The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

 

Bryce9a.

 

The proverbial Blue Waffle.

 

 

You allowed it to happen bryce.

 

Complicit in their death through inaction.

 

Along with Dave King, who actively and publicly encouraged everybody to reject the CVA, knowing only full well that liquidation would follow. 

 

He let his club die

Edited April 29, 2016 by Jambo-Jimbo

[brownkg]

If what Bryce says is right(And deep down inside he knows it is bollocks) why were there 2 versions of  them around for the Brechin cup game?

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Re. awards and certifications, not sure what you're referring to. Legal entities periodically change with regards all businesses, the fact BHS's corporate vehicle is only 16 years old proves that, so clearly such things are transferrable even where assigned to specific companies etc. Anyway, I think the analogy breaks down at this stage, as football is different...

 

There has been no transfer of honours, or suggestion of such a thing, in the case of newco football clubs because cups/league titles are never awarded to the transient legal entities in the first place, always the clubs.

 

If Coventry City FC won the play-off final for example, the honour would be assigned to that football club, not it's corporate entity Otium Entertainment Ltd! Hearts' honours record covers the timeline of the club, not that of the company which, as we know, was only formed in 1905 after the liquidation of the previous one.

 

When push comes to shove association football is not a free for all, it's an organised sport governed by ruling bodies. Fans can think what they like, chant what they like, but ultimately what is official is what counts. As long as journalists like Spence pay heed to that, they have nothing to worry about. If I was a journo and started broadcasting to the nation that hearts had died in 1905, I'm sure a few jambos might make their voices heard too

 

Do you think that whoever buys the trademarks and business of BHS will be able to claim, for example, to having been awarded a Queens Award for Industry that BHS was given 10 years ago??? I know the answer to that one. If they so much as stuck a kitemark or other award logo on their stationary they'd be having a long chat with trading standards.

 

We've been over the 'solvent reconstruction' debate a few times suffice to say you're just trying to dissemble as regards 1905. It's long been established that clubs can change their affairs and legal entity numbers without going insolvent - like Celtic's famous Pacific Shelf company used by McCann. And you're well aware of the different legislation around insolvency and the fact that HMFC cleared all their debts back then.

 

As I said it's up to you how you guys want to mentally position the current Rangers. HMFC came extremely close to going the same way, so we've all given thought to how we would have coped, but due to the good work of many many people we're still here and not having to adjust to a new set of realities about our club. And please don't try to ram the concept of unchallenged continuity of some ethereal entity called 'Rangers Football Club' that can float immune to and survive any set of circumstances. It's utterly nonsensical.

 

And stop intimidating people who don't share your opinion on what happened in 2012. You do remember all the newspaper headlines the day after Green's CVA was rejected???

[Australis]

just in case nobody has mentioned it....................................you let your club die!!!!!!

You let your club die, Daily Record front page we all remember.?

[bryce9a]

Do you think that whoever buys the trademarks and business of BHS will be able to claim, for example, to having been awarded a Queens Award for Industry that BHS was given 10 years ago??? I know the answer to that one. If they so much as stuck a kitemark...

The degree to which the new owners of BHS could retain specific awards, lose others, etc is not really irrelevant. Especially given the "trading standards" type example has already been tested re. Rangers - we are perfectly entitled to trade off of our past honours including, quite specifically, the fact of being "Scotland's most successful club" Tried, tested, and rubber-stamped by the independent industry regulator if you recall

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

It appears this thread has turned into a justified ragdolling of Bryce because the story is over.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

The degree to which the new owners of BHS could retain specific awards, lose others, etc is not really irrelevant. Especially given the "trading standards" type example has already been tested re. Rangers - we are perfectly entitled to trade off of our past honours including, quite specifically, the fact of being "Scotland's most successful club" Tried, tested, and rubber-stamped by the independent industry regulator if you recall

You don't understand who trading standards are do you....

[Cappuccino Kid]

First step. Find a buyer to keep the doors open, the staff in their jobs, by purchasing the business and assets including, crucially, the intellectual property, name and brand by which 99.999% actually identify BHS (...as opposed to the odd weirdo who knows refers to their local store as X Company Limited! ) 

 

That way BHS can remain a famous high street name, rubbing their continuation into the noses of lesser successful rivals who can blog endlessly about how the BHS across the road lost all its "history"...

A more realistic analogy would be 4 guys who dress up as the Beatles sing Beatles songs and play in the cavern, no one one 2016 would think they were watching the Beatles in the Cavern. But you seem to think watching a tribute team playing at Ibrox is the same as watching the original.

[bryce9a]

You don't understand who trading standards are do you....

Apologies, i wasn't referring to trading standards, it was the Advertising Standards Agency. You remember, these guys...

 

Whilst the ASA acknowledged that Newco had not taken on all of the debts and liabilities of Oldco when it purchased its assets and that that would normally preclude a business from trading on the reputation of a liquidated predecessor company, we noted, having read its report in full, that both an Independent Commission appointed by the SPL and the ECA had reached the conclusion that the football club RFC was a recognisable entity in its own right, and that it had continued in existence despite being transferred to another owner and operator. We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the ?sporting continuity? of a club?s match record, even if that club?s corporate structure had changed. We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football ?club? varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club?s corporate owner. The SFA further pointed out that, following RFC?s transfer to a new corporate owner, Newco did not take a new membership of the Scottish FA but rather that the previous membership was transferred across to them so they could continue as the same member of the Scottish FA. We considered that consumers would understand that the claim in question related to the football club rather than to its owner and operator and we therefore concluded that it was not misleading for the ad to make reference to RFC's history, which was separate to that of Newco.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Apologies, i wasn't referring to trading standards, it was the Advertising Standards Agency. You remember.[/font][/color][/i]

Yes you were trying to dissemble away from the point about trading standards and BHS's awards and any newco BHS not being allowed to claim these awards.

 

4 out of 10 for effort though.

[Hackney Hearts]

Bryce - are you hurting because you care what we think? If so, prove it by posting again.

 

Clearly hurting then.

[Justin Z]

Who hurt you, Bryce?  Was it the mean man who let your club die?

[Jambof3tornado]

Who hurt you, Bryce? Was it the mean man who let your club die?

The 'men' who let their club die. Each and every one of them.

 

Nobody rose to the challenge of saving the club and its history.

 

They all let their club die.

[SUTOL]

Apologies, i wasn't referring to trading standards, it was the Advertising Standards Agency. You remember, these guys...

 

Whilst the ASA acknowledged that Newco had not taken on all of the debts and liabilities of Oldco when it purchased its assets and that that would normally preclude a business from trading on the reputation of a liquidated predecessor company, we noted, having read its report in full, that both an Independent Commission appointed by the SPL and the ECA had reached the conclusion that the football club RFC was a recognisable entity in its own right, and that it had continued in existence despite being transferred to another owner and operator. We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the ?sporting continuity? of a club?s match record, even if that club?s corporate structure had changed. We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football ?club? varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club?s corporate owner. The SFA further pointed out that, following RFC?s transfer to a new corporate owner, Newco did not take a new membership of the Scottish FA but rather that the previous membership was transferred across to them so they could continue as the same member of the Scottish FA. We considered that consumers would understand that the claim in question related to the football club rather than to its owner and operator and we therefore concluded that it was not misleading for the ad to make reference to RFC's history, which was separate to that of Newco.

[Dutchmul]

Apologies, i wasn't referring to trading standards, it was the Advertising Standards Agency. You remember, these guys...

 

Whilst the ASA acknowledged that Newco had not taken on all of the debts and liabilities of Oldco when it purchased its assets and that that would normally preclude a business from trading on the reputation of a liquidated predecessor company, we noted, having read its report in full, that both an Independent Commission appointed by the SPL and the ECA had reached the conclusion that the football club RFC was a recognisable entity in its own right, and that it had continued in existence despite being transferred to another owner and operator. We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the ?sporting continuity? of a club?s match record, even if that club?s corporate structure had changed. We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football ?club? varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club?s corporate owner. The SFA further pointed out that, following RFC?s transfer to a new corporate owner, Newco did not take a new membership of the Scottish FA but rather that the previous membership was transferred across to them so they could continue as the same member of the Scottish FA. We considered that consumers would understand that the claim in question related to the football club rather than to its owner and operator and we therefore concluded that it was not misleading for the ad to make reference to RFC's history, which was separate to that of Newco.

 

Fact 1 - Rangers are in liquidation  Fact 2 - Charles green and his chums purchased the assets of Rangers in Liquidation using a company called sevco scotland(company number SC425159 incorporated on 29/05/12 and changed it's name to The Rangers Football Club Limited on 01/08/12)  Fact 3 - The Rangers Football Club Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rangers International Football Club(company number SC437060 incorporated on 16/11/12)

 

When the liquidation of rangers is complete, it will be wound up by the liquidators and eventually be an excompany, it will cease to be.

 

The club currently wearing blue and playing at ibrokes are not rangers, rangers still exist as they are currently being liquidated(killed) by the liquidators BDO and they do not currently play football as they have no physical assets such as a stadium, players, etc as these were sold as above to Sevco and chuckles consortium. In  a recent court case, in open court, charles green admitted to a judge that his consortium bought the assets, they did not buy a football club, they bought the assets of a football club called rangers.

 

Rangers, as a football club, are dead, as a company they will die eventually and disappear. The team currently at ibrokes are not rangers as they were only formed on 29/05/12 and therefore cannot have any history prior to that date, they purchased the history of rangers but it is not their history as they have only been in existence for less than 4 years so cannot have won any trophies prior to then. In much the same way that I could buy a victoria cross that was won by a brave soldier in world war 1, I would own that asset but I did not win it as I wasn't alive when it was won(much like sevco which was born on 29/05/12), I simply purchased the asset and own it, i did not earn it and to claim otherwise would be absurd.

 

UEFA, the SFA, SPL/SFL/SPFL, doomcaster, raygun can all spout shite about continuity, holding companies, continuation etc etc, it's all shite, rangers died as a football club in 2012 and will die completely when liquidation is complete.

 

Hopefully, the above has clarified things for the hard of thinking, your welcome.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Who hurt you, Bryce?  Was it the mean man who let your club die?

 

He (and many others) let their own club die Justin.

[Unknown user]

He (and many others) let their own club die Justin.

Indeed, but we're not animals- I genuinely hope his new team wins it's first ever top class domestic trophy at the end of the season, despite letting their club die

[Unknown user]

He (and many others) let their own club die Justin.

Indeed, but we're not animals- I genuinely hope his new team wins it's first ever top class domestic trophy at the end of the season, despite letting their club die

[Rods]

First step. Find a buyer to keep the doors open, the staff in their jobs, by purchasing the business and assets including, crucially, the intellectual property, name and brand by which 99.999% actually identify BHS (...as opposed to the odd weirdo who knows refers to their local store as X Company Limited! )

 

That way BHS can remain a famous high street name, rubbing their continuation into the noses of lesser successful rivals who can blog endlessly about how the BHS across the road lost all its "history"...

Credit were credit is due this was quite a decent reply.

[269miles]

Apologies, i wasn't referring to trading standards, it was the Advertising Standards Agency. You remember, these guys...

 

Whilst the ASA acknowledged that Newco had not taken on all of the debts and liabilities of Oldco when it purchased its assets and that that would normally preclude a business from trading on the reputation of a liquidated predecessor company, we noted, having read its report in full, that both an Independent Commission appointed by the SPL and the ECA had reached the conclusion that the football club RFC was a recognisable entity in its own right, and that it had continued in existence despite being transferred to another owner and operator. We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the ?sporting continuity? of a club?s match record, even if that club?s corporate structure had changed. We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football ?club? varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club?s corporate owner. The SFA further pointed out that, following RFC?s transfer to a new corporate owner, Newco did not take a new membership of the Scottish FA but rather that the previous membership was transferred across to them so they could continue as the same member of the Scottish FA. We considered that consumers would understand that the claim in question related to the football club rather than to its owner and operator and we therefore concluded that it was not misleading for the ad to make reference to RFC's history, which was separate to that of Newco.

Anything emanating from the SFA/SFL/SPFL  relating to Sevco lacks any integrity whatsoever. They broke every rule in the book to maintain a continuity mythology for deido including shoehorning a new club into the league and breaking their own rules to do so. The SFA created a new , unheard of  style of membership which no other club ever had bestowed on it, just so a team could play Brechin in time for their first start of the season. Keep posting Bryce - you'll tire before we ever will. This is not Rangers. You know it, It hurts, I understand that. In your heart they ARE Rangers but the reality is , they are not.

[BRAVEHEART1874]

It's funny brycee Bhoy and his sad chums wanting to be the Same club that cheated Scottish football all those years !!! it's disgusting really that the spf and the sfa don't want any talk of tainted titles and let sevco have their own independent investigations into green and white thus letting them pretend there was no involvement of Craig White aye righto then King being fit and proper aye right then next it will be sevco do not have cash flow / going concern problems ignore the accounts let them play in Europe if they win the cup aye right then. Corrupt wonder what team most of them support Nah I don't

Edited April 30, 2016 by BRAVEHEART1874

[FWJ]

Why should Spence ever have something to worry about? Worry about what?

Yes, that line stood out for me too.

 

Really quite chilling.

[newbie]

bryce, in 1899, what had been a club called Rangers,became a company, through incorporation. From that day until it entered liquidation in 2012, the club was the company and the company was the club, and that club entered liquidation in 2012. No amount of semantics or discretionary rules on the part of the SFA can alter that incontrovertible fact. I?ll wager that you?ll ignore or gloss over this fact, as you always do, because it immediately invalidates every subsequent point you make in your airbrushing of inconvenient facts and rewriting of history. Rangers Football Club did not simply have a change of corporate structure, as you would allude to - it was placed into liquidation and died. That?s quite a radical change of corporate structure indeed!

 

bryce quotes the SFA (via the ASA) as saying that its definition of a club varied depending on context. That is like me claiming to look like the love child of Brad Pitt and George Clooney, but only in the context of a darkly lit room viewed through thick bottle glasses and cataracts. His view that the only relevant opinion of his club?s survival is the official (SFA) one, conveniently ignores a myriad of examples of official misdirection, as illustrated by the Hillsborough disaster and Lance Armstrong cases, amongst thousands of others, where the official version of events has subsequently been justifiably torn to shreds. The football authorities are hellbent on pretending the old club survived liquidation, not because it did, but to feebly prop up the notion that the establishment club has somehow safeguarded its world record 154 domestic titles, even although those of us who inhabit the real world know that a brand new club is now masquerading as a club that breathed its last breath in 2012.

[1953]

Fact 1 - Rangers are in liquidation  Fact 2 - Charles green and his chums purchased the assets of Rangers in Liquidation using a company called sevco scotland(company number SC425159 incorporated on 29/05/12 and changed it's name to The Rangers Football Club Limited on 01/08/12)  Fact 3 - The Rangers Football Club Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rangers International Football Club(company number SC437060 incorporated on 16/11/12)

 

When the liquidation of rangers is complete, it will be wound up by the liquidators and eventually be an excompany, it will cease to be.

 

The club currently wearing blue and playing at ibrokes are not rangers, rangers still exist as they are currently being liquidated(killed) by the liquidators BDO and they do not currently play football as they have no physical assets such as a stadium, players, etc as these were sold as above to Sevco and chuckles consortium. In  a recent court case, in open court, charles green admitted to a judge that his consortium bought the assets, they did not buy a football club, they bought the assets of a football club called rangers.

 

Rangers, as a football club, are dead, as a company they will die eventually and disappear. The team currently at ibrokes are not rangers as they were only formed on 29/05/12 and therefore cannot have any history prior to that date, they purchased the history of rangers but it is not their history as they have only been in existence for less than 4 years so cannot have won any trophies prior to then. In much the same way that I could buy a victoria cross that was won by a brave soldier in world war 1, I would own that asset but I did not win it as I wasn't alive when it was won(much like sevco which was born on 29/05/12), I simply purchased the asset and own it, i did not earn it and to claim otherwise would be absurd.

 

UEFA, the SFA, SPL/SFL/SPFL, doomcaster, raygun can all spout shite about continuity, holding companies, continuation etc etc, it's all shite, rangers died as a football club in 2012 and will die completely when liquidation is complete.

 

Hopefully, the above has clarified things for the hard of thinking, your welcome.

Well said, sums it up nicely!

[INNOVISION2]

Fact 1 - Rangers are in liquidation  Fact 2 - Charles green and his chums purchased the assets of Rangers in Liquidation using a company called sevco scotland(company number SC425159 incorporated on 29/05/12 and changed it's name to The Rangers Football Club Limited on 01/08/12)  Fact 3 - The Rangers Football Club Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rangers International Football Club(company number SC437060 incorporated on 16/11/12)

 

When the liquidation of rangers is complete, it will be wound up by the liquidators and eventually be an excompany, it will cease to be.

 

The club currently wearing blue and playing at ibrokes are not rangers, rangers still exist as they are currently being liquidated(killed) by the liquidators BDO and they do not currently play football as they have no physical assets such as a stadium, players, etc as these were sold as above to Sevco and chuckles consortium. In  a recent court case, in open court, charles green admitted to a judge that his consortium bought the assets, they did not buy a football club, they bought the assets of a football club called rangers.

 

Rangers, as a football club, are dead, as a company they will die eventually and disappear. The team currently at ibrokes are not rangers as they were only formed on 29/05/12 and therefore cannot have any history prior to that date, they purchased the history of rangers but it is not their history as they have only been in existence for less than 4 years so cannot have won any trophies prior to then. In much the same way that I could buy a victoria cross that was won by a brave soldier in world war 1, I would own that asset but I did not win it as I wasn't alive when it was won(much like sevco which was born on 29/05/12), I simply purchased the asset and own it, i did not earn it and to claim otherwise would be absurd.

 

UEFA, the SFA, SPL/SFL/SPFL, doomcaster, raygun can all spout shite about continuity, holding companies, continuation etc etc, it's all shite, rangers died as a football club in 2012 and will die completely when liquidation is complete.

 

Hopefully, the above has clarified things for the hard of thinking, your welcome.

Everyone knows it, dem de facts. However people have lost their livelihoods for telling the truth; Jim Spence, Angela Haggerty, Falkirk Stadium announcer, Livi programme writer, threats to property (Rovers), etc.  The record needs set straight. TRFC is a new club since 2012, no top tier titles and old disgraced Rangers FC in liquidation requires 15 cheated titles withdrawn from its torrid history of tax cheating and deliberately incorrect player registrations. Which extends to cheating in European football. All clubs need to present DEM FACTS in their programme notes, that the new club is indeed that. I contribute to FOH, but no longer wish to support the BIG LIE. We saved our club, they let theirs die. Dem de facts.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Why should Spence ever have something to worry about? Worry about what?

 

 

Yes, that line stood out for me too.

 

Really quite chilling.

 

I read the Spence threat as, do as we say and don't write or say anything against us and you'll be ok, however don't do as we say, well...........................

 

Add the threat he's made towards Spence and other journalists with the threat he made last month - 

"An improved team, a thriving support, and all set to gate-crash the love-in with revenge the order of the day. Tick tock. I can't wait"

 

Quite chilling, indeed!!!

[Footballfirst]

Credit were credit is due this was quite a decent reply.

 

Bryce also accepts that the current "BHS" is just a brand name, that was purchased along with a basket of assets. It was a name that was attractive to the purchaser because it was familiar to the shopping public.

 

However, when he recalls tweets which quote an SFA lawyer, he conveniently forgets to provide balance by quoting Ashley's lawyer and the judge Lord Brodie from the same proceedings.  I was in court that day to hear those arguments. Ashley's lawyer described the Rangers Football Club as no more than a "trading style" of TRFC Ltd. It was Lord Brodie who also came up with the "we're not metaphysicists" quote.  I was also in court when Lord Malcolm who was hearing Green's appeal about legal fees said to Rangers lawyer that "you only changed the name so you could claim the history".

 

I've been consistent over the last four years with my view that the current incarnation of Rangers it is legally a new club, but to most football fans (outside online forums and those who have followed the saga closely) it is still the same bigoted and vile institution that it always was.

 

I believe that there should be a mechanism within football rules that actually facilitates "sporting continuity", allowing new clubs that wish to operate as a successor to an earlier incarnation with a similar name, thus retaining a viable fan base. What we have is a vacuum, which leaves the rules open to manipulation by those with vested interests and is not open to all clubs without fear or favour. Hence we ended up with the 5-way agreement.

 

If we had such a rule, then it should have been possible for Airdrie Utd to renounce their claim to Clydebank's history and seek that the sporting record of Airdrieonians be assigned to it. Clydebank Juniors would then have been able to claim to be the successor club to the senior version.  Similarly with Gretna 2008 and the defunct Gretna FC.    

[Justin Z]

Nice post, FF.  In their arrogant, watp world, Sevco fans often miss the primary thrust: Scottish football supporters are tired of seeing favouritism being shown.  Damn right you're a new club, we don't give a **** what the SFA or SPFL say, they've granted you wish after indulgence after preference for time immemorial.  Two clubs not privy to this favouritism got the treatment any club not in the suits' back pocket would have.  You should have gotten it too, but in spite of that, another way to redress this would be to simply treat those other clubs on equal footing for once.

 

They let their club die, but if they had to suffer the same consequences for that as the other clubs (or even if they just showed an ounce of mea culpa  somewhere, anywhere), we could probably cut them a little slack.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Bryce also accepts that the current "BHS" is just a brand name, that was purchased along with a basket of assets. It was a name that was attractive to the purchaser because it was familiar to the shopping public.

 

However, when he recalls tweets which quote an SFA lawyer, he conveniently forgets to provide balance by quoting Ashley's lawyer and the judge Lord Brodie from the same proceedings.  I was in court that day to hear those arguments. Ashley's lawyer described the Rangers Football Club as no more than a "trading style" of TRFC Ltd. It was Lord Brodie who also came up with the "we're not metaphysicists" quote.  I was also in court when Lord Malcolm who was hearing Green's appeal about legal fees said to Rangers lawyer that "you only changed the name so you could claim the history".

 

I've been consistent over the last four years with my view that the current incarnation of Rangers it is legally a new club, but to most football fans (outside online forums and those who have followed the saga closely) it is still the same bigoted and vile institution that it always was.

 

I believe that there should be a mechanism within football rules that actually facilitates "sporting continuity", allowing new clubs that wish to operate as a successor to an earlier incarnation with a similar name, thus retaining a viable fan base. What we have is a vacuum, which leaves the rules open to manipulation by those with vested interests and is not open to all clubs without fear or favour. Hence we ended up with the 5-way agreement.

 

If we had such a rule, then it should have been possible for Airdrie Utd to renounce their claim to Clydebank's history and seek that the sporting record of Airdrieonians be assigned to it. Clydebank Juniors would then have been able to claim to be the successor club to the senior version.  Similarly with Gretna 2008 and the defunct Gretna FC.    

FF,

 

While that would suit most football supporters, and how it would have eased all our worries during our administration, it is that very removal of the worries of the supporters, owners and boards, that makes me believe it would be a very bad thing.

 

As an example; imagine, if next season, our good friends the Hibs were to find themselves still in the Championship. Realising they must gain promotion this time, they decide that an all or nothing spending spree approach is required. But, that would mean they might end up in administration! Do they go all out for it, knowing that they run the risk of liquidation? Or do they limit their spending to what they can afford/a bit more than they can afford?

 

Prior to the Rangers Liquidation, I'd suggest they'd limit their spending, because the potential for administration leading to liquidation existed, and that would mean the death of the club. Since the blurring of the risk of death, however, some boards might decide the risk was worth it. Even more so if the 'continuation' of the club was enshrined in the rules.

 

I'm sure much of the bank borrowing of years gone by was granted by banks who felt the 'fear factor' of liquidation would ensure that football club boards would not be prepared to risk spending, too far, outside their means, or, at least, that the community would rally round to clear/reduce debts rather than face the loss of a beloved club.

 

Also, if you think back to Green's 'attempt' to achieve a CVA. If you view it as genuine (I don't think you do, but imagine it was ) he was prepared to offer more for a CVA than he paid once liquidation was inevitable. In other words, a 'live' club is worth more than the 'basket of assets' purchased in a liquidation (though perhaps not if true asset value is sought). This would have been the same had Green been an honourable man, genuinely trying to 'save' the club. In the case of football clubs, a genuine bid for a CVA will be higher than the same person might offer should the CVA fail.

 

As things stand, the only deterrent to an abuse of a 'club continuation' rule is the 15 point penalty for entering administration. I think we can all agree that this was a breeze in comparison to the threat of liquidation! I think, therefor, that should such a rule exist, then it would be necessary to also have a penalty for liquidation that is next only to death! and to see the offending club (should it continue in business) demoted to the lowest level possible, with a moratorium of, say, 3 years before the promotion process can begin!

 

That said, the law would still remain the same, and in it's eyes a liquidated club would be no more. The continuation idea, of course, is not enshrined in the rules, but it would have been if the SFA had ever thought that it was something that was desirable or just, or that the law of the land wasn't good enough for football!

[Footballfirst]

FF,

 

While that would suit most football supporters, and how it would have eased all our worries during our administration, it is that very removal of the worries of the supporters, owners and boards, that makes me believe it would be a very bad thing.

 

As an example; imagine, if next season, our good friends the Hibs were to find themselves still in the Championship. Realising they must gain promotion this time, they decide that an all or nothing spending spree approach is required. But, that would mean they might end up in administration! Do they go all out for it, knowing that they run the risk of liquidation? Or do they limit their spending to what they can afford/a bit more than they can afford?

 

Prior to the Rangers Liquidation, I'd suggest they'd limit their spending, because the potential for administration leading to liquidation existed, and that would mean the death of the club. Since the blurring of the risk of death, however, some boards might decide the risk was worth it. Even more so if the 'continuation' of the club was enshrined in the rules.

 

I'm sure much of the bank borrowing of years gone by was granted by banks who felt the 'fear factor' of liquidation would ensure that football club boards would not be prepared to risk spending, too far, outside their means, or, at least, that the community would rally round to clear/reduce debts rather than face the loss of a beloved club.

 

Also, if you think back to Green's 'attempt' to achieve a CVA. If you view it as genuine (I don't think you do, but imagine it was ) he was prepared to offer more for a CVA than he paid once liquidation was inevitable. In other words, a 'live' club is worth more than the 'basket of assets' purchased in a liquidation (though perhaps not if true asset value is sought). This would have been the same had Green been an honourable man, genuinely trying to 'save' the club. In the case of football clubs, a genuine bid for a CVA will be higher than the same person might offer should the CVA fail.

 

As things stand, the only deterrent to an abuse of a 'club continuation' rule is the 15 point penalty for entering administration. I think we can all agree that this was a breeze in comparison to the threat of liquidation! I think, therefor, that should such a rule exist, then it would be necessary to also have a penalty for liquidation that is next only to death! and to see the offending club (should it continue in business) demoted to the lowest level possible, with a moratorium of, say, 3 years before the promotion process can begin!

 

That said, the law would still remain the same, and in it's eyes a liquidated club would be no more. The continuation idea, of course, is not enshrined in the rules, but it would have been if the SFA had ever thought that it was something that was desirable or just, or that the law of the land wasn't good enough for football!

 

I certainly don't see the liquidation route as an equivalent to administration in terms of consequences.  Liquidation is death, but I don't believe that there should be a bar against a new club being set up then applying, subject to a number of conditions, to be accepted as a successor club.  The conditions I envisage would include starting at the bottom rung of league structure in place at the time. It would include rigorous financial scrutiny and the newco would require to operate on a break even basis over an extended probationary period, e.g. 3-5 years.   

 

If you recall back to the early days of RTC in 2011 and 2012 there was actually a general consensus among posters that they would accept a newco into Division 3, at it was at that time. The fans would still have a team in blue to support. That is in essence what happened. However the bears continue to claim an uninterrupted history for their "club", despite its metaphysical state, which is where the sameco/newco argument originates.  To be honest, I couldn't care less what Rangers fans think about it. If they believe they are the same club, then they are free to do so, just like Hearts, Aberdeen, Hibs, Cetic fans etc., are equally free to view it as a new club.   

 

Green's ?8.5M CVA offer wasn't quite the generous one it seemed in comparison to the ?5.5M asset purchase. The ?8.5M wasn't a straightforward cash sum. It was in the form of a loan that was due to be paid back by 2020. The ?8.5M would probably have provided a little more to creditors, but the cost to the business going forward would have remained much the same, with football creditors still to be paid off, and D&P would possibly have continued the administration process for a bit longer and at greater cost.   

 

Of course Green didn't want the CVA to succeed. It would have meant that certain liabilities remained with the business including player contracts (e.g. for those who walked away, McGregor, Davis etc) and the possibility of further action by HMRC down the road. The clean break with a newco and an IPO with EIS and VCT tax breaks for "investors" was always going to be more attractive. 

[Diadora Van Basten]

In the event that there was a continuation rule in the event of liquidation then what would happen to the players contracts? (genuine question).

[Diadora Van Basten]

In

Edited May 2, 2016 by Sandi

[milky_26]

In the event that there was a continuation rule in the event of liquidation then what would happen to the players contracts? (genuine question).

i would assume if there was one, the continuation bit would be only to do with history (trophies and league wins) and staff contracts would be covered by the TUPE part of law and that staff would have the option of not transferring over to the new company

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

I certainly don't see the liquidation route as an equivalent to administration in terms of consequences.  Liquidation is death, but I don't believe that there should be a bar against a new club being set up then applying, subject to a number of conditions, to be accepted as a successor club.  The conditions I envisage would include starting at the bottom rung of league structure in place at the time. It would include rigorous financial scrutiny and the newco would require to operate on a break even basis over an extended probationary period, e.g. 3-5 years.   

 

If you recall back to the early days of RTC in 2011 and 2012 there was actually a general consensus among posters that they would accept a newco into Division 3, at it was at that time. The fans would still have a team in blue to support. That is in essence what happened. However the bears continue to claim an uninterrupted history for their "club", despite its metaphysical state, which is where the sameco/newco argument originates.  To be honest, I couldn't care less what Rangers fans think about it. If they believe they are the same club, then they are free to do so, just like Hearts, Aberdeen, Hibs, Cetic fans etc., are equally free to view it as a new club.   

 

Green's ?8.5M CVA offer wasn't quite the generous one it seemed in comparison to the ?5.5M asset purchase. The ?8.5M wasn't a straightforward cash sum. It was in the form of a loan that was due to be paid back by 2020. The ?8.5M would probably have provided a little more to creditors, but the cost to the business going forward would have remained much the same, with football creditors still to be paid off, and D&P would possibly have continued the administration process for a bit longer and at greater cost.   

 

Of course Green didn't want the CVA to succeed. It would have meant that certain liabilities remained with the business including player contracts (e.g. for those who walked away, McGregor, Davis etc) and the possibility of further action by HMRC down the road. The clean break with a newco and an IPO with EIS and VCT tax breaks for "investors" was always going to be more attractive. 

Cheers for responding, FF.

 

I thought you were meaning that 'sporting continuity' would encompass the club's history, and, in short, achieve what the bears are claiming, or at least allow a favoured club to fudge the issue, aided, of course, by a very compliant media. As I said, I think it is very important that something exists to put a brake on overspending that amounts to an ultimate consequence. I have no problem with the supporters of a liquidated club accepting a new incarnation as a successor to their loved club, no one (though a great many supporters of RFC maybe did/do) deserves to lose their club completely, and not all clubs' overspending leads their supporters to years of unbridled joy (or any joy). I would have no problem either with a media, and even football authorities, that refer, in general terms, to the club by using the same name; but somewhere, within official documentation and publications, there would have to be an acknowledgement of what happened.

 

One thing you have got 100% correct is that it would have been a better situation altogether if the result of liquidation was clearly defined within the SFA's rules. I do believe, though, that when the rules were being created, no one envisaged that anyone would be prepared to ignore the laws of the land.

[Mikey1874]

I've been consistent over the last four years with my view that the current incarnation of Rangers it is legally a new club, but to most football fans (outside online forums and those who have followed the saga closely) it is still the same bigoted and vile institution that it always was.

 

A good summary of the position.

 

One most people can accept.

 

Both giving credit and a challenge to everyone associated with Rangers.

[Footballfirst]

I note that John James has picked up on the appeal to be heard at the High Court next week re Withey and Grier.

 

https://johnjamessite.com/2016/05/04/only-one-green-bottle-standing-on-the-wall/

 

I think JJ is close to the mark on his thinking this time round.

[bryce9a]

bryce, in 1899, what had been a club called Rangers,became a company, through incorporation. From that day until it entered liquidation in 2012, the club was the company and the company was the club...

 

Newbie, in 1903, what had been a club called Heart of Midlothian, [according to your interpretation] became a company, through incorporation. From that day until it entered liquidation [yes i know, "voluntary", but suicide is still death] in 1905, the club was the company and the company was the club...

 

See what I did there

 

Your own warped interpretation results in the death of your own football club, 1874-founded Heart of Midlothian FC, and the resulting obliteration of the pre-1905 history - including 8 major trophies - from your current club's history.

 

And before you throw your own club's heritage under the bus with a throwaway "ach well, 1905 it is then": the reality is no-one associated with Hearts, perhaps excluding one desperately clutching at straws to avoid conceding a point to a Rangers fan, would seriously accept the logic and implication you put forward. 

 

But hey, maybe you're right and i'm wrong, and the 1874 on Hearts badge will be adjusted a few decades in the course of time. We'll see, shall we newbie?

Edited May 4, 2016 by bryce9a

[Diadora Van Basten]

Newbie, in 1903, what had been a club called Heart of Midlothian, [according to your interpretation] became a company, through incorporation. From that day until it entered liquidation [yes i know, "voluntary", but suicide is still death] in 1905, the club was the company and the company was the club...

 

See what I did there

 

Your own warped interpretation results in the death of your own football club, 1874-founded Heart of Midlothian FC, and the resulting obliteration of the pre-1905 history - including 8 major trophies - from your current club's history.

 

And before you throw your own club's heritage under the bus with a throwaway "ach well, 1905 it is then": the reality is no-one associated with Hearts, perhaps excluding one desperately clutching at straws to avoid conceding a point to a Rangers fan, would seriously accept the logic and implication you put forward.

 

But hey, maybe you're right and i'm wrong, and the 1874 on Hearts badge will be adjusted a few decades in the course of time. We'll see, shall we newbie?

S O L V E N T R E C O N S T R U C T I O N as permitted under SFA rules.

 

How many times do you need to be told! Oh and you let your club die

Edited May 4, 2016 by Sandi

[corryjambo]

Another thing Bryce, see all these wee smillies you put at the end of your paragraphs, they do not make you any less of a person to be disliked.

 

I cannot be bothered looking through your old posts but did you use these smillies when you were busy threatening people if they did not agree with you.

 

Just please answer this question, what did Jim Spence need to be worried about, and how far were you willing to take that implied threat?

 

I find it quite disturbing that someone is allowed to come on to this board and make threats against someone.

 

By the way, you let your club die.

[bryce9a]

Bryce also accepts that the current "BHS" is just a brand name, that was purchased along with a basket of assets. It was a name that was attractive to the purchaser because it was familiar to the shopping public.

 

However, when he recalls tweets which quote an SFA lawyer, he conveniently forgets to provide balance by quoting Ashley's lawyer and the judge Lord Brodie from the same proceedings.  I was in court that day to hear those arguments. Ashley's lawyer described the Rangers Football Club as no more than a "trading style" of TRFC Ltd. It was Lord Brodie who also came up with the "we're not metaphysicists" quote.  I was also in court when Lord Malcolm who was hearing Green's appeal about legal fees said to Rangers lawyer that "you only changed the name so you could claim the history".

 

I've been consistent over the last four years with my view that the current incarnation of Rangers it is legally a new club, but to most football fans (outside online forums and those who have followed the saga closely) it is still the same bigoted and vile institution that it always was.

 

I believe that there should be a mechanism within football rules that actually facilitates "sporting continuity", allowing new clubs that wish to operate as a successor to an earlier incarnation with a similar name, thus retaining a viable fan base. What we have is a vacuum, which leaves the rules open to manipulation by those with vested interests and is not open to all clubs without fear or favour. Hence we ended up with the 5-way agreement.

 

If we had such a rule, then it should have been possible for Airdrie Utd to renounce their claim to Clydebank's history and seek that the sporting record of Airdrieonians be assigned to it. Clydebank Juniors would then have been able to claim to be the successor club to the senior version.  Similarly with Gretna 2008 and the defunct Gretna FC.    

 

"Bryce also accepts that the current "BHS" is just a brand name". I said nothing of the sort. BHS, the entity I describe, is a business - like a football club, like a leisure centre, whatever - which the law defines as "an organised grouping of resources which has the objective of pursuing an economic activity". That includes aspects of brand identity, as well as staff, property etc. 

 

Re. the court proceedings, what Ashley's QC said was relatively trivial relative to the official position, the authoritative position, that which the governing body of the game in Scotland was making clear - in a court of law quite conveniently! Mike Ashley and his defeated QC do not run the game of association football in this country. The Scottish FA do.

 

Your phrase "legally a new club" has one major problem - TRFC Ltd is not "legally" a club at all, it is a company. As soon as you switch the subject of your statement away from the corporation, corporate law is replaced by sporting rules and you start playing the SFA/SPFL's game, company being "owner and operator of the club" etc.

 

"I believe that there should be a mechanism within football rules that actually facilitates "sporting continuity"...."

There is already. It's called a transfer of membership. Google the rules for every domestic football association and you'll find it or a mechanism like it. The criteria by which it is applied may change, but the need to recognise that FCs can change their legal entity over the course of their existence is universal throughout the game. As it happens, Airdrie and Gretna didnt meet those criteria in Scotland - happily for us all, Rangers did

[Diadora Van Basten]

"Bryce also accepts that the current "BHS" is just a brand name". I said nothing of the sort. BHS, the entity I describe, is a business - like a football club, like a leisure centre, whatever - which the law defines as "an organised grouping of resources which has the objective of pursuing an economic activity". That includes aspects of brand identity, as well as staff, property etc.

 

Re. the court proceedings, what Ashley's QC said was relatively trivial relative to the official position, the authoritative position, that which the governing body of the game in Scotland was making clear - in a court of law quite conveniently! Mike Ashley and his defeated QC do not run the game of association football in this country. The Scottish FA do.

 

Your phrase "legally a new club" has one major problem - TRFC Ltd is not "legally" a club at all, it is a company. As soon as you switch the subject of your statement away from the corporation, corporate law is replaced by sporting rules and you start playing the SFA/SPFL's game, company being "owner and operator of the club" etc.

 

"I believe that there should be a mechanism within football rules that actually facilitates "sporting continuity"...."

There is already. It's called a transfer of membership. Google the rules for every domestic football association and you'll find it or a mechanism like it. The criteria by which it is applied may change, but the need to recognise that FCs can change their legal entity over the course of their existence is universal throughout the game. As it happens, Airdrie and Gretna didnt meet those criteria in Scotland - happily for us all, Rangers did

What rule was this? Please feel free to point is in the correct direction! YLYCD

[Jambo66]

"Bryce also accepts that the current "BHS" is just a brand name". I said nothing of the sort. BHS, the entity I describe, is a business - like a football club, like a leisure centre, whatever - which the law defines as "an organised grouping of resources which has the objective of pursuing an economic activity". That includes aspects of brand identity, as well as staff, property etc.

 

Re. the court proceedings, what Ashley's QC said was relatively trivial relative to the official position, the authoritative position, that which the governing body of the game in Scotland was making clear - in a court of law quite conveniently! Mike Ashley and his defeated QC do not run the game of association football in this country. The Scottish FA do.

 

Your phrase "legally a new club" has one major problem - TRFC Ltd is not "legally" a club at all, it is a company. As soon as you switch the subject of your statement away from the corporation, corporate law is replaced by sporting rules and you start playing the SFA/SPFL's game, company being "owner and operator of the club" etc.

 

"I believe that there should be a mechanism within football rules that actually facilitates "sporting continuity"...."

There is already. It's called a transfer of membership. Google the rules for every domestic football association and you'll find it or a mechanism like it. The criteria by which it is applied may change, but the need to recognise that FCs can change their legal entity over the course of their existence is universal throughout the game. As it happens, Airdrie and Gretna didnt meet those criteria in Scotland - happily for us all, Rangers did

Are you trying to win the prize for being biggest f$$king arse to post on here? If so, you should be aware that you have some competition.

 

You are not going to persuade anyone that your bizarre view of what happened to Rangers is correct for one very simple reason - you are wrong.

 

However, it is entirely correct to say YOU LET YOUR CLUB DIE.

[Ian Beale]

Newbie, in 1903, what had been a club called Heart of Midlothian, [according to your interpretation] became a company, through incorporation. From that day until it entered liquidation [yes i know, "voluntary", but suicide is still death] in 1905, the club was the company and the company was the club...

 

See what I did there

 

Your own warped interpretation results in the death of your own football club, 1874-founded Heart of Midlothian FC, and the resulting obliteration of the pre-1905 history - including 8 major trophies - from your current club's history.

 

And before you throw your own club's heritage under the bus with a throwaway "ach well, 1905 it is then": the reality is no-one associated with Hearts, perhaps excluding one desperately clutching at straws to avoid conceding a point to a Rangers fan, would seriously accept the logic and implication you put forward. 

 

But hey, maybe you're right and i'm wrong, and the 1874 on Hearts badge will be adjusted a few decades in the course of time. We'll see, shall we newbie?

Slavering fool .

[Footballfirst]

First step. Find a buyer to keep the doors open, the staff in their jobs, by purchasing the business and assets including, crucially, the intellectual property, name and brand by which 99.999% actually identify BHS (...as opposed to the odd weirdo who knows refers to their local store as X Company Limited! ) 

 

That way BHS can remain a famous high street name, rubbing their continuation into the noses of lesser successful rivals who can blog endlessly about how the BHS across the road lost all its "history"...

 

Bryce I suggest you re-read your own post.

 

 

Transfer of Membership ?  ....................... you mean Article 14?  ........... That's the one that reads "Prohibition on Transfer of Membership"

 

................. but you already know that, because of the "complete discretion" of the SFA Board to basically ignore their own rules and create a new class of "conditional membership" in order for Sevco to play Brechin in July 2012.

 

I guess you must also have managed to miss the bit in the same Article which enables transfer of membership for the purposes of "Solvent Reconstruction" and how it could apply to Hearts but not to Rangers.

[Justin Z]

[Seymour M Hersh]

Newbie, in 1903, what had been a club called Heart of Midlothian, [according to your interpretation] became a company, through incorporation. From that day until it entered liquidation [yes i know, "voluntary", but suicide is still death] in 1905, the club was the company and the company was the club...

 

See what I did there

 

Your own warped interpretation results in the death of your own football club, 1874-founded Heart of Midlothian FC, and the resulting obliteration of the pre-1905 history - including 8 major trophies - from your current club's history.

 

And before you throw your own club's heritage under the bus with a throwaway "ach well, 1905 it is then": the reality is no-one associated with Hearts, perhaps excluding one desperately clutching at straws to avoid conceding a point to a Rangers fan, would seriously accept the logic and implication you put forward. 

 

But hey, maybe you're right and i'm wrong, and the 1874 on Hearts badge will be adjusted a few decades in the course of time. We'll see, shall we newbie?

 

You let your club die. Think about that pal. You sat back swigging the buckie singing the sash and shouting we arra peepil at anyone who hove into view.  But all the while your bigoted, cheating arrogant club was heading for the afterlife, annihilation, cessation. It is deceased, curled up it's toes and gone to meet it's maker, it is an ex-club!

 

It's ****ing snuffed it! 

 

And you and all the other orcs let it happen.

[newbie]

Newbie, in 1903, what had been a club called Heart of Midlothian, [according to your interpretation] became a company, through incorporation. From that day until it entered liquidation [yes i know, "voluntary", but suicide is still death] in 1905, the club was the company and the company was the club...

 

See what I did there

 

Your own warped interpretation results in the death of your own football club, 1874-founded Heart of Midlothian FC, and the resulting obliteration of the pre-1905 history - including 8 major trophies - from your current club's history.

 

 

 

This thread now runs to an astonishing 1825 pages. I wonder how many times in those 1825 pages, Solvent Reconstruction has been explained to bryce, yet it seems he still can't differentiate between our club surviving as per all the rules, regulations and laws that applied at the time of insolvency, and his previous club dying a self-inflicted, ignominious and barely lamented death, as per the rules, regulations and laws of 2012. If I was cynical, I might even accuse bryce of deliberate trolling, since he simply regurgitates the same old tripe over and over ad nauseam, regardless of how many times his factual inaccuracies are corrected.

 

 bryce - why not take your airbrushing of inconvenient facts and rewriting of history over to the 'Bear's Den', where those with a similar delusional mindset will lap it up? Perhaps you could even remind them you let your club die !!!

[Sub4TiddlerMurray]

 Can people please stop the Bryce  .

 

It is boring in the extreme. either let this thread be a place where genuinely new info is discussed or let it slip into oblivion where it probably now deserves to go.

[bryce9a]

Bryce I suggest you re-read your own post.

 

Transfer of Membership ?  ....................... you mean Article 14?  ........... That's the one that reads "Prohibition on Transfer of Membership" ................. but you already know that, because of the "complete discretion" of the SFA Board to basically ignore their own rules and create a new class of "conditional membership" in order for Sevco to play Brechin in July 2012.

 

I guess you must also have managed to miss the bit in the same Article which enables transfer of membership for the purposes of "Solvent Reconstruction" and how it could apply to Hearts but not to Rangers.

 

Yes, my post stated "the business and assets including, crucially, the intellectual property, name and brand by which 99.999% actually identify BHS". Clearly that does not equate to BHS being "just a brand name" as per your misrepresentation. I identify someone by their face, only an idiot would say that person is "just a face"!

 

I'm surprised you're familiar with the Transfer of Membership mechanism within the rules, given a few posts ago you were apparently in the dark pining after a means of ensuring "sporting continuity" despite a change in legal entity. That is exactly what T of M serves to do, ergo the daftness of equating as synonymous a football club with its transient legal entity.

 

Glad we have some grounds for agreement, that Hearts would also have required a transfer of membership when their 1903 company voluntarily died/was liquidated. Our pal Newbie - with his "the club was the company and the company was the club" assertion - should pay heed to your words.

 

By the way Sandi, nice work with the "you let your club die" abbreviation. Folk are busy nowadays and logging on to post YLYCD takes time...

[jamboz]

Shuffled off this mortal coil...