The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

Five.Stars · 15 Aug 2012 at 19:46

The agreement was clarified in a letter, the wording of which has been obtained by STV, sent by SPL secretary Iain Blair to Rangers on May 18 this year.

It read: "The Board of the Scottish Premier League Ltd considered the application by Dundee United that the outstanding sum due by Rangers to Dundee United of £31,031.20 be offset against the next sums due to Rangers by SPL Ltd, with the offset sum being paid to Dundee United.

"The board decided to accede the application to Dundee United and accordingly the sum will be withheld from the next sum payable by the SPL Ltd to Rangers, and the sum will be paid by the SPL Ltd to Dundee United."

Therefore, that debt to Dundee Utd now belongs to the SPL, offset by the withheld prize money due to the "oldco" Rangers. The SPL have failed to pay this bill. Is that not bringing the game into disrepute???

I thought the SPL would be flush, what with the bumper Sky contract recently signed (with no figures released to the public) and with attendances through the roof due to Sell-Out Saturday - or as I like to call it, "Sell-Out half your stadium Saturday"

jamesy505 · 17 Aug 2012 at 13:30

Five.Stars said:
or as I like to call it, "Sell-Out half your stadium Saturday"

Do you like to impress your mates with that witty banter? You must be funny as ****

The agreement for the outstanding amount was made with defunct Rangers, not The Rangers, according to the SPL.

McMav · 17 Aug 2012 at 14:14

jamesy505 said:
Do you like to impress your mates with that witty banter? You must be funny as ****

The agreement for the outstanding amount was made with defunct Rangers, not The Rangers, according to the SPL.

Why did the SPL not pay it right away they knew money due to Rangers was going to be way in excess of 31k when they said they would? Agree'd to pay it in May then come August months later say they dont have to pay it.

Sorry that doesn't wash. Corrupt to the core.

jamesy505 · 17 Aug 2012 at 16:54

McMav said:
Why did the SPL not pay it right away they knew money due to Rangers was going to be way in excess of 31k when they said they would? Agree'd to pay it in May then come August months later say they dont have to pay it.

Sorry that doesn't wash. Corrupt to the core.

Maybe they held it back as D&P had the debt listed at closer to 70k. Getting clarity from D&P aint easy. Just ask the dual contract investigators

Either way, another embarrassing incident involving Rangers/ The Rangers and the governing bodies

Five.Stars · 17 Aug 2012 at 17:06

jamesy505 said:
Do you like to impress your mates with that witty banter? You must be funny as ****

The agreement for the outstanding amount was made with defunct Rangers, not The Rangers, according to the SPL.

It matters not a jot who the agreement is or was with. Read the wording of the letter. The SPL agreed to take over that debt, offset by the money owed to Rangers. The money owed may have been owed to the oldco, but that is irrelevant - since the SPL will still owe this money to that company to be shared out with the creditors upon the liquidation of the company.

If the SPL have simply distributed that money amongst its member clubs as has been reported, then it amounts to theft plain and simple. And I am sure BDO will agree with that, as that money was theirs to distribute to creditors...

Also, why the personal attack? I've got a friend who lost his access to the sports stadium for less.

Rotty · 17 Aug 2012 at 17:12

Five.Stars said:
Also, why the personal attack? I've got a friend who lost his access to the sports stadium for less.

friend ?

Five.Stars · 17 Aug 2012 at 17:24

Rotty said:
friend ?

Yes

Rotty · 17 Aug 2012 at 17:30

The Halk · 17 Aug 2012 at 19:42

Looking into the future, if Rangers win the SFL3, and next year the SFL2, and things go well and we have evolved into a decent team and we're able to win the SFL1 the year after (no guarantees, but I'm hopeful), and we gain promotion back into the SPL... will there be a feeling of malice towards us, or will the rest of Scottish football feel we've done our penance and things can move on?

matt0r · 17 Aug 2012 at 20:05

The Halk said:
Looking into the future, if Rangers win the SFL3, and next year the SFL2, and things go well and we have evolved into a decent team and we're able to win the SFL1 the year after (no guarantees, but I'm hopeful), and we gain promotion back into the SPL... will there be a feeling of malice towards us, or will the rest of Scottish football feel we've done our penance and things can move on?

Would a general feeling of malice be anything new? Celtic hate you, and the rest of the SPL hate the old firm?

Jokester · 18 Aug 2012 at 14:08

Five.Stars said:
Yes they were. The non transferal of their SPL share was an expulsion. Given that the clubs SFA membership was transferred, newco or not they are the same club. But that argument/ debate is for another thread...

Sorry, but it's an absolute fallacy to suggest that the new club was ever in the SPL to be expulsed. D&P's report is very clear on what Green bought and it was not a football club, but the assets of the old club to allow him to create a phoenix club, in the place of the old club.

Five.Stars · 18 Aug 2012 at 14:24

Jokester said:
Sorry, but it's an absolute fallacy to suggest that the new club was ever in the SPL to be expulsed. D&P's report is very clear on what Green bought and it was not a football club, but the assets of the old club to allow him to create a phoenix club, in the place of the old club.

The newco may not have been in the SPL, but Green bought the assets, including the right to transfer the SPL share - vote pending. Therefore, the vote going against this resulted in Rangers being expelled from the SPL.

There is no old club or new club. The term "newco" kind of hints at what it is - New Company. The club is the same club as it has been since 1872. A football club and it's business entity are not inextricably linked, otherwise Rangers would not have been able to transfer their SFA membership to the company formerly known as Sevco5088.

Jokester · 18 Aug 2012 at 15:06

Five.Stars said:
The newco may not have been in the SPL, but Green bought the assets, including the right to transfer the SPL share - vote pending. Therefore, the vote going against this resulted in Rangers being expelled from the SPL.

There is no old club or new club. The term "newco" kind of hints at what it is - New Company. The club is the same club as it has been since 1872. A football club and it's business entity are not inextricably linked, otherwise Rangers would not have been able to transfer their SFA membership to the company formerly known as Sevco5088.

This is simply not true. D&P are very clear through all their documentation that the company and club are same thing, so much so that they could not legally state that Green had bought the club following liquidation, only it's assets as they had to separate the liabilities of the club - you can't have your cake and eat it so to speak. The club that formed in 1872 was incorporated in 1899, specifically to allow it to run as a business. When you buy a club, you don't need to transfer SPL/SFA membership - ask Craig Whyte.

Five.Stars · 18 Aug 2012 at 15:16

Jokester said:
This is simply not true. D&P are very clear through all their documentation that the company and club are same thing, so much so that they could not legally state that Green had bought the club following liquidation, only it's assets as they had to separate the liabilities of the club - you can't have your cake and eat it so to speak. The club that formed in 1872 was incorporated in 1899, specifically to allow it to run as a business. When you buy a club, you don't need to transfer SPL/SFA membership - ask Craig Whyte.

Anytime a club changes legal entity it is required to go through the transferal process. It is only when the change in entity is as the result of an insolvency event that it is anything other than a formality. You do not, as you have correctly stated have to go through a transferal process, simply by buying a club, but upon changing the legal entity which operates the club.

Note the term, operates the club. Both Duff & Phelps and Lord Glennie used this term in his statement after his Court of Session ruling.

Jokester · 18 Aug 2012 at 15:20

Five.Stars said:
Anytime a club changes legal entity it is required to go through the transferal process. It is only when the change in entity is as the result of an insolvency event that it is anything other than a formality. You do not, as you have correctly stated have to go through a transferal process, simply by buying a club, but upon changing the legal entity which operates the club.

Note the term, operates the club. Both Duff & Phelps and Lord Glennie used this term in his statement after his Court of Session ruling.

That proves my point, when a plc or ltd company operate any business that goes bust, it's gone bust.

Five.Stars · 18 Aug 2012 at 15:31

Jokester said:
That proves my point, when a plc or ltd company operate any business that goes bust, it's gone bust.

The term operates the club is showing a distinguishment between the company and the club. If no such distinguishment existed, then the transferal process would not exist for this scenario. Simply put, when Rangers Football Club PLC (now known as RFC2012) are liquidated, the membership would reside with that company and thus be liquidated also.

That the club membership is transferable at all shows that the football authorities recognise such a distinguishment between the club and the company which operates it exists.

To put it in simpler terms, a new club as opposed to a newco would require a brand new SFA membership registration. Did Rangers receive a brand new SFA membership?

Jokester · 18 Aug 2012 at 15:54

Five.Stars said:
The term operates the club is showing a distinguishment between the company and the club. If no such distinguishment existed, then the transferal process would not exist for this scenario. Simply put, when Rangers Football Club PLC (now known as RFC2012) are liquidated, the membership would reside with that company and thus be liquidated also.

That the club membership is transferable at all shows that the football authorities recognise such a distinguishment between the club and the company which operates it exists.

To put it in simpler terms, a new club as opposed to a newco would require a brand new SFA membership registration. Did Rangers receive a brand new SFA membership?

The transfer demonstrates it's a new club though, as otherwise you wouldn't need to carryout the transfer. SFA membership is a property of a football club, not the company. The SFA licensing rules are clear on this, even going as far as saying that if a club is liquidated it will lose it's license.

The transfer was to get round rules that could have prevented membership being given, indeed the SFA said they would treat the application with discretion because of it, but not only that the SFA made up the rules as they went along. There was no such thing as a conditional membership that was granted at the start of the season, it was entirely made up, there doesn't even appear to be a means to even transfer a membership within their own rules!

Five.Stars · 18 Aug 2012 at 16:04

Jokester said:
The transfer demonstrates it's a new club though, as otherwise you wouldn't need to carryout the transfer. SFA membership is a property of a football club, not the company. The SFA licensing rules are clear on this, even going as far as saying that if a club is liquidated it will lose it's license.

The transfer was to get round rules that could have prevented membership being given, indeed the SFA said they would treat the application with discretion because of it, but not only that the SFA made up the rules as they went along. There was no such thing as a conditional membership that was granted at the start of the season, it was entirely made up, there doesn't even appear to be a means to even transfer a membership within their own rules!

In that very sentence you have managed to confirm that a distinguishment between the club and the company exists.

If, as you say the SFA membership does not belong to the company which operates the football club, then it that shows that the club and company are seperate enitities, no?

You appear to be tying yourself in knots to try and show that Rangers no longer exist and that a new club has taken their place, when all that has happened is the assets of the insolvent company have been transferred to a new company. The club is essentially the 'goodwill' of the business, which as an asset, was bought by Sevco on June the 14th.

Jokester · 18 Aug 2012 at 16:42

Five.Stars said:
In that very sentence you have managed to confirm that a distinguishment between the club and the company exists.

If, as you say the SFA membership does not belong to the company which operates the football club, then it that shows that the club and company are seperate enitities, no?

You appear to be tying yourself in knots to try and show that Rangers no longer exist and that a new club has taken their place, when all that has happened is the assets of the insolvent company have been transferred to a new company. The club is essentially the 'goodwill' of the business, which as an asset, was bought by Sevco on June the 14th.

That's just twisting the SFA's words, not mine - the SFA issues licenses to clubs. The SFA isn't concerned if the club is being run as a ltd company, plc, or whatever, just in this case Rangers were being run as a PLC.

The club isn't the goodwill, it's the right for the new club to use the name and other trademarks etc of the old club - or are you suggesting that the club should still be subject to sanctions if found guilty of the dual contracts case?

McMav · 18 Aug 2012 at 16:47

This is getting boring now. Let them think its a new club five star we know it isn't. They hoped infact prayed Rangers would die and we haven't. Let them try and troll, the fact this thread is still going and infact renamed just goes to show the obsession with our club.