deecie Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Otherwise known as "somebody paid our debt for us". Interesting to see their average gate is 500 down on 2 years ago, despite continued SPL presence. Is it . 2 years ago they had something to play for, now they're just making up numbers in the 'Premiership'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParisInAKilt Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Too early ... ... Oops. I presume he'll let us know when it's okay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louch Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I've been consistent about it for, well, forever. Rangers died in 2012 and the club calling themselves Rangers today are a new club. The Schroedinger episode was an example of Rangers fans believing they could be considered both dead and alive depending on what you were trying to believe at the time. ie Debt = dead. Trophies = alive. Fine = dead, monies owed to RFC = alive, etcetera, etcetera...... If to you rangers are dead, where does you obsession with a club formed in 2012, that have only played your team once, and you beat them, come from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Is it okay to post in here now Debian? It's not. 24 hours should do the trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giblet Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I see the poor wee lamb Warburton is upset because Stubbs mentioned in an intervew the fact that Rangers have 4 times the players budget. interesting to see how he continues to react if the pressure continues on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce778 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Not every business is a plc.Correct. A business is different from a company. Not sure what point you're making. That supports my argument, not yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Correct. A business is different from a company. Not sure what point you're making. That supports my argument, not yours. this is true. But Charlie Greens lawyer, Brown, had an interesting view of it. unsurprisingly none of the mainstream papers printed any of this : Brown responded that this changed when Rangers incorporated in 1899. Brown continued: “Sevco Scotland did not buy the club they bought the business and assets of the club.There is a difference between the company and the business assets, but not between a club and a company. A club is an undertaking of it’s owners. As it has neither capacity of personality, no-one can be CEO of a club. The idea that someone can be CEO of an undertaking is just nonsense.” Brown continued: “I realize that Rangers being the same club is a matter of life and death to some, but it wouldn’t be a proper legal case without the elephant in the room getting mentioned.The team are paid by Sevco, play at a ground owned by Sevco, trained by a manager who is employed by Sevco, fans buy tickets from Sevco. Rangers was a basket of assets that could be sold, but these were not indivisible.The players went one way and the ground another, where is the “club” then?” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParisInAKilt Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 It's not. 24 hours should do the trick. Cheers Just to clarify, it's okay to post when there's attacks outside Europe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Correct. A business is different from a company. Not sure what point you're making. That supports my argument, not yours. We're not talking about a business though, we are talking specifically about a football club. One in particular that became a company by the process of incorporation, ie the club and company became the same entity in law. That entity is now in the process of being liquidated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Is it ######. 2 years ago they had something to play for, now they're just making up numbers in the 'Premiership'. What did they have to play for 2 years ago?Considering they were in the Premiership then too. I'd love to know how that was better than now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 We're not talking about a business though, we are talking specifically about a football club. One in particular that became a company by the process of incorporation, ie the club and company became the same entity in law. That entity is now in the process of being liquidated.You do realise none this makes a blind bit of difference? To Rangers fans, it's the same club no matter what anyone else says. To some others it's just a reason for banter. And then to the obsessed it's some sort of injustice that has taken over their life. In the long run nothing anyone says can change the "fact" that it's the same club in the only people's eyes that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Side letters? So in essence, how the EBTs were administered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 You do realise none this makes a blind bit of difference? To Rangers fans, it's the same club no matter what anyone else says. To some others it's just a reason for banter. And then to the obsessed it's some sort of injustice that has taken over their life. In the long run nothing anyone says can change the "fact" that it's the same club in the only people's eyes that matter. I have no problem with that, I'd be the same if it was my club, even if legally it's incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil r Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I've been consistent about it for, well, forever... Fair point. You must have about 2000 posts on the subject. Over 1600 on the original thread alone when you went into meltdown... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 If someone can tell me what mechanism of Scots law is used to strip intangible assets from tangible ones during the liquidation process, I’d be grateful. For example that last one I was involved in was (ironically a chain of restaurants, as above) I wasn’t aware how we could remove the history, patronage, etc. (the intangible stuff) from the tangible asset. I should say I’ve not practiced insolvency law for a few years now- but would be interested to know given the 'expertise' here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 If someone can tell me what mechanism of Scots law is used to strip intangible assets from tangible ones during the liquidation process, Id be grateful. For example that last one I was involved in was (ironically a chain of restaurants, as above) I wasnt aware how we could remove the history, patronage, etc. (the intangible stuff) from the tangible asset. I should say Ive not practiced insolvency law for a few years now- but would be interested to know given the 'expertise' here. I don't think we're talking sending bailiffs round to take the flags off the wall. More a football authority thing than a legal thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 If someone can tell me what mechanism of Scots law is used to strip intangible assets from tangible ones during the liquidation process, I’d be grateful. For example that last one I was involved in was (ironically a chain of restaurants, as above) I wasn’t aware how we could remove the history, patronage, etc. (the intangible stuff) from the tangible asset. I should say I’ve not practiced insolvency law for a few years now- but would be interested to know given the 'expertise' here. The brand is an intangible asset that might should be worth something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 So in essence, how the EBTs were administered. Yeah. As I understand it, the contracts of the players had to be lodged with the SFA to register them. The side letters were part of "the deal", but was understandably not included, so the registration was (mildly) fraudulent. (I'm not really sure why the contracts have to be sent to the SFA? But they did and Rangers only sent in half the story, it would make sense that despite being confident the EBT was ok, they werent going to shout about it from the rooftops) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I don't think we're talking sending bailiffs round to take the flags off the wall. More a football authority thing than a legal thing. Yeah your probably right. Think the legal thing is pretty clear. Not that it makes much difference in terms of pub arguments anyway !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 442. Admin being s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce778 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 this is true. But Charlie Greens lawyer, Brown, had an interesting view of it. unsurprisingly none of the mainstream papers printed any of this : Brown responded that this changed when Rangers incorporated in 1899. Brown continued: Sevco Scotland did not buy the club they bought the business and assets of the club.There is a difference between the company and the business assets, but not between a club and a company. A club is an undertaking of its owners. As it has neither capacity of personality, no-one can be CEO of a club. The idea that someone can be CEO of an undertaking is just nonsense. Brown continued: I realize that Rangers being the same club is a matter of life and death to some, but it wouldnt be a proper legal case without the elephant in the room getting mentioned.The team are paid by Sevco, play at a ground owned by Sevco, trained by a manager who is employed by Sevco, fans buy tickets from Sevco. Rangers was a basket of assets that could be sold, but these were not indivisible.The players went one way and the ground another, where is the club then? I think you may be reading these submissions out of context. The barrister is is applying the definition of a club as in an association, which it ceased to be in 1899. That is undisputed. The word club is confusing here. If rangers football club wasn't the business that was bought, I would be curious as to what business was actually bought. It seems no one can offer an alternative. By that barristers submission, it means no football clubs in Scotland exist. Any club in Scotland could do what he is suggesting without an insolvency existing, eg sell its stadium to a new entity, sell its training ground, sell its players, etc. does a change in ownership amount to a change in club? Obviously not in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Yeah. As I understand it, the contracts of the players had to be lodged with the SFA to register them. The side letters were part of "the deal", but was understandably not included, so the registration was (mildly) fraudulent. (I'm not really sure why the contracts have to be sent to the SFA? But they did and Rangers only sent in half the story, it would make sense that despite being confident the EBT was ok, they werent going to shout about it from the rooftops) And Rangers were already fined for this. Albeit the fine is unpaid and being argued over just now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 No it hasn't. If the restaurant has become the company, how are people able to buy and sell businesses? I try not to get involved in this any more but I thought the post he made was a pretty good analogy. The incorporated company wasn't sold, it was broken up and its assets sold. As he said, if the restaurant was sold to another company it would keep the tables, kitchen etc, but it would surely lose the Michelin stars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 And Rangers were already fined for this. Albeit the fine is unpaid and being argued over just now. Yeah, so it has been dealt with. I'm not saying titles should have been stripped, merely that it would be on those grounds. You could also argue that the successful HMRC appeal moves the goalposts slightly on this matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) I think you may be reading these submissions out of context. The barrister is is applying the definition of a club as in an association, which it ceased to be in 1899. That is undisputed. The word club is confusing here. If rangers football club wasn't the business that was bought, I would be curious as to what business was actually bought. It seems no one can offer an alternative. By that barristers submission, it means no football clubs in Scotland exist. Any club in Scotland could do what he is suggesting without an insolvency existing, eg sell its stadium to a new entity, sell its training ground, sell its players, etc. does a change in ownership amount to a change in club? Obviously not in my view. No, he's quite clear. The assets of the business (incorporating the club) were sold. The business itself - which is the same thing as the club - is currently being liquidated. This wouldn't even be a question in any other area of business.However, if I were a Rangers supporter, I don't think that would bother me much. Same ground, same supporters = same entity in my mind. Edited November 17, 2015 by adamntg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.