I meant of course financial experts. As I explained yesterday I have read lots of material relating to this case and NO ONE, not one person on TV or in the media has suggested such a course of action, let alone suggest it as a possibility. Why do you think that is?
Its all right mate. Everyone knows you dont have a law degree. It was just one of those statements you make in the spur of the moment, thinking you can get away with it. Just wrack it up to a brain fart mate. I was asking you basic questions to see you tie yourself up in knots. You still have not answered why Uefa attribute the history of old Fiorentina with New Fiorentina. This should be illegal according to you, but you will find its not, it is perfectly legal, because the implied history is transfered with the goodwill of the organisation. Have a look here :- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...stService.html and here :- http://www.dtz.com/Global/Who_we_are...gnLocale=en_GB See. Easy stuff. DTZ, pre-pack to a completely different legal entity, shedding their debt, yet look, they have kept their history. Put a fork in it, this argument is done!
Are you aware, and as a clever man I am sure you are, that a new company will not be “Rangers”? If Rangers goes into liquidation, then that club is at an end. Airdrieonians went into liquidation (and indeed was put there partly as a result of action taken by a company owned by Sir David Murray). A new company took over Clydebank and moved it to Airdrie’s stadium. That team is Airdrie United. It is not Airdrieonians. http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.c...sp-re-rangers-fc-in-administration/#more-1000
I have done much investigating of this point. Here is my post from another forum yesterday. Many have tried to liken the situation Rangers are in with Airdrieonians to suggest that Rangers will also lose their history. This idea is wrong, and it is very easy to prove. When Airdrieonians went into administration, they were in serious trouble. All was not lost, several bidders were interested in striking a deal with KPMG to take control over the assets. Unfortunately none of these bids were successful. The company holding the club of Airdrieonians entered the process of liquidation. All was still not lost, interested parties were in negotiations with KPMG to revive the club by selling on its key assets. The stadium, and the all important 'goodwill' which would allow the clubs history to remain intact. A local business man under the name of Jim Ballantyne had another idea though. Jim decided it would be more economically viable to start a whole new club, rather than purchasing the 'goodwill' and continuing the previous business. There were never likely to be any buyers for the club name after Jim Ballantyne, a chartered accountant, registered the name Airdrie FC at Companies House and applied for the SFL vacancy, effectively acquiring the club’s abbreviated name for free. Jim then purchased Clydebank Football Club and used the shell company to hold his entirely new entity. Airdrie FC was born afresh with no affiliation to the previous Airdrieonians. http://www.scotsman.com/news/airdrie-name-game-could-be-in-vain-1-568079# ************************************************************ This scenario is very different to the one likely to be facing Rangers if we go down the NewCo route. The 'goodwill' of Rangers FC is probably the most important asset of the current company. The history is too glorious to lose. The buyers know this and this will be the key asset associated with any sale. As long as this is purchased and transfered to the new company, Rangers history is intact.
When have i ever said what uefa does is illegal. I clearly pointed out that you can't add to your history. As for your examples i explained they own the copyright etc but are not the same company.
I doubt any potential new owners (or the current owner) apart from the BKs really gives a flying **** about good will or your history. You cannot sell memories.
It is being mentioned! "Leeds United offer the closest precedent. The club's member share in the Football League was transferred to a newco during the off-season. The newco inherited all of the previous company's playing records, and had a points sanction imposed on them, starting the season minus 15 points." http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/news/sport/299894-qa-how-a-newco-can-enter-scottish-football/ You have to remember though, the media have a vested interest into making headlines as explosive as possible! You are gonna be more likely to buy a paper that says "Rangers on the path to death!" than one that rationally explains the solution. Plus, we are talkign about football journos here! Half of them dont understand the offside rule correctly! If you listen carefully, you will notice none of the experts that have been on teh TV have mentioned that 'Rangers will lose their history' its always some journo that chips in with that.
"As goodwill is inseparable from the business in which it exists the presumption will always be that any goodwill attributable to the business has been disposed of to the new proprietor when a business is transferred as a going concern". Insolvent business are not "Going concerns"
A going concern is a business that functions without the threat of liquidation for the foreseeable future, usually regarded as at least within 12 months.
Have a read. Club record in UEFA competitions Biggest win in UEFA competition: 08/11/2007, Fiorentina 6-1 Elfsborg, Florence Biggest defeat in UEFA competition: 07/11/1984, Anderlecht 6-2 Fiorentina, Brussels http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=52817/profile/index.html Fiorentina liquidated and NewCo'd in 2002. Uefa have stated that AFC Fiorentina's biggest loss in europe was in 1984 (before the NewCo existed), and to that history they have added their biggest victory in 2007 (after NewCo) This is a demonstration of my method in action. Uefa obviously agree with me.
And you can only transfer "Goodwill" when a business is transferred as a "Going Concern". So tell me this, if Rangers FC go into liquidation, would they - in your opinion - be a Going Concern?
Nice try guys, but the business is transferred as a 'going concern'. This means that it is being transfered from its previous state, without liabilities. I.e. it becomes a going concern from a previous position of unknown financial stability! Otherwise, why would goodwill be transfered in Pre-Pack scenarios? "The benefits of the pre-pack are easy to outline and there is empirical research available, that has been conducted on behalf of R3 (the trade body for the insolvency profession) which demonstrates that pre-packs will tend to deliver at least marginally better realisations on balance than administrations that trade (usually at a loss) prior to achieving a sale, whether to a third party or existing management in some form. Moreover, and this is often highlighted as one of its key benefits, pre-packs will tend to preserve the jobs of many, if not all, of the company’s existing workforce. This is partly due to the fact that (pursuant to employment legislation) the contracts of employment will transfer to the purchaser but also because the administrator will rarely have the ability to meet the monthly/weekly payroll for employees following appointment. In addition to this, there tends to be little or no interruption to the operation of a business and much less likelihood therefore of significant damage to its goodwill."
