With UEFA announcing a ban on Malaga competing in Europe next year due to monies owed to the tax authorities, and closer to home Hearts and their fans making every effort to pay HMRC to avoid a winding-up order, it is especially crass to say the least, that The Rangers are holding 140 year anniversary parties and crowing about being cash-rich and debt-free after dumping up to £140m in debts.
Even worse, they claim to be the same club as the legal entity placed in liquidation earlier this year.
With the acquiescence of the Scottish MSM and the complicit silence of the SFA, The Rangers has been allowed to promulgate the fiction that football "clubs" are separate from the "holding companies."
Like all the best lies, this has an element of plausibility.
Rangers FC plc WAS separate from its old holding company, MIH, and its final holding company The Rangers FC Group, both of which at one time owned the majority shareholding in Rangers Football Club plc.
But neither of those companies have been liquidated, Rangers FC plc itself has been.
As I covered in my previous blog, there is no separate club and company. When clubs incorporate as Rangers FC did in 1899, they BECOME companies.
Rangers FC was founded in 1872, incorporated in 1899, and went into liquidation in 2012.
Scottish soccer fans would be wasting their time if they lobbied the SFA to show some leadership and declare The Rangers FC is a brand new club formed in 2012, with no connection to Rangers FC other than being the new owners of their real estate.
The only way to stop the Scottish media and football authorities allowing the "same club" myth from taking hold is by forcefully bringing the issue to the attention of UEFA, whom I suspect are not in possession of the full facts of the case.
There are two reasons why UEFA would have no option other than to declare The Rangers unambiguously a new club.
First of all, their own licensing regulations would prevent the myth being allowed to take hold.
UEFA define clubs as "legal entities responsible for a football team." Please note, not "responsible for a football 'club'." A "team." There is a significant difference.
UEFA do not recognise Charles Green 's definition of a club, ie, "the stadium, training ground, colours, badge and history."
Charles Green in effect has made "Ramgers " a brand, or a franchise, not a legal entity responsible for a football team.
Secondly, UEFA's Financial Fair Play regulations are dead in the water if the SFA is allowed to dupe UEFA into recognising The Rangers as the club formed in 1872.
How can UEFA ever make any club meet its financial obligations if these can be avoided simply by liquidating and selling the assets to a friendly businessman? Why would any club ever again WANT to meet its financial obligations if it can simply switch "holding company" and dump any amount of debt?
UEFA must be informed of the full facts of this case and pressed to insist the SFA move to promote Financial Fair Play in Scotland.
I believe only a grass-roots fans movement, similar to "Say no yo the newco" will be sufficient to end the myth that The Rangers is a club formed in 1872.
I am willing to use this blog to get such a movement up and running.
I have no pretensions to front or run such a campaign, others will be far better qualified and equipped than me to do so, but please, if you are a fan if any Scottish club and are willing to do anything to help get things moving, let me know.
I will do anything I can through this blog to start and promote a movement to end the myth that the club and company are separate and that The Rangers was founded in 1872.
Rangers died through apathy. Don't let their successor club win this propaganda war through apathy too.
the first step should be to ask UEFA this, if newco qualify for a UEFA say in 3 years time, the following year would their co-efficient points be added to the rangers team currently sitting at number 88 or would they be shown elsewhere under another name?
ReplyDeletethat answer alone would provide a direction on the next step.
It would be a pertinent question Al, but I fear UEFA have been misinformed of the situation by the SFA.
ReplyDeleteWe need to ensure UEFA know the full facts.
It's pretty clear to any sensible person that both the SFA and UEFA see The Rangers as a new club, given that they had to start again in SFL3 (they were NOT demoted), and they're unable to compete in Europe until they have the sufficient number of years' accounts to meet the criteria for clubs entering the competition. Even Charles Green himself said prior to liquidation that if it went ahead then the club would die.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that even if the SFA and UEFA came out with a joint statement that The Rangers are indeed a new club, it wouldn't change a thing - the same number of people will believe they carried on regardless, and it suits the club to feed this belief, especially when it helps to line their pockets and those of their co-investors.
It's down to beliefs at the end of the day, and we all know a person's beliefs are rarely rooted in fact.
I say leave them to it.
I have some sympathy with that view David, but with The Rangers determinedly claiming to be 140 years old, this will soon be accepted it it is not challenged.
ReplyDeleteA pronouncement from UEFA, I believe, would kill it stone dead.
Not sure how to go about this but maybe someone is in a better position to do so.
ReplyDeletePerhaps one way would be for one of the clubs who have been punished to raise the question with UEFA as to why they appear to have been treated differently from a club in Scotland who appear to be guilty of exactly the same thing.
Anyone know any Malaga supporters?
Could be done mileage in that.
DeleteOr "some" mileage even!
DeleteThere has to be a certain "andy dufresne" about contacting UEFA.. - when he wrote for the library books he wrote once a week, for 3 years - before they finally got back to him.
ReplyDeleteI too believe they are a new club... - a team that celebrates 140 is cheating there fans.. (why celebrate it a month ago - when it should have been march) i believe they are clutching at straws.
It is true to say as well about the malaga situation however you only have to look at ACF Fiorentina - rebranded in 2002 from AC Fiorentina.. UEFA see them as the same club - http://uk.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=52817/profile/index.html
It may be difficult - they had debts of 50m dropped it - failed to exist and reformed in 2002 - bought the names and strip and thats them seen as the same club
is it worth the time and effort?
There's something I can't put my finger on about the Fiorentina situation.
DeleteI can't find any English language accounts of what went on although the ever-reliable Wikipedia says something along the lines of, "Florentina Viola bought the rights to the Fiorentina name and colours."
I suspect there's more to the story.
finally - i should say.. as part of punishment these clubs should always be reminded of there financial mis management - am really surprised about malaga - because they have one of the richest owners in the world yet they have got so much debt -
ReplyDeletethe website shows rfc's last game, I would be more concerned if they were showing latest game as yesterday. Maybe though a two pronged attack? How about also Andy Dufresning the HMRC to disallow use of rangers in new clubs name? we won't let it lie. they're kaput and won't get away with their lies deceit and theft.
ReplyDeleteThat's definitely worth considering.
ReplyDelete