Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Wings Over Scotland]

68.4.3.1 55% of the Excess, to be divided among the Full Member Clubs in the First Division;

Och, don't be so silly. The Constitution doesn't refer to clubs as "Full Members" at any point anywhere in its 207 pages. What it does regularly do throughout its length is distinguish between "Members" and "Associate Members". Doing so right in the middle of a Rule is staggeringly obviously not an accident.

You're also just factually wrong: Rule 68.4.2 refers to payments clubs based on league positions while talking about the Capped Limit, while Rule 68.4.3 separates them on the same basis in reference to the Excess, so the change in wording is nothing to do with that.

[Thumper]

Legover managed to confused 'someday' with somebody'. Hey ho, we all make mistakes.

They're pronounced the same in the Lanarkshire area.

[Pull My Strings]

Given that your username is Pull My Strings, i'm intrigued as to what your paying client is paying for!

Happy endings cost extra.

[Granny Danger]

Amazingly enough, you're jumping the gun yet again. It very much LOOKS to any impartial observer that TUPE will apply, but it hasn't yet. Charles Green has filed an objection to former Rangers players moving to other clubs, and the SFA has refused to release their registrations pending a hearing. Southampton have, we're told, actually paid a transfer fee in respect of one ot the players concerned to bypass the dispute.

I have no idea why you're so astonishingly doggedly determined to treat things as done-and-dusted facts prematurely.

I find that a very strange post. You're implying that the SFA will have some locus in deciding if TUPE will apply. They don't, neither will UEFA.

[Wings Over Scotland]

If we accept your logic then the Newco Rangers can negotiate their own TV deal as the rule that prevents them from doing so only mentions members this is rule 70.1:

Sorry, but that's bollocks, and you've even included the reason why it's bollocks in your quote:

must ensure that any such proposed

arrangement or agreement does not and will not conflict with the

commercial arrangements or sponsorship agreements contemplated or

already negotiated by the Board on behalf of the League as contemplated

in Rule 71 (Commercial Arrangements by the Board)

What does Rule 71 say?

71.1 The Board may negotiate and conclude contracts on behalf of the League

and its Members with commercial sponsors, broadcasters, publishers and

others for the benefit of Members and of League football.

71.2 Without prejudice to the generality of Rule 71.1, the Board may and shall

be entitled to conclude and execute contracts and agreements on behalf

of the League and all or some of its Members and Associate Members

[...]

71.3 Such contracts shall include but shall not be restricted to:

71.3.1 central sponsorship of the League Championship;

71.3.2 transmission and recording by any means of fixtures provided by the

League

In other words, the League may negotiate with broadcasters for the benefit of its Members (significantly excluding the phrase "and Associate Members"), and any arrangements that a club may make on its own behalf must not conflict with that arrangement.

In other words, the League may negotiate coverage on behalf of Members AND Associate Members (71.2) - that is to say, it can sell rights to Sevco matches - but may do so solely for the benefit of Members, ie it does NOT have to give any of the revenues from that coverage to Sevco FC. Sevco FC cannot sell the rights to matches if the SFL has already sold them to someone else.

You may of course regard that as unfair, but it is explicitly provided for in the rules, and may legitimately be considered one of the restrictions and disadvantages of Associate Member status.

[Wings Over Scotland]

I find that a very strange post. You're implying that the SFA will have some locus in deciding if TUPE will apply. They don't, neither will UEFA.

I'm not implying any such thing. I'm saying that the SFA have refused to release registrations until ordered by the relevant arbitrator to do so. The dispute is ongoing, whereas PMS stated inaccurately that it was resolved.

[Happy Buddie]

They're pronounced the same in the Lanarkshire area.

Emday any idea whit sumdy's talkin' aboot? Naebdy's goat a clue.

[Pull My Strings]

Wings, do me a favour and stop replying to my posts, there's a good chap.

[Yoss]

So people at large generally accept that Gretna 2008 are Gretna? That AFC Wimbledon won the FA Cup with Vinnie Jones? That Clydebank have always played junior football and that Airdrieonians had a bit of a temporary liquidity problem?

Wimbledon won the FA Cup, yes. They were then called Wimbledon FC and are now called AFC Wimbledon. Same club, in every meaningful respect - history, tradition, continuity of support, whatever else. Only the legal entity has changed. Likewise Gretna are still Gretna; Airdrie are still Airdrie (much as they shouldn't have been allowed to buy out someone else's league place). And Clydebank have not always played junior football, they used to be a league club. But still, same applies. Same club.

Leeds United are still Leeds United too, despite having their assets transferred to a newco just the other year. I've hardly heard anybody who seriously thinks otherwise.

[Wings Over Scotland]

Wings, do me a favour and stop replying to my posts, there's a good chap.

Gladly, the minute you stop talking pish in them.

[Granny Danger]

I'm not implying any such thing. I'm saying that the SFA have refused to release registrations until ordered by the relevant arbitrator to do so. The dispute is ongoing, whereas PMS stated inaccurately that it was resolved.

Yes you did, you implied it. You didn't state it but you linked a decision on TUPE with the appeal to the SFA therefore implying that the SFA appeal process bore some relation to whether or not TUPE applied.

If you re-read your post I think you will agree.

[Wings Over Scotland]

Yes you did, you implied it. You didn't state it but you linked a decision on TUPE with the appeal to the SFA therefore implying that the SFA appeal process bore some relation to whether or not TUPE applied.

If you re-read your post I think you will agree.

Will it be fun if we engage in a discussion about the difference between "imply" and "infer"? If so, let me know and we'll all have a jolly super time.

[welshbairn]

I'm not implying any such thing. I'm saying that the SFA have refused to release registrations until ordered by the relevant arbitrator to do so. The dispute is ongoing, whereas PMS stated inaccurately that it was resolved.

For clarity, the SFA have not refused to release registrations, they are powerless to do so. I just get tired of seeing them get blamed for everything..

On a procedural basis, the Scottish FA cannot process an International Transfer Certificate via FIFA’s Transfer Management System where there is an ongoing contractual dispute.

My link

[Wings Over Scotland]

For clarity, the SFA have not refused to release registrations, they are powerless to do so. I just get tired of seeing them get blamed for everything..

I wasn't blaming them, merely stating the fact. They have refused to release the registrations BECAUSE they are powerless to do so, but refuse they have all the same.

[Granny Danger]

Will it be fun if we engage in a discussion about the difference between "imply" and "infer"? If so, let me know and we'll all have a jolly super time.

I raised a minor but valid point. The response of most other P&Bers would have been 'fair enough'. You, however, are clearly a twat and I won't bother paying attention to you or any more of your posts.

[Wings Over Scotland]

Airdrie are still Airdrie

No they're not. They were Airdrieonians, now they're Airdrie United. They're not the same company, they don't have the same name and you won't find a single officially-authorised record listing Airdrieonians' achievements under the entry for Airdrie United, because they're actually a renamed Clydebank.

[The Old Northerner]

Wimbledon won the FA Cup, yes. They were then called Wimbledon FC and are now called AFC Wimbledon. Same club, in every meaningful respect - history, tradition, continuity of support, whatever else. Only the legal entity has changed. Likewise Gretna are still Gretna; Airdrie are still Airdrie (much as they shouldn't have been allowed to buy out someone else's league place). And Clydebank have not always played junior football, they used to be a league club. But still, same applies. Same club.

Can't say I'd agree with any of that

Leeds United are still Leeds United too, despite having their assets transferred to a newco just the other year. I've hardly heard anybody who seriously thinks otherwise.

The asset transfer to a NewCo was performed as part of an agreed CVA. Which seems to matter

[Fife Saint]

Wimbledon won the FA Cup, yes. They were then called Wimbledon FC and are now called AFC Wimbledon. Same club, in every meaningful respect - history, tradition, continuity of support, whatever else. Only the legal entity has changed. Likewise Gretna are still Gretna; Airdrie are still Airdrie (much as they shouldn't have been allowed to buy out someone else's league place). And Clydebank have not always played junior football, they used to be a league club. But still, same applies. Same club.

Leeds United are still Leeds United too, despite having their assets transferred to a newco just the other year. I've hardly heard anybody who seriously thinks otherwise.

I predict this will end in a foamy lather.

[welshbairn]

I wasn't blaming them, merely stating the fact. They have refused to release the registrations BECAUSE they are powerless to do so, but refuse they have all the same.

Getting pedantic here, but to quote Granny, refusal implies a choice.

[Wings Over Scotland]

I raised a minor but valid point.

No, you didn't. You made a mistake. You inferred something that was neither stated nor implied, then acted like a tool when your error was pointed out. I shall happily live without being obliged to engage further with you, though, so everyone's a winner.