Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

a selective interpretation of what uefa actually said, i agree with you totally that "The facts are that it is against UEFA rules for a club to alter their structure in the case of an insolvency event, and has been since the introduction of the financial fair play rules" no argument whatsoever with that,, firstly because what you have stated would have no bearing on the clubs status anyway

what you missed out from that , is the fact that according to the rules we remain the same club even if we alter the structure, the appropriate bit is highlighted below

heres the exact quote from uefa on the timisoara case

“Clubs are not allowed to change their legal form or structure in order to obtain a licence, simply by ‘cleaning up’ their balance sheet while offloading debts – thus harming creditors (including employees and social/tax authorities) as well as threatening the integrity of sporting competition. Any such alteration of a club’s legal form or structure is deemed to be an interruption to its membership of a UEFA member association and consequently three years must pass before a club can apply again for a UEFA licence. In other words, the three-year rule is designed basically to avoid circumvention of the club licensing system.”

another massive fail from you

you can add that to all the other evidence that uefa recognises we are the same club and its another miserable loss for you

1. “We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the ‘sporting continuity’ of a club’s match record, even if that club’s corporate structure had changed,”

2.Rangers currently sit at number 264 on the UEFA club rankings and have been accumulating points for this season and the last 4 seasons which shows continuation from the oldco to the newco indicating that they consider us the same club.

3. Fiorentina is considered the same club with the same history and honours by UEFA despite going completely bust, starting a completely new club and buying back the Fiorentina name, shirt design and badge years later. Rangers situation was nowhere near as severe as Fiorentina’s as the club was sold from oldco to newco with no gap in history and all emblems, symbols, history and trophies intact so it’s clear that UEFA would and do consider rangers to be the same club it has always been.

Uefa have confirmed we are the same club numerous times, you have absolutely nothing to refute this and have to resort to hiding stuff to try and claim otherwise, still you can cling to the fact that our club page hasnt been updated since 2011-12(like hibs hasnt been siince they were relegated from the top division) until the start of next season when the final nail in that particular coffin will be hammered in

Clubs are not allowed to change structure during an insolvency event. There is an interuption in the membership of their home FA. Rangers are on a restarted membership which belonged to another entity and ended when that entity died.

Three years must pass before a club can apply again. Timişoara applied thinking they were the same club and got knocked back as a new club, they were told to reapply in three years when they had established themselves as a club.

The Fiorentina argument is moot as they reformed prior to the rule changes.

It's like when everyone was off their skulls on Mcat, one day you could get cunted quite legally, the next a maximum of 4 years for possession.

Edited by stonedsailor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rangers fans wanted to avoid liquidation for obvious reasons – losing players, possibility of relegation down the divisions etc. but most were aware that the club would survive as there were buyers in place for it as the evidence shows.

STV article from 2011 outlining what would happen if the Olcdo was liquidated, it’s very clear according to that rangers would survive and be the same club.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/277115-what-happens-when-a-club-in-administration-sets-up-a-phoenix-company/

duff and phelps in april 2012

"We cannot rule out the winning bid could prefer a different structure that meant the sale of the business to a new company and in that eventuality it is certainly possible that Rangers would be liquidated," co-administrator Paul Clark told a number of newspapers. "But it would only be done so after the football club was made safe."

lord glennie may 2012

"This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers").

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html

cva not agreed 12th june 2012 - hope that clears it up for you, another new club myth busted

FFP rules kicked in in 2011. The STV article must have been based on old info.

Duff and Phelps stuff is dubious. Their dealings in the affair have been brought into question many times. There was even a quote saying that the only time Craig Whyte looked worried going into administration was when HMRC objected to his choice of administrators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rangers fans wanted to avoid liquidation for obvious reasons – losing players, possibility of relegation down the divisions etc. but most were aware that the club would survive as there were buyers in place for it as the evidence shows.

STV article from 2011 outlining what would happen if the Olcdo was liquidated, it’s very clear according to that rangers would survive and be the same club.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/277115-what-happens-when-a-club-in-administration-sets-up-a-phoenix-company/

duff and phelps in april 2012

"We cannot rule out the winning bid could prefer a different structure that meant the sale of the business to a new company and in that eventuality it is certainly possible that Rangers would be liquidated," co-administrator Paul Clark told a number of newspapers. "But it would only be done so after the football club was made safe."

lord glennie may 2012

"This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers").

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html

cva not agreed 12th june 2012 - hope that clears it up for you, another new club myth busted

FFP rules kicked in in 2011. The STV article must have been based on old info.

Duff and Phelps stuff is dubious. Their dealings in the affair have been brought into question many times. There was even a quote saying that the only time Craig Whyte looked worried going into administration was when HMRC objected to his choice of administrators.

I just read the STV article. This piece from the last part is the most important.

If a “phoenix” club is created though, entry into European competition the following season would be affected. Transferring a membership is forbidden.

UEFA regulations state that a club must have been a member for three consecutive years in order to be eligible for a license. Any “phoenix” club would be considered as a new entity and would begin a three year wait from its inception before being eligible to play in Europe.

in·cep·tion

inˈsepSH(ə)n/

noun

the establishment or starting point of an institution or activity.

"she has been on the board since its inception two years ago"

synonyms: beginning, commencement, start, birth, dawn, genesis, origin, outset;

So as you can see, no seamless history. No history intact. A shattered historical timeline. New club, a phoenix club, with little more than a legacy. The transfer of membership was forbidden, a new membership with old membership number created. Edited by stonedsailor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ken you continue to come out with this pish time and time again without providing any supporting evidence that this means we are a new club, all the evidence contradiacts you as all the footballing, legal and business experts who have commented say we are the same club, you are denying reality when you claim we are a similar club with zero credible evidence to back you up

Charles Green could have called the bundle of assets he purchased anything he liked. Govan Gazelles FC, Broomloan Bankrupts FC, Pension Fund United FC etc etc.

We all watched the Old Club die. What supporting evidence does anyone need?

Wriggle and stamp your feet all you want.

'Similar Club' is actually better for you than 'New Club'. I'd stick with it.

Edited by Ken Fitlike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rangers fans wanted to avoid liquidation for obvious reasons losing players, possibility of relegation down the divisions etc. but most were aware that the club would survive as there were buyers in place for it as the evidence shows.

Truck off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truck off!

Can you sell a business without it's debt, I thought you could only sell assets debt free? Seems hugely open for abuse. Could I theoretically buy ICT and Ross County, Sell County debt free and leave ICT fooked?

Pretty sure Nacho seems to be talking as though rangers were sold in a stock sale as opposed to an asset sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've still never explained why they had to form a company (Sevco Scotland) to allegedly "hold" the club (PS what is a club, please expand), and form ANOTHER "holding company", Rangers International Football Club, to "hold" that.

It's almost as if Sevco was the club, and RIFC is the holding company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've still never explained why they had to form a company (Sevco Scotland) to allegedly "hold" the club (PS what is a club, please expand), and form ANOTHER "holding company", Rangers International Football Club, to "hold" that.

It's almost as if Sevco was the club, and RIFC is the holding company.

On the bright side, their insistence that it's the same club causes much spluttered indignation when you point it that that means they support cheats. They deny it of course - breaking rules for financial advantage is only cheating in insidious celtic propaganda rags - like dictionaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nope not something i have previously said, that is the role of the company,

feel free to present an argument on negative goodwill and what its relevance to the new club nonsense is using sources, and i will be happy to answer you ;)

I do not have to provide an argument, I know the significance. The fact that you do not is really not my problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've still never explained why they had to form a company (Sevco Scotland) to allegedly "hold" the club (PS what is a club, please expand), and form ANOTHER "holding company", Rangers International Football Club, to "hold" that.

It's almost as if Sevco was the club, and RIFC is the holding company.

What is a club? Easily answered.

Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence

Definition of licence applicant and three-year rule

1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible

for a football team participating in national and international competitions which

either:

a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated

league (hereinafter: registered member); or

b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football

company).

From the UEFA club licencing and financial fair play regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Clubs are not allowed to change their legal form or structure in order to obtain a licence, simply by ‘cleaning up’ their balance sheet while offloading debts – thus harming creditors (including employees and social/tax authorities) as well as threatening the integrity of sporting competition. Any such alteration of a club’s legal form or structure is deemed to be an interruption to its membership of a UEFA member association..."

You see, this bit pretty much confirms my reading of things.

Any continuation has not been seamless. This "interruption" idea counters the claims to an unbroken history.

Call yourselves the same club if you like, but don't pretend it's been seamless because it's not been. Rangers have the same right to consider themselves 'the same', as have Gretna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see, this bit pretty much confirms my reading of things. Any continuation has not been seamless. This "interruption" idea counters the claims to an unbroken history. Call yourselves the same club if you like, but don't pretend it's been seamless because it's not been. Rangers have the same right to consider themselves 'the same', as have Gretna.

Or the dog we got as a puppy when I was 5 and the 1 and the half year old chewing machine we have now. Or the new toothbrush I bought this morning and the one I chucked in the bin that it replaces. Or the cold remains of the cup of tea I made a couple of hours ago and the fresh one brewing in the pot right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...