The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

The Halk · 18 Aug 2012 at 16:53

Regardless of the technicalities everybody knows who Rangers are. Decent result today.

Five.Stars · 18 Aug 2012 at 16:54

Jokester said:
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?

That is the whole point of the investigation is it not? Are you suggesting that if the "independant" panel find Rangers guilty that they will not sanction Rangers? What will they do, sanction RFC2012 soon to be liquidated?

How is it twisting words? The SFA recognise that a club and the company which operates it are seperate entities.

16. It is not permissible for a member to transfer directly or indirectly its membership of the Association to another member or to any other entity and any such transfer or attempt to effect such a transfer is prohibited save as otherwise provided in this Article 16. Any member desirous of transferring its membership to another entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction must apply to the Board for permission to effect such transfer, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any other application for transfer of membership will be reviewed by the Board which will have complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.

Just to show that another of your fallacy's regarding rules being made up to somehow benefit Rangers was inaccurate.

Jokester · 18 Aug 2012 at 17:01

Five.Stars said:
That is the whole point of the investigation is it not? Are you suggesting that if the "independant" panel find Rangers guilty that they will not sanction Rangers? What will they do, sanction RFC2012 soon to be liquidated?

How is it twisting words? The SFA recognise that a club and the company which operates it are seperate entities.

16. It is not permissible for a member to transfer directly or indirectly its membership of the Association to another member or to any other entity and any such transfer or attempt to effect such a transfer is prohibited save as otherwise provided in this Article 16. Any member desirous of transferring its membership to another entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction must apply to the Board for permission to effect such transfer, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any other application for transfer of membership will be reviewed by the Board which will have complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.

Just to show that another of your fallacy's regarding rules being made up to somehow benefit Rangers was inaccurate.

How about temporary membership whilst your at it?

The only conceivable outcome of the investigation if found guilty will be the loss of titles won whilst the dual contracts were in use.

Five.Stars · 18 Aug 2012 at 17:10

Jokester said:
How about temporary membership whilst your at it?

The only conceivable outcome of the investigation if found guilty will be the loss of titles won whilst the dual contracts were in use.

Except Neil Doncaster is already on record as saying there are 19 potential sanctions, so blowing another theory of yours out the water. So who would that sanction be against in that case?

RFC2012 (formerly The Rangers Football Club PLC who no longer operate a football club)

or

The Rangers Football Club Ltd (formerly Sevco5088 who now operate Rangers Football Club)

Also, it wasn't a temporary membership. It was a full membership transferal conditional on the SPL share being transferred to Dundee FC. For whatever reason, most likely due to time constraints (the process concluded late Friday night and Rangers were due to play Brechin in the Ramsdens Cup less than 24 hours later) it had to be a conditional transfer, to be fully ratified at a future date.

Jokester · 18 Aug 2012 at 17:23

Five.Stars said:
Except Neil Doncaster is already on record as saying there are 19 potential sanctions, so blowing another theory of yours out the water. So who would that sanction be against in that case?

RFC2012 (formerly The Rangers Football Club PLC who no longer operate a football club)

or

The Rangers Football Club Ltd (formerly Sevco5088 who now operate Rangers Football Club)

Also, it wasn't a temporary membership. It was a full membership transferal conditional on the SPL share being transferred to Dundee FC. For whatever reason, most likely due to time constraints (the process concluded late Friday night and Rangers were due to play Brechin in the Ramsdens Cup less than 4 hours later) it had to be a conditional transfer, to be fully ratified at a future date.

Does the SPL rulebook even have 19 possible sanctions in it?

And why would the transfer be dependent on Dundee having the SPL share transferred (or should that be issued with a new share :confused:

)

Edit: In fact there is 19 sanctions

Five.Stars · 18 Aug 2012 at 17:24

Just so that you are under no further illusions, here is the joint statement released upon the conditional transfer being agreed:

"We are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club. A conditional membership will be issued to Sevco Scotland Ltd today, allowing Sunday's Ramsdens (League) Cup tie against Brechin City to go ahead. Following the completion of all legal documentation, the Scottish Premier League will conduct the formal transfer of the league share between RFC (IA) and Dundee FC on no later than Friday 3rd August 2012."

I fail to see any mention of temporary membership. I do however see the term "conditional membership" as I have already pointed out to you. Ohhh and what do you know, the underlined part of the statement seems to suggest that Sevco (now known as The Rangers Football Club Ltd) are the new owners of The Rangers Football Club.

Five.Stars · 18 Aug 2012 at 17:30

Jokester said:
Does the SPL rulebook even have 19 possible sanctions in it?

And why would the transfer be dependent on Dundee having the SPL share transferred (or should that be issued with a new share )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9272837/New-blow-for-Rangers-with-threat-of-SPL-sanctions.html

There are 18, my apologies. Still 17 more than you seemed to suggest. You still haven't clarified who the sanction(s) would be against I see...

I have no idea why the SFA membership was conditional on the transferal of the SPL share. I assume it was to prevent any further legal wrangling between the parties involved (Rangers, Duff&Phelps, SFA & SPL) which may ultimately have caused a delay in the start of the SPL season.

Jokester · 18 Aug 2012 at 18:07

Five.Stars said:
Just so that you are under no further illusions, here is the joint statement released upon the conditional transfer being agreed:

"We are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club. A conditional membership will be issued to Sevco Scotland Ltd today, allowing Sunday's Ramsdens (League) Cup tie against Brechin City to go ahead. Following the completion of all legal documentation, the Scottish Premier League will conduct the formal transfer of the league share between RFC (IA) and Dundee FC on no later than Friday 3rd August 2012."

I fail to see any mention of temporary membership. I do however see the term "conditional membership" as I have already pointed out to you. Ohhh and what do you know, the underlined part of the statement seems to suggest that Sevco (now known as The Rangers Football Club Ltd) are the new owners of The Rangers Football Club.

Sorry your right it's conditional membership, which doesn't exist as far as I'm aware. I've also never denied that the Rangers Ltd operate Rangers as they are now.

Five.Stars · 18 Aug 2012 at 18:22

Jokester said:
Sorry your right it's conditional membership, which doesn't exist as far as I'm aware. I've also never denied that the Rangers Ltd operate Rangers as they are now.

There is no "as they are now". They are the same club as they were last season, and the season before that and the 138 previous seasons. What part of the statement regarding Sevco being the NEW owners of The Rangers Football Club are you not understanding? The very wording confirms that for the club to have new owners, it stands to reason it must have had previous owners. Tell me, how can that be if it is a brand spanking shiny new football club?

How does a conditional membership not exist? It is simply a full membership transferal as per the rules I quoted earlier, which was to be fully ratified upon the fulfillment of a condition that could not be legally achieved in the time-frame prior to the season starting. If the condition was not met by the date set, Friday the 3rd of August then the membership would be withdrawn.

jamesy505 · 20 Aug 2012 at 12:54

Five.Stars said:
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.

Cant see where there was a personal attack? I said you must be funny as *** with your witty "As I like to call it Half Sell-out Saturday" banter.

Seriously, if you are offended, feel free to report the comment. I couldnt care less.

Five.Stars · 20 Aug 2012 at 15:04

jamesy505 said:
Cant see where there was a personal attack? I said you must be funny as *** with your witty "As I like to call it Half Sell-out Saturday" banter.

Seriously, if you are offended, feel free to report the comment. I couldnt care less.

You clearly care enough to respond. Of course it was a personal attack. You don't know me, or the first thing about me so have neither the right nor the ability to judge my capability of "witty banter" or not. It has been reported, as has your little name change quotation a few pages back - a pathetic attempt at witty banter on your part!

Five.Stars · 20 Aug 2012 at 17:36

The stars above a clubs crest was started in Italy in 1958 where 1 star = 10 league championships!

If you knew your hisory and all that... :rolleyes:

Jokester · 20 Aug 2012 at 17:39

Five.Stars said:
There is no "as they are now". They are the same club as they were last season, and the season before that and the 138 previous seasons. What part of the statement regarding Sevco being the NEW owners of The Rangers Football Club are you not understanding? The very wording confirms that for the club to have new owners, it stands to reason it must have had previous owners. Tell me, how can that be if it is a brand spanking shiny new football club?

Rangers had a hand in writing that by the way.

Five.Stars · 20 Aug 2012 at 17:47

Jokester said:
Rangers had a hand in writing that by the way.

And? It was a joint statement, meaning all parties had input. It was deemed to be suitable for the SFA, SPL & SFL to put their names on it, so I would suggest its content was accurate from their perspective regardless of who wrote it or had input on it.

You actually do not know whether Rangers had a hand in writing it though, do you? As I said it was a joint statement on behalf of all the parties. That simply means that all parties were in agreement as to the content.

Jokester · 20 Aug 2012 at 17:51

Five.Stars said:
And? It was a joint atatement, meaning all parties had input. It was deemed to be suitable for both the SFA & the SFL to put their names on it, so I would suggest its content was accurate from their perspective!

Well the content isn't accurate as the SFA gives clubs membership. I doubt given the lateness of the day that they were going to challenge it given how vehemently Green has maintained it's the same club ever since the CVA failed.

Five.Stars · 20 Aug 2012 at 17:57

Jokester said:
Well the content isn't accurate as the SFA gives clubs membership. I doubt given the lateness of the day that they were going to challenge it given how vehemently Green has maintained it's the same club ever since the CVA failed.

The SFA was not issuing a new club licence for god sakes!!! It was transferring the existing club licence of Rangers Football Club from its previous corporate entity to the new 1. End of story.

Jokester · 20 Aug 2012 at 18:03

Five.Stars said:
The SFA was not issuing a new club licence for god sakes!!! It was transferring the existing club licence of Rangers Football Club from its previous corporate entity to the new 1. End of story.

According to D&P, the old Rangers had already lost their club license about 5 months ago - there wasn't a license to transfer at that point.

Five.Stars · 20 Aug 2012 at 18:06

Jokester said:
Well the content isn't accurate as the SFA gives clubs membership. I doubt given the lateness of the day that they were going to challenge it given how vehemently Green has maintained it's the same club ever since the CVA failed.

Challenge what? And whom? The statement was on behalf of the 3 professional bodies that govern Scottish football as well as the club in question. Just who would challenge that, since presumably all the parties were in agreement?

Just how arrogant are you, that you would claim that the content of said statement wasn't accurate? Is it a case of the Scottish Football Association, Scottish Football League, Scottish Premier League and Rangers Football Club are ALL wrong because it doesn't suit your argument and belief that Rangers are a new club???

Five.Stars · 20 Aug 2012 at 18:10

Jokester said:
According to D&P, the old Rangers had already lost their club license about 5 months ago - there wasn't a license to transfer at that point.

Right, Rangers lost their club licence over 5 months ago - somthat would be March? If so, how were Rangers able to complete the season?

Rangers lost their Uefa licence by that point by failing to submit audited accounts. Their Uefa licence is simply an extension of their SFA licence. They would still have required an SFA licence to play football in Scotland. So the licence/ membership/ club registration (call it what you will) WAS there to be transfered and as per the statement WAS transfered.

Jokester · 20 Aug 2012 at 18:49

That's not D&P take on things:-