DS Forums

 
 

Scottish Fitba Thread (Part 21)


Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-03-2013, 00:05
crofter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,816
So, the company didn't buy the players for the club and entice them to sign with - shall we say - a little backhander

Scottish Football - Corrupt to the core

Unless, of course, you support a third division club who really wanted to be a third division club to show the SPL that the footballing world would fall down without them in it

I've a lot of time for you mate but this stinks to high heaven - fining a 'dead club'? Only possible in Scotland

Dead club keeping trophies - only in Scotland
The little backhander as you put it is perfectly legal and I am pretty sure other clubs run/have run EBT schemes (including Celtic).

I am going to go out on a limb here and say administrative errors would be picked up in most clubs dealings if they were subject to the scrutiny that Rangers have been over the last year ... mistakes are made we are after all human and Oldco have paid the price for that today.

As to what it achieved, and how much damage it has done in the grand scheme of things (along with the Big Tax Case) well I think we are only just getting to the beginning of all this charade ...
crofter is offline  
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 01-03-2013, 00:16
The_Sleeper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 116,685
The little backhander as you put it is perfectly legal .
I'd love to gave Phat Sally, one of those !
The_Sleeper is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 00:20
bhoy07
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,519
Dunfermline and Hearts were up sh*t creek before you lot went bust. So no.
bhoy07 is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 01:23
bunk_medal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,713
i wrote they ' failed to inform'

which was decided today WAS NOT A BREACH OF RULES
That's completely incorrect and I assume is just a misreading on your part. What was said is that the payments didn't break any rules, but that the failure to disclose did break rules (hence the fine). I think that's already been proven above.

it wasn't a fair hearing...it was a pointless needless hearing against a company that is no longer trading and has no assetts and is being liquidated
If it isn't a fair hearing then why are you backing its conclusions? The fact that Rangers were found guilty of an offence clearly justifies the investigation in the first place. On the other hand it's obvious that it was a fair hearing (at least not an "anti-Rangers" hearing) because it didn't end up with titles being stripped, as had been feared at one stage. Far from being a cock up, the investigation has actually drawn a line under the whole issue in a fair and objective way. If the investigation had never happened we'd probably be having this discussion about stripped titles for the next 20 years.
bunk_medal is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 07:20
Kung Fu Meerkat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: The Sunny Side of the Street
Posts: 1,479
The club is the company is the club.
See I dunno, I haven't followed the Rangers stuff much but part of my job is to prepare paperwork for buying and selling both businesses and companies.

They are most certainly two separate entities. If someone buys a company, they buy the whole thing, debts and all. But if they decide to simply buy the business and assets and leave the debts behind, the purchaser would usually set up a new company and a business transfer agreement is drawn up to transfer the business and assets, goodwill etc to the new company. Indeed the very point and benefit of the business/asset purchase as opposed to the company purchase is that you can "cherry pick" the parts of the business you want and leave behind the parts you dont want (ie the debts). The old company is then wound up it liquidated if necessary/appropriate. It's actually very common.

I dont really understand how the Rangers situation differs from that but admittedly I dont know much about it and deal in private limited companies mainly.
Kung Fu Meerkat is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 09:05
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
I dont really understand how the Rangers situation differs from..
Because the club isn't an asset.

The club (being the company) owns the assets. Those assets were then bought by the new club (new company).
Mark. is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 09:29
timboy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 26,381
The Rangers will have Blackthorn Cider on their kit next season after an extension to the C&C deal was agreed.
timboy is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 09:45
bhoy07
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,519
The Rangers will have Blackthorn Cider on their kit next season after an extension to the C&C deal was agreed.
Those world leading brands must've pulled out then.

Only a one year deal as well.
bhoy07 is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 10:00
timboy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 26,381
Those world leading brands must've pulled out then.
Or maybe they just didn't exist?

Chuckles will need to be careful what moonbeams he puts out there now that they are a TRIFC are a plc.
timboy is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 10:48
Kung Fu Meerkat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: The Sunny Side of the Street
Posts: 1,479
Because the club isn't an asset.

The club (being the company) owns the assets. Those assets were then bought by the new club (new company).
I never said the club was an asset - the club is surely the business? The company is the vehicle holding the business, owning the assets etc. and this is all transferred to a new vehicle. As I said, this is really common.
Kung Fu Meerkat is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 11:15
SilvioDante
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Bada Bing
Posts: 2,404
I never said the club was an asset - the club is surely the business? The company is the vehicle holding the business, owning the assets etc. and this is all transferred to a new vehicle. As I said, this is really common.
You're wasting your time trying to explain that Kung Fu to people with an agenda against a football team. Their hatred for Rangers outstrips love for their own team.
SilvioDante is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 11:31
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
I never said the club was an asset - the club is surely the business? The company is the vehicle holding the business, owning the assets etc. and this is all transferred to a new vehicle. As I said, this is really common.
No, club and company are synonymous in football.

The club is the company; the business is competing in football competitions.
Mark. is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 11:39
misawa97
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 11,516
Those world leading brands must've pulled out then.

Only a one year deal as well.
I thought Adidas were desperate and needed Sevco as the likes of Bayern Munich just wasnt enough for Adidas lol
misawa97 is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 11:47
StoneColdSaysSo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Scotland by The Sea
Posts: 6,802
No, club and company are synonymous in football.

The club is the company; the business is competing in football competitions.
They are still separate entities. Whilst people may refer to the company as the club this is not the case legally.
I thought Adidas were desperate and needed Sevco as the likes of Bayern Munich just wasnt enough for Adidas lol
Sevco this Sevconians that. Loving the hatred
StoneColdSaysSo is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 11:49
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
They are still separate entities. Whilst people may refer to the company as the club this is not the case legally.
Could you provide evidence to support that.

Because as far as I can tell, the registered company was (and indeed still is) "Rangers Football Club Plc.". The new company is "The Rangers Football Club Ltd.".
Mark. is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 12:03
StoneColdSaysSo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Scotland by The Sea
Posts: 6,802
Could you provide evidence to support that.

Because as far as I can tell, the registered company was (and indeed still is) "Rangers Football Club Plc.". The new company is "The Rangers Football Club Ltd.".
The name of the company contains the word club in it. That is all that is in the above.
StoneColdSaysSo is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 12:06
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
The name of the company contains the word club in it. That is all that is in the above.
Which means that the club is the company, in the same way that Royal Bank of Scotland is a bank and Virgin Trains is a train operator.

Do you have evidence to support your claim that the club and company are separate legal entities?
Mark. is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 12:09
bhoy07
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,519
Company law means the club and company are different. (i.e the club is an asset of the company.)

Football law means the club and company can be treated as the same - if the 'holding company' goes down the tube, the sanctions still apply to the club. (See Southampton for details)
bhoy07 is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 12:37
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
Company law means the club and company are different. (i.e the club is an asset of the company.)
Again, is there a reference to support that?

The brand may be an asset, but not the club as a whole which is the company.
Mark. is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 13:15
bhoy07
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,519
Again, is there a reference to support that?

The brand may be an asset, but not the club as a whole which is the company.
Read this blog

http://lawtop20.blogspot.co.uk/

Might help a bit.
bhoy07 is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 13:19
bhoy07
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,519
Dunfermline players only paid 20% of their wages and have been given no assurances when they'll get the rest - neither Yorkston or his successor could meet the players to tell them.

Some of the younger players were paid just £52 for this month.
bhoy07 is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 13:52
bhoy07
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,519
Neil Lennon understands Rangers were found guilty in making non-disclosed payments of £47m to players and will keep his views on whether there was any competitive advantage to himself as he has a quarter final and Champions League match to prepare for.

That's the jist of his answers on it during the press conference.

Neil Lennon speaking to the media on the outcome of the SPL commission yesterday: "I have only seen some snippets in the paper..." (MH)
NL: "...and I believe they were found guilty of paying £47 million over 11 years in non-disclosed payments." (MH)
NL on being asked if he felt there was no competitive advantage: "I have my own views on that, but I will save that for another time." (MH)
NL: "As regards the competitive advantage they gained or didn't gain, have my own views on it, will keep those to myself for now." (MH)
NL: "Wasn't our fight, it was the SPL. Doesn't affect us. Have a quarter-final to prepare for & playing Juventus in last 16 of CL." (MH)
NL: "The way we behave & do our business has been impeccable - the reason we are in the position that we are now." (MH)
NL: "So like I said, will reserve judgement on it for another time." (MH)

This causes Chris McLaughlin to deem Neil Lennon unhappy with the guilty verdict.
bhoy07 is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 16:03
misawa97
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 11,516
Neil Lennon understands Rangers were found guilty in making non-disclosed payments of £47m to players and will keep his views on whether there was any competitive advantage to himself as he has a quarter final and Champions League match to prepare for.

That's the jist of his answers on it during the press conference.

Neil Lennon speaking to the media on the outcome of the SPL commission yesterday: "I have only seen some snippets in the paper..." (MH)
NL: "...and I believe they were found guilty of paying £47 million over 11 years in non-disclosed payments." (MH)
NL on being asked if he felt there was no competitive advantage: "I have my own views on that, but I will save that for another time." (MH)
NL: "As regards the competitive advantage they gained or didn't gain, have my own views on it, will keep those to myself for now." (MH)
NL: "Wasn't our fight, it was the SPL. Doesn't affect us. Have a quarter-final to prepare for & playing Juventus in last 16 of CL." (MH)
NL: "The way we behave & do our business has been impeccable - the reason we are in the position that we are now." (MH)
NL: "So like I said, will reserve judgement on it for another time." (MH)

This causes Chris McLaughlin to deem Neil Lennon unhappy with the guilty verdict.
NL “We are playing Juventus in the last 16 of the Champions League. We're not renting out a training ground to them.”
Preach lenny, preach.
misawa97 is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 18:35
SilvioDante
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Bada Bing
Posts: 2,404
“We are playing Juventus in the last 16 of the Champions League. We're not renting out a training ground to them.” - The tie is over
"So like I said, will reserve judgement on it for another time." - No, please why not now?
SilvioDante is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 18:39
jenzie
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: BUDDIETOWN
Posts: 20,385
Neil Lennon understands Rangers were found guilty in making non-disclosed payments of £47m to players and will keep his views on whether there was any competitive advantage to himself as he has a quarter final and Champions League match to prepare for.

That's the jist of his answers on it during the press conference.

Neil Lennon speaking to the media on the outcome of the SPL commission yesterday: "I have only seen some snippets in the paper..." (MH)
NL: "...and I believe they were found guilty of paying £47 million over 11 years in non-disclosed payments." (MH)
NL on being asked if he felt there was no competitive advantage: "I have my own views on that, but I will save that for another time." (MH)
NL: "As regards the competitive advantage they gained or didn't gain, have my own views on it, will keep those to myself for now." (MH)
NL: "Wasn't our fight, it was the SPL. Doesn't affect us. Have a quarter-final to prepare for & playing Juventus in last 16 of CL." (MH)
NL: "The way we behave & do our business has been impeccable - the reason we are in the position that we are now." (MH)
NL: "So like I said, will reserve judgement on it for another time." (MH)

This causes Chris McLaughlin to deem Neil Lennon unhappy with the guilty verdict.
WHO CARES what he thinks
it's not his problem
jenzie is offline  
 
Closed Thread




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:11.