Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.

[RenfrewBlue]

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?

I don't see how the appeal changes anything in this respect as the issue was dealt with via a fine.

The appeal means Rangers now owe the tax man but it doesn't changeover way the process was administered.

[adamntg]

Surely those who are asking for titles to be stripped are tacitly accepting that this is the same club?

You can't buy "history" no matter how much you pretend. You can buy the physical trophies that were won, and you can buy the stadium where they are kept. If I bought all Dundee United's trophies and flags (wouldn't cost much right enough) would that make me Premier Division champion 1983? Of course not.

[thplinth]

The titles to be stripped belong to RFC 1899 currently being liquidated by BDO. Is BDO going to resist that if it happens?

I am not sure RFC 2012 would even be able to raise legal action against titles being stripped from RFC 1899 as it is an entirely different legal entity. It would like if Andy Murray got stripped of a title and Roger Federer sued for himself to get it 'back'.

[Larky Masher]

Surely those who are asking for titles to be stripped are tacitly accepting that this is the same club?

You can't buy "history" no matter how much you pretend. You can buy the physical trophies that were won, and you can buy the stadium where they are kept. If I bought all Dundee United's trophies and flags (wouldn't cost much right enough) would that make me Premier Division champion 1983? Of course not.

It could be argued that it what's the supporters believe that's the key you can't simply define a football team as legal entity it a socio-cultural phenomenon that transcends that narrow definition.

[adamntg]

It could be argued that it what's the supporters believe that's the key you can't simply define a football team as legal entity it a socio-cultural phenomenon that transcends that narrow definition.

I totally agree with you - same stadium, same supporters = the same "club".

Those imagining legal contortions to prove that it's legally the same club are just drawing out the argument. It's not, but does it really matter?

[Larky Masher]

I totally agree with you - same stadium, same supporters = the same "club".

Those imagining legal contortions to prove that it's legally the same club are just drawing out the argument. It's not, but does it really matter?

I don't think the legal aspect matters and it's what the supporters of the club think that's important. Though supporters of other clubs will be obviously have a different opinion.

[sbcmfc]

I don't see how the appeal changes anything in this respect as the issue was dealt with via a fine.

The appeal means Rangers now owe the tax man but it doesn't changeover way the process was administered.

I think at the time the EBTs had been ruled as ok, they have now been ruled not ok.

I see your point though, it doesn't affect the way it was administered. (Which was clearly a bit underhand!)

[ShedTA]

Not sure of the complete vlididty of this but if its true - King is another shyster.

King’s Cunning Plan

Those of us who wondered what was in it for King only had to wait for a short period of time for the career criminal to show his hand. King currently owns 11,869,505 shares. If his proposals, in resolutions 9 & 10, receive the approval he expects, he will own 23,739,010 shares. He bought his shares for £2.37m. If he sold his shares to Peterhouse/JP Jenkins in the afternoon after the November 27, he would realize £6.4m. Just over £4m profit for about ten days in the UK.

Most of us don’t believe he had the wherewithal, or the ability to buy his shares. due to exchange controls. He almost certainly borrowed money from Douglas Park to buy his shares. They both knew that as soon as they pulled off the share manipulation artifice, they would profit. Of course King would only cash in his chips now if he’s thrown under a Parks of Hamilton bus. In the unlikely event they could arrange an ISDX list, he could yield £12.8m if the price rose to 54p

Articles 9 & 10 are unnecessarily complex. The average shareholder won’t have the first clue about what he’s up to. He will be told that a vote for King is a vote for Rangers, when the truth is that King will make a quick paper killing for a couple of bombastic statements and numerous lies.

[giblet]

King is in this game to recoup the money he put into Rangers under David Murray.

[Donaldo87]

Sportsound has been a good laugh recently.

[thplinth]

Well lets have a lookie...

9.

“THAT the Directors be and are hereby generally and unconditionally authorised in accordance with section

551 of the Companies Act 2006 (the

“Act ”

) to allot equity securities (as defined in section 560(1) of the

Act):

(a)

up to an aggregate nominal amount of £407,392 (after deducting from such limit the aggregate

nominal amount of any equity securities allotted under sub-paragraph ( below); and

(

comprising equity securities (within the meaning of section 560 of the Act) up to an aggregate

nominal amount of £543,188 (after deducting from such limit the aggregate nominal amount of any

equity securities allotted under sub-paragraph (a) above) in connection with an offer by way of rights

issue to holders of equity securities and other persons who are entitled to participate at a ratio of

two equity securities per each equity security currently held (as nearly as may be practicable) to their

existing holdings (or the number of equity securities which such other persons are deemed to hold

for such purposes) but subject to such exclusions or other arrangements as the Directors may deem

necessary or expedient in relation to fractional entitlements, record dates, legal or practical problems

in or under the laws of any territory or the requirements of any regulatory body or stock exchange,

and such authority shall expire at the conclusion of the Company’s next Annual General Meeting in 2016,

but so that the Company may, in each case, before such expiry make an offer or agreement which would or

might require equity securities to be allotted after such expiry and the Directors may allot equity securities in

pursuance of any such offer or agreement as if the power conferred hereby had not expired. This authority shall

be in substitution for any previous authorities granted in this regard by the Company, but without prejudice to

any allotment of equity securities or grant of rights already made, offered or agreed to be made pursuant to

such authorities

As Special Business

SPECIAL RESOLUTIONS

10. “THAT the Directors be and they are empowered pursuant to Section 570(1) of the Act to allot equity

securities (as defined in Section 560(1) of the Act) of the Company wholly for cash pursuant to the

authority of the Directors under Section 551 of the Act conferred by Resolution 9 above, as if Section 561(1)

of the Act did not apply to such allotment provided that:

(a)

the power conferred by this resolution shall be limited to:

(i)

the allotment of equity securities in connection with or pursuant to an offer of, or invitation to

holders of equity securities and other persons entitled to participate in proportion (as nearly as

practicable) to their then holdings of equity securities (or as appropriate the numbers of such

equity securities which such other persons are for such purposes deemed to hold) subject to

such exclusions or other arrangements as the Directors may deem necessary or expedient to

deal with fractional entitlements or legal, regulatory or practical problems arising under the laws

or requirements of any overseas territory or by virtue of shares being represented by depository

receipts or the requirements of any regulatory body or stock exchange or any other matter

whatsoever; and

(ii)

in the case of the authority granted under paragraph (a) of Resolution 9, the allotment, otherwise

than pursuant to sub-paragraph (i) above, of equity securities up to an aggregate nominal value

equal to £407,392; and

(

unless previously revoked, varied or extended, this power shall expire at the conclusion of the Company’s

next Annual General Meeting in 2016, except that the Company may before the expiry of this power

make an offer or agreement which would or might require equity securities to be allotted after such

expiry and the Directors may allot equity securities in pursuance of such an offer or agreement as if

this power had not expired.

.......

Hmmm not very transparent is it.

Edited November 17, 2015 by thplinth

[RenfrewBlue]

I think at the time the EBTs had been ruled as ok, they have now been ruled not ok.

I see your point though, it doesn't affect the way it was administered. (Which was clearly a bit underhand!)

Whether the EBT's were legal is not really the issue as far as the SFA are concerned, I think.

The problem is that the device wasn't declared and hence the fine.

The legality of the scheme wasn't what the SFA were looking at.

Of course I may have read this wrong but it looks unlikely that the SFA rules will allow any further punishment.

[thplinth]

Not sure of the complete vlididty of this but if its true - King is another shyster.

King’s Cunning Plan

Those of us who wondered what was in it for King only had to wait for a short period of time for the career criminal to show his hand. King currently owns 11,869,505 shares. If his proposals, in resolutions 9 & 10, receive the approval he expects, he will own 23,739,010 shares. He bought his shares for £2.37m. If he sold his shares to Peterhouse/JP Jenkins in the afternoon after the November 27, he would realize £6.4m. Just over £4m profit for about ten days in the UK.

Most of us don’t believe he had the wherewithal, or the ability to buy his shares. due to exchange controls. He almost certainly borrowed money from Douglas Park to buy his shares. They both knew that as soon as they pulled off the share manipulation artifice, they would profit. Of course King would only cash in his chips now if he’s thrown under a Parks of Hamilton bus. In the unlikely event they could arrange an ISDX list, he could yield £12.8m if the price rose to 54p

Articles 9 & 10 are unnecessarily complex. The average shareholder won’t have the first clue about what he’s up to. He will be told that a vote for King is a vote for Rangers, when the truth is that King will make a quick paper killing for a couple of bombastic statements and numerous lies.

I don't think you can make those conclusions from reading resolutions 9&10 alone.

[ShedTA]

I don't think you can make those conclusions from reading resolutions 9&10 alone.

possibly not, but it appears Kings main plan in now being implemented.

[bruce778]

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.

You can't liquidate a business. You can liquidate a company. Newco bought the business and the assets - it's in all the administrators and liquidators reports if you don't believe me. You say yourself the business is the same as the football club. Even If the football club is not the business, then what was the business of oldco? If the business is the same as the company then how is it possible for people to buy businesses without buying the companies that own then? It happens all the time and liabilities and assets are siphoned off or transferred across as agreed between the parties - that's generally what determines the purchase price of the business.

The barrister might have had a point if 5 different companies bought the stadium, players, intellectual property, the business itself or the players but that didn't happen.

[Fred_Zeppelin]

You can't liquidate a business. You can liquidate a company. Newco bought the business and the assets - it's in all the administrators and liquidators reports if you don't believe me. You say yourself the business is the same as the football club. Even If the football club is not the business, then what was the business of oldco? If the business is the same as the company then how is it possible for people to buy businesses without buying the companies that own then? It happens all the time and liabilities and assets are siphoned off or transferred across as agreed between the parties - that's generally what determines the purchase price of the business.

The barrister might have had a point if 5 different companies bought the stadium, players, intellectual property, the business itself or the players but that didn't happen.

The business of oldco was "Activities of sports club", ie it wasn't a holding company, it was a football club. It is now in the process of liquidation.

[Stu101]

The titles to be stripped belong to RFC 1899 currently being liquidated by BDO. Is BDO going to resist that if it happens?

I am not sure RFC 2012 would even be able to raise legal action against titles being stripped from RFC 1899 as it is an entirely different legal entity. It would like if Andy Murray got stripped of a title and Roger Federer sued for himself to get it 'back'.

Really don't want to get into this- but they do belong to Servo under company law. They are intangibles unable to be stripped from the assets that were bought by Servo. This is both at common law and will be under the terms of the contractual provisions of the asset transfer (unless contracted out of- which would see odd).

In terms of your second point that makes no sense. Football clubs are corporate entities- not individuals.

[adamntg]

You can't liquidate a business. You can liquidate a company. Newco bought the business and the assets - it's in all the administrators and liquidators reports if you don't believe me. You say yourself the business is the same as the football club. Even If the football club is not the business, then what was the business of oldco? If the business is the same as the company then how is it possible for people to buy businesses without buying the companies that own then? It happens all the time and liabilities and assets are siphoned off or transferred across as agreed between the parties - that's generally what determines the purchase price of the business.

The barrister might have had a point if 5 different companies bought the stadium, players, intellectual property, the business itself or the players but that didn't happen.

You're one of those people I was talking about. Companies don't own businesses - companies ARE businesses. Not all businesses are companies right enough, but once you're incorporated into a company, your business is that company.

Larky has the correct answer - does it matter? The club - and the idea of the club - belongs to the supporters and those who believe in it. Clydebank, Airdrieonians - they're not the same company as they were and their different legal entities - in fact, legally, Airdrie ARE Clydebank. But to the supporters, they are Airdrieonians and Clydebank and they are the same team that played in the Scottish leagues back in the 1970s and before.

[Stu101]

The business of oldco was "Activities of sports club", ie it wasn't a holding company, it was a football club. It is now in the process of liquidation.

How does one remove the intangible assets (history, titles, etc.) from the tangible ones (stadium, team, etc.) under the process of liquidation in Scotland?

[Stu101]

You're one of those people I was talking about. Companies don't own businesses - companies ARE businesses. Not all businesses are companies right enough, but once you're incorporated into a company, your business is that company.

Larky has the correct answer - does it matter? The club - and the idea of the club - belongs to the supporters and those who believe in it. Clydebank, Airdrieonians - they're not the same company as they were and their different legal entities - in fact, legally, Airdrie ARE Clydebank. But to the supporters, they are Airdrieonians and Clydebank and they are the same team that played in the Scottish leagues back in the 1970s and before.

Sorry companies are collections of assets. Not businesses.

[ShedTA]

You're one of those people I was talking about. Companies don't own businesses - companies ARE businesses. Not all businesses are companies right enough, but once you're incorporated into a company, your business is that company.

Larky has the correct answer - does it matter? The club - and the idea of the club - belongs to the supporters and those who believe in it. Clydebank, Airdrieonians - they're not the same company as they were and their different legal entities - in fact, legally, Airdrie ARE Clydebank. But to the supporters, they are Airdrieonians and Clydebank and they are the same team that played in the Scottish leagues back in the 1970s and before.

this is correct - it doesnt matter really - its what the supporters believe. its a team in the same colours, stadium and with a similar name - so if the supporters believe its the same team then to them it is.

quite clearly, to a lot of other football supporters, it is not because that club is being liquidated. the history and titles I would think sit with the entity being liquidated. its from them that any stripping would occur.

[Stu101]

this is correct - it doesnt matter really - its what the supporters believe. its a team in the same colours, stadium and with a similar name - so if the supporters believe its the same team then to them it is.

quite clearly, to a lot of other football supporters, it is not because that club is being liquidated. the history and titles I would think sit with the entity being liquidated. its from them that any stripping would occur.

Yeah lets be honest everyone has their own view on this. And chants involving the words "incorrect legal interpretation" really aren't really going to catch on

[phart]

Feck it's like the card game "magic the gathering". Ad hoc set of rules made on the fly. For the game to work.

So what is being said under the current rules, there is no invented mechanism to remove intangibles?

[bruce778]

You're one of those people I was talking about. Companies don't own businesses - companies ARE businesses. Not all businesses are companies right enough, but once you're incorporated into a company, your business is that company.

Larky has the correct answer - does it matter? The club - and the idea of the club - belongs to the supporters and those who believe in it. Clydebank, Airdrieonians - they're not the same company as they were and their different legal entities - in fact, legally, Airdrie ARE Clydebank. But to the supporters, they are Airdrieonians and Clydebank and they are the same team that played in the Scottish leagues back in the 1970s and before.

I'm sorry it's just plain wrong to say a company is a business. If I set up a company tomorrow and it operates a McDonald's and a golf club it is operating two businesses. The McDonald's business is not the company and neither is the golf club.

If someone came along and said I want your McDonald's business I could sell the McDonald's business to that person without losing any ownership of my company. This clearly contradicts your theory that a company is a business.

[thplinth]

Really don't want to get into this- but they do belong to Servo under company law. They are intangibles unable to be stripped from the assets that were bought by Servo. This is both at common law and will be under the terms of the contractual provisions of the asset transfer (unless contracted out of- which would see odd).

In terms of your second point that makes no sense. Football clubs are corporate entities- not individuals.

Sevco balance sheet does not have listed as an intangible asset. Sure you can buy the old silverware but you cannot meaningfully transfer 'ownership' of history. If the football authorities wanted to strip RFC 1899 of old titles I doubt there is much RFC 2012 could do about it.