|
||||||||
Scottish Fitba Thread (Part 21) |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1226 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,816
|
Quote:
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 ![]() 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 ... |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#1227 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 116,685
|
Quote:
The little backhander as you put it is perfectly legal .
|
|
|
|
|
#1228 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,519
|
Quote:
Dunfermline up the creek - Armageddon on the cards?
http://www.dafc.co.uk/articles/20130...208031_3092986 |
|
|
|
|
#1229 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,713
|
Quote:
i wrote they ' failed to inform'
which was decided today WAS NOT A BREACH OF RULES Quote:
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
|
|
|
|
|
#1230 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: The Sunny Side of the Street
Posts: 1,479
|
Quote:
The club is the company is the club.
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. |
|
|
|
|
#1231 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
|
Quote:
I dont really understand how the Rangers situation differs from..
The club (being the company) owns the assets. Those assets were then bought by the new club (new company). |
|
|
|
|
#1232 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
#1233 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,519
|
Quote:
The Rangers will have Blackthorn Cider on their kit next season after an extension to the C&C deal was agreed.
Only a one year deal as well. |
|
|
|
|
#1234 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 26,381
|
Quote:
Those world leading brands must've pulled out then.
Chuckles will need to be careful what moonbeams he puts out there now that they are a TRIFC are a plc. |
|
|
|
|
#1235 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: The Sunny Side of the Street
Posts: 1,479
|
Quote:
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). |
|
|
|
|
#1236 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Bada Bing
Posts: 2,404
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
#1237 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
|
Quote:
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.
The club is the company; the business is competing in football competitions. |
|
|
|
|
#1238 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 11,516
|
Quote:
Those world leading brands must've pulled out then.
Only a one year deal as well. |
|
|
|
|
#1239 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Scotland by The Sea
Posts: 6,802
|
Quote:
No, club and company are synonymous in football.
The club is the company; the business is competing in football competitions. Quote:
I thought Adidas were desperate and needed Sevco as the likes of Bayern Munich just wasnt enough for Adidas lol
|
|
|
|
|
#1240 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
|
Quote:
They are still separate entities. Whilst people may refer to the company as the club this is not the case legally.
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.". |
|
|
|
|
#1241 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Scotland by The Sea
Posts: 6,802
|
Quote:
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.". |
|
|
|
|
#1242 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
|
Quote:
The name of the company contains the word club in it. That is all that is in the above.
Do you have evidence to support your claim that the club and company are separate legal entities? |
|
|
|
|
#1243 |
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
#1244 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
|
Quote:
Company law means the club and company are different. (i.e the club is an asset of the company.)
The brand may be an asset, but not the club as a whole which is the company. |
|
|
|
|
#1245 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,519
|
Quote:
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. http://lawtop20.blogspot.co.uk/ Might help a bit. |
|
|
|
|
#1246 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
#1247 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
#1248 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 11,516
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
#1249 |
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
#1250 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: BUDDIETOWN
Posts: 20,385
|
Quote:
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. it's not his problem |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:11.






