Menu Close

Strip Tease

Strip Tease by Saint Tim

I’ve been asked by some ‘Rangers’ supporting friends about the issue of title-stripping recently and mostly the conversation has revolved around whether they can be stripped from the new Rangers and, if so, whether that can be challenged.   I am not and don’t hold myself out to be a corporate lawyer but I’ve got a bit of experience in the area.  I also can’t guess what the outcome of the investigation will be.  Hopefully though, I am in possession of a reasonably logical approach to these things despite being an internet bampot.

To be honest, along with many others, I’m pretty fed up explaining basic law and common sense to Rangers fans.  Few of them actually listen and the fairy tales persist. Nevertheless, I’ll share with you my own response (there’s nothing new here, I just felt like sounding off) to my pet zombears and leave it up to you to make up your mind on whether I’m talking pish.

Actual History

Rangers Football Club was formed in 1873 and incorporated as a company in the early part of the 20th century. Incorporation is the process through which a business becomes a company. Note ‘becomes’. It does not sit within or on a corporate structure and it is not held by a holding company (a holding company is a company which holds the entire share capital or ‘stock’ of another company). Rangers Football Club is to be liquidated as the company became insolvent, entered administration and was unable to exit administration via a CVA. When the company is liquidated, that will be that. The club which was formed in 1873 will have ceased to be because the club and the company were (and currently are) the same. The assets were sold to another company which in turn formed a football club and applied and was admitted to the SFL as The Rangers Football Club.

Interpretations and Utter Bollocks

Now, there is an argument that a football club is about community, culture and its support. On that basis it can be argued that the club/company is simply the corporate or associative reference point for the identity of the community it represents.  On that basis I think that there is a case for saying that the current club ‘is, was and always will be Rangers’.  The support hasn’t changed (as evinced by recent and continuing behaviour), they play in the same place and represent the same ‘values’.  However, the argument for retention of history and titles stems from two different lines of argument. 1. That Sevco bought Rangers history (that is patently nonsense as one legal entity cannot buy another’s history any more than I can buy Danny McGrain’s or Rod Stewart’s (sadly). Sevco bought Rangers’ assets: heritable properties, intellectual property, goodwill but not history.  History is not an asset which can be sold, transferred or assigned between entities – it’s ridiculous that anyone actually has to spell that out); and, 2. that history somehow travelled to the new club via the transfer of association membership (association membership is simply a badge that says ‘professional club’ ‘entitled to compete in this set-up’ and ‘bound by the rules and regulations of the association’. Competitive history no more attaches to association membership than my mid-90s competitive history at Sensible Soccer attaches to my driving licence.). The only real argument for the current Rangers being the same as the soon to be liquidated Rangers is an emotional and community one. Personally (and I know it won’t be a popular thing to say on this forum but) I think there is real force to that but I’ve not heard one commentator argue it – they inevitably focus on reality-bending fictions.

Title Stripping

I don’t think titles will be stripped, however, the legal reality is crucial to both the ‘history’ and the title-stripping debate. The new Rangers (formed and incorporated in 2012), to my mind, has no legal title to challenge a decision relating to the recent competitive history of another club, which history predates its very existence. Presumably, the only entity entitled to challenge legally is BDO as liquidator of the original club. They won’t do that (even if offered the money by the RFFF) as there is no benefit to the club’s creditors.

However, Rangers, Sevco and the three governing bodies entered into a 5-way agreement in circa July 2012 relating to the new club being admitted to the SFL – so there may be an angle.  We know that the original draft of that agreement involved Sevco accepting and not challenging title stripping (this was removed).  The reason this was there in the first place was not because Sevco have any entitlement to the competitive history of Rangers but was presumably for two reasons: (i) because the Rangers support account for – give or take – 25% of the revenue of the Scottish game and, therefore, continuity between the old and new entities was vital; and, (ii) because the governing bodies realised that if the new club simply accepted that this was going to happen (against the ‘we accept this or its over’ backdrop) then a lot of emotional and probable legal turmoil could be avoided down the line. Green, however much of a crook, is sadly not a complete fool and he knows that the backing of the fans is imperative to his goals. Ergo, under no circumstances (with all of this occuring before the now unquestioning simpering love-in for the man) would he concede this.

If titles are now stripped by the SPL panel there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth but there may also be a legal challenge which is potentially going to make every member of that 5-way agreement look foolish.  The ‘same club’ myth has knowingly been perpetuated and reinforced by each of the 5 parties to keep the Rangers support (and the money that they bring) within the sport.  If ‘Rangers’ (funded by the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund) seek to challenge a ruling of the independent panel headed up by Lord Nimmo-Smith, my own feeling is that it could well fall at the first hurdle (legal title – i.e. basically, a legal relationship between the subject of the action and those bringing the action).  Given that the SPL presumably know this – I expect a ‘guilty’ verdict and an alternative sanction to title stripping which will be grudgingly accepted (quite what that might be I do not know).  The expected feral reaction of the Rangers support won’t concern the game’s custodians half as much as them taking their money away.

On one view, irrespective of the FTT(T) result, Rangers cheated the tax authorities and their contemporary clubs in Scotland for the best part of 20 years (why not declare these entirely innocent payment schemes/loans? – the obvious answer is, well, obvious).  It could be argued that retrospective title stripping will achieve little now but there is little doubt that, if the rules have been breached, there should be sanction.  My own view is that – if found to have been guilty – the titles should be removed (groundbreaking viewpoint, I know).  Whether they should awarded (to Celtic) is an issue which our support isn’t wholly united on if the message boards are any guide and I’m not going to get into.

p.s. A tale etched by a fud with a hard pencil

As an aside, I note that Green and Traynor are making noises about a tell-all book presumably revealing the extent of the skullduggery of the game’s governing bodies as the great and noble Rangers were shamefully relegated from the top flight.  I’d welcome it.

The SPL and SFA bent over backwards to rip up their own rule book and admit a new club to the top tier of Scottish football because that club could carry the name Rangers and play at Ibrox stadium.  They sounded off about armageddon and preached the doom of the game unless the most obscene carve up of sporting integrity imaginable was allowed to take place.  They met with people from Rangers and from Sevco with a view to putting this in place.  When it became apparent that it wouldn’t fly they admitted them to the SFL against their own rules requiring 3 years audited accounts for an applicant club.  When sanctioning for refusual to pay income tax, VAT and national insurance they put a transfer embargo in place but allowed the new club an entire window to get players in place BEFORE the embargo commenced.  The transfer embargo itself was the chose sanction (and ultimately accepted) because all of the parties (eventually) knew that the only reasonable and vaible alternative was the expulsion of the old club from the professional game – and the end of its all important membership.  These administrative gymnastics were the work of the SFA and SPL working outside of their own rules and, arguably, morality in favour of retaining some form of ‘Rangers’ in Scottish football.  Much of it was done with Charles Green and his representatives in the room.  Throughout all of it Jim Traynor was laying the blame for the financial collapse of Rangers at the door of the SFA and SPL (with a smattering of blame aimed at Craig Whyte for balance).

And yet, we’re meant to believe that they have it in for ‘Rangers’ and that Traynor and Green are the men to drag the truth, kicking and screaming, into the light?

Ach well, I suppose it’s not the internet bampots the Jim and Charles are transmitting to.

Hail Hail

Saint Tim ( Saint Tim is on Twitter –@UnderAnOverflow)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
21 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Estadio
11 years ago

OK…what’s the jackanory…..where’s my comment gone? Paranoia is turning to chronic neurotocism! (no I don’t know if it is a word either)

Hail hail

Estadio
11 years ago
Reply to  Desi Mond

I will do – I used the words Karaoke, microphone, sobriety and incontinence. 🙂

Estadio
11 years ago
Reply to  Desi Mond

23 years since Sharkeys was called that. My god, doesn’t time fly when you are stuck in a dissolute time warp, tortured by pre-incan indians for desecrating a sacred burial ground, and being kidnapped by the Bolivian branch of the medelin cartel. And what happens…..you return to Glasgow and they’ve changed the name of yer bleedin local!

Pensionerbhoy
11 years ago
Reply to  Estadio

Estadio

I have been a wee bit doon in the mooth with the flu so just taking a quick whirl. When I saw your post and Desi’s comment, I decided to stick to the Hail Mary. I bet Bedford finds something in it – 15/1 Amen. Can I just say that I have played catch up and there are some great reads.

H H

Kieran
11 years ago

Sensible soccer, what a game. Hail Hail

schoosh71
11 years ago

‘Rangers Football Club was formed in 1892’. They have three birthdays then. A perfect example of, if you say something often enough it then becomes fact. For over a 130 years the zombies believed they were born in 1873, but no, we are told that all those people who created and supported them for over a century were all wrong. rangers won the cup winners cup in there centenary year didn’t you know.

Goodwill can only be sold if the company is a ‘going concern’ and there is a formula to calculate it. Not the £1 step-toe claims to have paid.

Sevco are not yet full members of the SFL. The 5-way agreement states they will accept punishment for oldco sins as a condition of gaining full membership.

Stripping of titles, cups and handing back prize money won is not a punishment, it should be a given. They should be fined for every game they fielded an in-eligible player. For every season that their cheating stopped another SPL club for gaining entry to Euro competitions, they should be banned.

Looking forward to a 5-titles party.

HH

11 years ago
Reply to  schoosh71

Schoosh, totally agree. If found guilty, the only right thing to do is to attempt to rectify the wrongs. That begins with the removal of titles, silverware, and any game they played unrecorded as void. Titles and trophies cannot be awarded to another team, due to the simple fact that it is impossible to calculate, say, a team knockked out by Oldco in an earlier round,may, or may not, have went on to win the trophy. It is a given that all prize money forfeit. Yes, runner up money too! Sevco, as part of the 5 way agreement, are responsible for this football debt! History shall record these events. Then punishments can be thought of.The Rangers should then be allowed the choice. New club, or same club. Whatever the overall impact of this to Scottish football…Tough! It can be re-built with a clear conscience. Talks are already underway regarding rebuild. Let’s do it justly!

Saint Tim
11 years ago
Reply to  barcabuster

I agree with you both – I just have my doubts that it’ll happen for the reasons given.

Schoosh – cheers for highlighting that wee error. Interesting point on goodwill and conceptually I think you’re right. However, the reality in this case is that the goodwill attaches to the brand and the manifestation of the brand for a football club is the colours, badges, trademarks etc so the goodwill did essentially move across – it would be hard for it not to when your customer base is unlikely to switch allegiance.

11 years ago
Reply to  Saint Tim

I agree Saint that if a guilty returned, then some sort of compromise or amalgum of punishments will be applied, but a political solution, is rarely the correct one. Some may saye the above sanctions are too severe, but ultimately, they are of Sevco’ choice. Chuckie could have bought the assets, and named the new team playing there Joe Blogs Utd. However he wanted to poach Oldcos fan base. They are only too happy to oblige believing them to be the same entity as before. Equally, they could have chosen to accept Rangers were no more, and support Joe Blogs Utd. They have made their bed, and chosen to lie in it. So be it!

schoosh71
11 years ago
Reply to  Saint Tim

I’m really hoping the BDO agrees with you, so that the ‘Goodwill’ is seen as a tangible asset and the consortium (ticketus) should have paid an awful lot more than the £1 green and duffer bros said it cost.

HH

c’mon the Hoops

Saint Tim
11 years ago

Apologies that should read 1873 as stated. The correct incorporation date was 1899. A wee bit slack on my part there.

AntoniousF
11 years ago

I now believe i am Elvis Presley. i am just telling everyone i bouught his history. now off to wangle my way into his estate. I aint nothin but a hound dog

11 years ago

If they, the Sevco supporters, had a choice between being stripped of their titles or being stripped of their sectarianism and bigoted culture I believe most of them would quite easily give up their deluded titles. You don’t mess with the REAL values eh!

keddaw
11 years ago

If Sevco have no link to the old company apart from legally purchasing their assets then there is no legal or moral obligation to cover ANY of the debts of the old company.

The SFA should be severely punished by UEFA for breaching their own rules to allow a new company with no audited accounts membership.

The SFL can do pretty much what it wants.

The SPL should be disbanded for trying to allow a brand new company with no accounts direct entry to the detriment of the 30 SFL clubs and against their own regulations as well as deliberately damaging their own negotiating position with the TV companies in order to force their own members to vote in favour of the new company being granted direct entry (very much against the wishes of the fans/customers).

The SPL should award all games played where any players were not properly registered as a 3-0 defeat (which might nullify some of our great victories over Rangers!) and alter league positions and cup wins accordingly. Should Rangers still be top (they won’t) in any given season then a decision will have to be made if their consistent and wilful disregard for the rules has been sufficiently punished, such titles may then also be stripped. Scottish cup victories will be up to the SFA to strip if dual contracts also breached SFA rules.

Prize money will have to be sued for, but since there is already a large list of creditors for the soon-to-be liquidated company with no remaining assets it is debatable whether it is worth the lawyers fee to even make a claim.

Sevco owes nothing, except a massive debt of gratitude at being given so many gifts from the SFA and SFL to be allowed to join in the senior ranks of Scottish football without having to go through the same hoops as ICT, Ross County, Pollok, or Spartans. The only fly in the Sevco ointment may be a claim on their stadium by DBO should they decide that the £100m complex was sold at beneath market price to Green’s consortium (and not Sevco apparently…)

11 years ago
Reply to  keddaw

A well thought out and reasoned assessment and would be happy for that path to be followed Keddaw. The important part of your comment being the very small, and first word…”If”….Unfortunately Sevco are claiming much more than a mere “connection” to Oldco. They are claiming they ARE Oldco.! A decision brought about by Mr Green which he has encouraged to fill his second hand stadium. I can’t help but feel that a different tack was available to him which would have had the same effect. Much like Robert the Bruce at the end of braveheart. (Don’t laugh, hee hee) You bled with Wallace, Now bleed with me! (Joe Blogs Utd). The whole matter would have been simplified and maybe the rabble wouldn’t be roused.

scholzybhoy
11 years ago

na a wid have john holmes history masell…….WELL THE OBVIOUS BITS ANYWAY NO THE END BIT, YE KNOW THE WAY THE BUNS TRY AND PICK AND CHOOSE ?

Pensionerbhoy
11 years ago

S T

Great read even with the flu. An interesting week from all sides seems on the way. I have butterflies but that could have more to do with Kilmarnock than Govan.

H H

Saint Tim
11 years ago
Reply to  Pensionerbhoy

Thanks sir, get well soon. Hopefully the lads will put on a show tonight to perk you up. I’d say they owe us that much.

Follow us on Twitter @ETimsNet

Discover more from eTims

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading