't deny that it was a difficult time for Rangers fans, but with a domestic history like ours, it was vital that Rangers lived on.

 

Our next league championship title will be our 55th, but it may be a while yet before we win it.

 

This whole thing is done to death in this thread. 'Club' gets the license, stadium, history and past trophies and the 'Company' gets the debts. Is that how it works for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scotch Corner

This whole thing is done to death in this thread. 'Club' gets the license, stadium, history and past trophies and the 'Company' gets the debts. Is that how it works for you?

It's a complex situation, and there's little to be proud of from a Rangers angle, but it was hugely important that the club continued.

 

What works for me is the fact that Rangers is still here.

 

It'll be uphill for several years yet, but at least we are reassured that this era is a part of an ongoing history and not starting over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NotVincentGuerain

"It'll be uphill for several years yet, but at least we are reassured that this era is a part of an ongoing history and not starting over."

 

even that is not 100% fact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scotch Corner

Re-post:

 

What works for me is the fact that Rangers is still here.

 

It'll be uphill for several years yet, but at least we are reassured that this era is a part of an ongoing history and not starting over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scotch Corner

"It'll be uphill for several years yet, but at least we are reassured that this era is a part of an ongoing history and not starting over."

 

even that is not 100% fact

Rangers' membership was transferred by the national governing body.

 

What's not 100% fact about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NotVincentGuerain

Rangers' membership was transferred by the national governing body.

 

What's not 100% fact about that?

 

naismith, mcgregor, to name 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

 

Rangers' membership was transferred by the national governing body.

 

What's not 100% fact about that?

Do you guys see yourselves as being some sort of missionairies now, trying to convince all and sundry that you can be alive and dead at the same time?

 

Here's the thing. HMFC have never played the new club formed by Sevco Scotland. RFCRIP died although its post-mortem continues to find out who exactly killed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scotch Corner

Do you guys see yourselves as being some sort of missionairies now, trying to convince all and sundry that you can be alive and dead at the same time?

 

Here's the thing. HMFC have never played the new club formed by Sevco Scotland. RFCRIP died although its post-mortem continues to find out who exactly killed it.

On this issue, where misinformation is king, missionaries are probably required to set the record straight.

 

It's far easier and more sensible to stick to the reality of the situation.

 

Banter is one thing in football, but when people are genuinely clinging to it and trying to portray it as truth, a correction is more than desirable.

 

It's essential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

 

On this issue, where misinformation is king, missionaries are probably required to set the record straight.

 

It's far easier and more sensible to stick to the reality of the situation.

 

Banter is one thing in football, but when people are genuinely clinging to it and trying to portray it as truth, a correction is more than desirable.

 

It's essential.

Sigh. Just read up the thread. Warning: It will debunk your faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The club remains the same despite all that has happened. There is no old club, no club that died and no new club - just the same club that has been around since it played its first game in 1872:

 

"The Scottish FA can confirm that The Rangers Football Club Ltd have today received confirmation that full membership of the association has been transferred."

 

http://www.scottishf...=3&newsID=10287

 

I can transfer ownership of my car to you. That doesn't mean you can pass yourself off as me. If I had won a race in that car you wouldn't be a race winner after transfer of ownership.

 

Your former club had a great history (somewhat tainted by cheating), you should relish the opportunity to match those achievements with your new club. You look to have 2 league titles in the bag already. Keep up the good work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eldar Hadzimehmedovic

Simple question for our visitor - can he explain how McGregor, Naismith and Whitaker are not Rangers players right now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gregory House M.D.

 

 

The club remains the same despite all that has happened. There is no old club, no club that died and no new club - just the same club that has been around since it played its first game in 1872:

 

"The Scottish FA can confirm that The Rangers Football Club Ltd have today received confirmation that full membership of the association has been transferred."

 

http://www.scottishf...=3&newsID=10287

 

That doesn't make you the same club. It means your phoenix club was granted a membership. Just like they, if they had any integrity whatsoever would've "transferred the membership" to Spartans at professional level.

 

In the eyes of UEFA and factually, Rangers Football Club are no longer a functioning entity. They are dead. The Club and Company are the same entity. Of course your argument against this is the Celtic pish. Doesn't make your former club any less dead.

 

As recently as this week they have missed out on compensation because they no longer exist.

 

You carry on trying to convince yourself it is still alive though.

 

Ex-rangers fans- The only ****nuggets on earth with enough brass neck to blatantly deny the most public liquidation ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King of the North

On this issue, where misinformation is king, missionaries are probably required to set the record straight.

 

It's far easier and more sensible to stick to the reality of the situation.

 

Banter is one thing in football, but when people are genuinely clinging to it and trying to portray it as truth, a correction is more than desirable.

 

It's essential.

 

MIsinformation is king, indeed. Only not quite the way you see it.

 

Can you tell me the answer to this one...

 

Football clubs change 'parent companies' all the time. When Hearts were sold to Vlad, when Celtic were sold to Fergus McCann, when Man Utd were sold to the Glazers.

 

On none of those occasions was it necessary to 'transfer' an association membership. Why? (hint - it's because although they had been sold, the club remained the same one).

 

When Rangers FC were liquidated (bonus question - what does the C stand for?), it was necessary to transfer their membership. Why?

 

Is it because, unlike all the other situations listed above, it was a new club? If not, why has this 'transfer of membership' never had to happen before?

 

If the club was the same club, why did a transfer of membership have to happen? The membership of an FA belongs to a club, not a parent company.

 

 

I think you know the truth, and the answers to all of the above, you are just trying to convince yourself otherwise because the FACT that you died is pretty unpleasant to have to deal with. That may be so, but it happened nonetheless - and everyone knows it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MIsinformation is king, indeed. Only not quite the way you see it.

 

Can you tell me the answer to this one...

 

Football clubs change 'parent companies' all the time. When Hearts were sold to Vlad, when Celtic were sold to Fergus McCann, when Man Utd were sold to the Glazers.

 

On none of those occasions was it necessary to 'transfer' an association membership. Why? (hint - it's because although they had been sold, the club remained the same one).

 

When Rangers FC were liquidated (bonus question - what does the C stand for?), it was necessary to transfer their membership. Why?

 

Is it because, unlike all the other situations listed above, it was a new club? If not, why has this 'transfer of membership' never had to happen before?

 

If the club was the same club, why did a transfer of membership have to happen? The membership of an FA belongs to a club, not a parent company.

 

 

I think you know the truth, and the answers to all of the above, you are just trying to convince yourself otherwise because the FACT that you died is pretty unpleasant to have to deal with. That may be so, but it happened nonetheless - and everyone knows it.

You are wrong. Why? Because you misunderstand, probably because you have an emotional/financial investment in a particular one, what a legal entity is.

 

A legal entity is an entity that is capable of bearing legal rights and obligations, entering into contracts, owning assets etc.

Before incorporation, the ?legal entities? acting for football clubs are PEOPLE ? obligations arising from owning property, paying players, membership of associations, are liable against individuals. These individuals can come & go, assets/liabilities in their name are transferred between them, the club continues?.

 

At incorporation, a NEW LEGAL ENTITY (a ?company), of separate legal personality from individuals, is created, and all assets/liabilities previously the responsibility of individuals, is transferred to that entity.

 

As is the case prior to incorporation, a ?legal entity? acts on the club?s behalf in owning property/entering into contracts (ie. Association memberships, paying staff).

 

Just as prior to incorporation the football club?s existence is transferrable between legal entities (people) , the same is the case after incorporation (when those people have been replaced by separate, limited liability, legal entities: companies).

 

As long as the football club is contracted to these associations, regardless of who or what legal entity formally is liable for that contract, it?s existence and obligations continue.

 

Football clubs ? Gretna/Third Lanark etc - die because no legal entity, a company or an individual, is willing to take on the undertakings (owning of assets/fulfilment of contracts/association memberships) that the previous owners (retired/dead/liquidated) leave behind.

 

When new legal entities take them up, carry forth the baton as it were, the football club continues (Leeds/Portsmouth/Palace/Rangers etc..)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

Christ, another one is back!

 

Bless them, their mission to tell us that Lazarus wasn't actually raised from the dead, he was just comatose, continues. Pity it is in vain,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are wrong. Why? Because you misunderstand, probably because you have an emotional/financial investment in a particular one, what a legal entity is.

 

A legal entity is an entity that is capable of bearing legal rights and obligations, entering into contracts, owning assets etc.

Before incorporation, the ?legal entities? acting for football clubs are PEOPLE ? obligations arising from owning property, paying players, membership of associations, are liable against individuals. These individuals can come & go, assets/liabilities in their name are transferred between them, the club continues?.

 

At incorporation, a NEW LEGAL ENTITY (a ?company), of separate legal personality from individuals, is created, and all assets/liabilities previously the responsibility of individuals, is transferred to that entity.

 

As is the case prior to incorporation, a ?legal entity? acts on the club?s behalf in owning property/entering into contracts (ie. Association memberships, paying staff).

 

Just as prior to incorporation the football club?s existence is transferrable between legal entities (people) , the same is the case after incorporation (when those people have been replaced by separate, limited liability, legal entities: companies).

 

As long as the football club is contracted to these associations, regardless of who or what legal entity formally is liable for that contract, it?s existence and obligations continue.

 

Football clubs ? Gretna/Third Lanark etc - die because no legal entity, a company or an individual, is willing to take on the undertakings (owning of assets/fulfilment of contracts/association memberships) that the previous owners (retired/dead/liquidated) leave behind.

 

When new legal entities take them up, carry forth the baton as it were, the football club continues (Leeds/Portsmouth/Palace/Rangers etc..)

 

Why were Rangers not still in the SPL?

 

Perhaps it is because they are a new entity? i.e. the new owners had to re-apply to join the Scottish Footballing network. If the torch were carried on, surely there would have been no need for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are wrong. Why? Because you misunderstand, probably because you have an emotional/financial investment in a particular one, what a legal entity is.

 

A legal entity is an entity that is capable of bearing legal rights and obligations, entering into contracts, owning assets etc.

Before incorporation, the ?legal entities? acting for football clubs are PEOPLE ? obligations arising from owning property, paying players, membership of associations, are liable against individuals. These individuals can come & go, assets/liabilities in their name are transferred between them, the club continues?.

 

At incorporation, a NEW LEGAL ENTITY (a ?company), of separate legal personality from individuals, is created, and all assets/liabilities previously the responsibility of individuals, is transferred to that entity.

 

As is the case prior to incorporation, a ?legal entity? acts on the club?s behalf in owning property/entering into contracts (ie. Association memberships, paying staff).

 

Just as prior to incorporation the football club?s existence is transferrable between legal entities (people) , the same is the case after incorporation (when those people have been replaced by separate, limited liability, legal entities: companies).

 

As long as the football club is contracted to these associations, regardless of who or what legal entity formally is liable for that contract, it?s existence and obligations continue.

 

Football clubs ? Gretna/Third Lanark etc - die because no legal entity, a company or an individual, is willing to take on the undertakings (owning of assets/fulfilment of contracts/association memberships) that the previous owners (retired/dead/liquidated) leave behind.

 

When new legal entities take them up, carry forth the baton as it were, the football club continues (Leeds/Portsmouth/Palace/Rangers etc..)

 

How was Rangers FC transferred from one 'legal entity' to another? Can you explain the transaction, how it was approved and documented?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christ, another one is back!

 

Bless them, their mission to tell us that Lazarus wasn't actually raised from the dead, he was just comatose, continues. Pity it is in vain,

"I'll tell you what's wrong with it - it's dead"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why were Rangers not still in the SPL?

 

Perhaps it is because they are a new entity? i.e. the new owners had to re-apply to join the Scottish Footballing network. If the torch were carried on, surely there would have been no need for this?

The new legal entity picked up the SPL "baton" from the previous legal entity, so far so good, but the SPL blocked the transfer from their end so to speak.

 

The SFA didn't follow suit, the transfer of association membership between the legal entities was approved, and hence the undertaking of Rangers Football Club enshrined in the membership - in their eyes at least - continues.

 

There is so much confusion that a particular legal entity "is" the club, probably due to the long running links with particular ones.

 

But this is not the case, as has been proved the countless times association memberships/legal contracts/ownership of assets (the comprise the existence of every football club) have transferred between legal entities, whether that be people (before incorporation) or companies (after incorporation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

The new legal entity picked up the SPL "baton" from the previous legal entity, so far so good, but the SPL blocked the transfer from their end so to speak.

 

The SFA didn't follow suit, the transfer of association membership between the legal entities was approved, and hence the undertaking of Rangers Football Club enshrined in the membership - in their eyes at least - continues.

 

There is so much confusion that a particular legal entity "is" the club, probably due to the long running links with particular ones.

 

But this is not the case, as has been proved the countless times association memberships/legal contracts/ownership of assets (the comprise the existence of every football club) have transferred between legal entities, whether that be people (before incorporation) or companies (after incorporation).

 

I suppose UEFA say the same thing, do they?

 

No matter how many times Sevconians concoct these myths, it isn't going to work. The "Rangers" formed by Sevco Scotland are a new club in their second year of existence. Pretend you've existed since the Big Bang for all I care, it is a myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How was Rangers FC transferred from one 'legal entity' to another? Can you explain the transaction, how it was approved and documented?

By the transfer of what in legal terms constitutes a football club (assets/contracts to players and staff/association memberships/intellectual property) from one legal entity to another.

 

Before incorporation, when individuals would carry these liabilities, the above would transfer between different "legal persons" and the club's continuation would be beyond question.

 

Only real difference is that when a separate legal entity, carrying the name of the club, is created and remains in ownership for many years, fans - who may have financially invested in it - obviously gain attachment to it, even though it only, really, exists on a piece of paper! (Unlike the stuff it owns!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

By the transfer of what in legal terms constitutes a football club (assets/contracts to players and staff/association memberships/intellectual property) from one legal entity to another.

 

Before incorporation, when individuals would carry these liabilities, the above would transfer between different "legal persons" and the club's continuation would be beyond question.

 

Only real difference is that when a separate legal entity, carrying the name of the club, is created and remains in ownership for many years, fans - who may have financially invested in it - obviously gain attachment to it, even though it only, really, exists on a piece of paper! (Unlike the stuff it owns!)

 

The first point is immediately disproved by the likes of McGregor refusing to TUPE to a new "entity" but don't let that stop you. It's kind of cute how desperate you lot are to spread this "gospel".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new legal entity picked up the SPL "baton" from the previous legal entity, so far so good, but the SPL blocked the transfer from their end so to speak.

 

The SFA didn't follow suit, the transfer of association membership between the legal entities was approved, and hence the undertaking of Rangers Football Club enshrined in the membership - in their eyes at least - continues.

 

 

Except they did. If they didn't, why was only associate membership, rather than full membership, granted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose UEFA say the same thing, do they?

 

No matter how many times Sevconians concoct these myths, it isn't going to work. The "Rangers" formed by Sevco Scotland are a new club in their second year of existence. Pretend you've existed since the Big Bang for all I care, it is a myth.

UEFA, like anyone else entering into legal contracts, formally recognise football clubs by their current legal entities.

 

They do not however have any rules preventing their affiliate associations transferring memberships between legal entities, and recognising the clubs as having continued (obviously, or the SFA/the FA wouldn't have been allowed to do it!)

 

However, whilst they permit such transfers, they have rules punishing clubs that transfer between legal entities because of insolvency. Deterring clubs from doing it, by laying down punishments, is the way they choose to deal with the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

UEFA, like anyone else entering into legal contracts, formally recognise football clubs by their current legal entities.

 

They do not however have any rules preventing their affiliate associations transferring memberships between legal entities, and recognising the clubs as having continued (obviously, or the SFA/the FA wouldn't have been allowed to do it!)

 

However, whilst they permit such transfers, they have rules punishing clubs that transfer between legal entities because of insolvency. Deterring clubs from doing it, by laying down punishments, is the way they choose to deal with the situation.

 

Of course.

 

Well, that's me convinced :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first point is immediately disproved by the likes of McGregor refusing to TUPE to a new "entity" but don't let that stop you. It's kind of cute how desperate you lot are to spread this "gospel".

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

In any TUPE, employees have the right to refuse the transfer to the new legal entity and - in effect - resign from their position without redundancy etc. That is in effect what McGregor & others did.

 

That doesn't mean the transfer didn't happen - as the 95% of other staff that did transfer proves.

 

Here's a link if you want to read up on it https://www.gov.uk/transfers-takeovers/transfers-of-employment-contracts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

Bryce

 

The SPFL (and the SPL before it) was established in accordance with the Companies Act. If you read the Articles of Association you will see repeated references to the 2006 Act.

 

The Articles define a club as "Club means the undertaking of an association football club, which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League;"

 

From the Companies Act:

1161 Meaning of ?undertaking? and related expressions

 

(1)In the Companies Acts?undertaking? means?

 

(a)a body corporate or partnership, or

 

(b)an unincorporated association carrying on a trade or business, with or without a view to profit.

 

Thus Club = Company

 

Your reference to an SPL "baton" is misleading. The Club (Company) ceased to be entitled to hold its "SPL share" because of its financial situation. The NEW Club/Company (Sevco Scotland - which bought certain assets from the OLD Club/Company some weeks earlier), applied to the SPL to be allowed to take ownership of that share, but the application was rejected.

 

I have no problem with Rangers fans viewing the current club is the same as the old club (it looks, smells and acts like the old one after all), but please stop pedaling the myth that the "club" somehow survived it's liquidation like some superior being existing in a parallel universe separate from its body (Corporate :wings: ). The "brand", if you like, was resurrected by a NEW Club/Company, but that is as far as it goes.

 

It will probably take a court case to provide a definitive determination on the Old Club/New Club argument, but I'm certain that, legally, the current incarnation is a NEW club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

In any TUPE, employees have the right to refuse the transfer to the new legal entity and - in effect - resign from their position without redundancy etc. That is in effect what McGregor & others did.

 

That doesn't mean the transfer didn't happen - as the 95% of other staff that did transfer proves.

 

Here's a link if you want to read up on it https://www.gov.uk/t...yment-contracts

 

No, that is exactly what I meant! You said contracts etc continued by this transfer of licence when they quite clearly don't under TUPE legislation, as anyone has the right to walk away, which McGregor and others did with no compensation to either the dead club or the new club.

 

But then, Sevconians try to have things their own way in every single nuance of this story, so that is unsurprising.

 

Tell me this, why are you lot trying so hard to convince the rest of Scottish football that you magically teleported into a different body and things went on as before? Does that mean more to you that watching spivs take the utter piss out of you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryce

 

The SPFL (and the SPL before it) was established in accordance with the Companies Act. If you read the Articles of Association you will see repeated references to the 2006 Act.

 

The Articles define a club as "Club means the undertaking of an association football club, which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League;"

 

From the Companies Act:

1161 Meaning of ?undertaking? and related expressions

 

(1)In the Companies Acts?undertaking? means?

 

(a)a body corporate or partnership, or

 

(b)an unincorporated association carrying on a trade or business, with or without a view to profit.

 

Thus Club = Company

 

Your reference to an SPL "baton" is misleading. The Club (Company) ceased to be entitled to hold its "SPL share" because of its financial situation. The NEW Club/Company (Sevco Scotland - which bought certain assets from the OLD Club/Company some weeks earlier), applied to the SPL to be allowed to take ownership of that share, but the application was rejected.

 

I have no problem with Rangers fans viewing the current club is the same as the old club (it looks, smells and acts like the old one after all), but please stop pedaling the myth that the "club" somehow survived it's liquidation like some superior being existing in a parallel universe separate from its body (Corporate :wings: ). The "brand", if you like, was resurrected by a NEW Club/Company, but that is as far as it goes.

 

It will probably take a court case to provide a definitive determination on the Old Club/New Club argument, but I'm certain that, legally, the current incarnation is a NEW club.

Simply being drawn up in accordance with the Companies Act 2006, does not mean that particular definition of "undertaking" used within that Act holds in these Articles.

 

Whilst you're clearly an intelligent bloke, Lord Nimmo Smith interpreted "undertaking" in that context NOT to be synonymous with a corporate, and I would - with respect - default to his judgement:

 

"the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated... in legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator [company]."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

Bryce

 

It's quite simple. Sevconians believe they magically teleported, intact, into a new entity but remained the same club. That you aren't in your "traditional" position at the top of the Premier League is all the fault of the rest of us.

 

In actual fact, the rest of us know that you went bust, the assets were sold off in a dodgy fashion, a new club was formed, tried to get into the SPL jumping everyone else in the process, were correctly rejected, given a lifeline outside normal rules to Division 3 and this new club kicked off.

 

Now, for some reason, Sevconians hate that everyone else regards events in this fashion. However, despite all your protestations, you have never been able to convince anyone that you are one and the same, even with a complicit media. Says it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply being drawn up in accordance with the Companies Act 2006, does not mean that particular definition of "undertaking" used within that Act holds in these Articles.

 

Whilst you're clearly an intelligent bloke, Lord Nimmo Smith interpreted "undertaking" in that context NOT to be synonymous with a corporate, and I would - with respect - default to his judgement:

 

"This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator [company]."

 

Doesn't this mean that the club and company are the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that is exactly what I meant! You said contracts etc continued by this transfer of licence when they quite clearly don't under TUPE legislation, as anyone has the right to walk away, which McGregor and others did with no compensation to either the dead club or the new club.

 

But then, Sevconians try to have things their own way in every single nuance of this story, so that is unsurprising.

 

Tell me this, why are you lot trying so hard to convince the rest of Scottish football that you magically teleported into a different body and things went on as before? Does that mean more to you that watching spivs take the utter piss out of you?

You are coming across fairly hostile. Not sure why but I'll do you a favour and not wind you up anymore by continuing discussing with you. Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

You are coming across fairly hostile. Not sure why but I'll do you a favour and not wind you up anymore by continuing discussing with you. Cheers.

 

Cheerio Bryce. I'm sure you will pop back again once King returns to test the FPP waters or Sevco go into administration. One of these events will occur over the next couple of months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't this mean that the club and company are the same?

No it means the "club" is not an entity with legal personality, where as a company (which owns the club in Nimmo Smith's terms) is. Clearly, that entails that they are not the same!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Bryce

 

It's quite simple. Sevconians believe they magically teleported, intact, into a new entity but remained the same club. That you aren't in your "traditional" position at the top of the Premier League is all the fault of the rest of us.

 

In actual fact, the rest of us know that you went bust, the assets were sold off in a dodgy fashion, a new club was formed, tried to get into the SPL jumping everyone else in the process, were correctly rejected, given a lifeline outside normal rules to Division 3 and this new club kicked off.

 

Now, for some reason, Sevconians hate that everyone else regards events in this fashion. However, despite all your protestations, you have never been able to convince anyone that you are one and the same, even with a complicit media. Says it all.

Can someone go through this and put Rangers toaps on all the Doctors ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...