New rangers or SEVCO, whatever you want to call them have fans who are making paranoid claims about being relegated etc etc. if the Scottish media had been open to them, then this victimisation culture would never have arisen. What has actually happened? The old rfc are about to be liquidated. The holding company was Wavetower. Clubs have holding companies when one person owns most or all of the shares. In the case of Celtic, who then is the holding company? Answer... We don't have one because the shares are owned by thousands of people. Holding companies allow transfer of profits and losses across the greater holdings, so reducing tax liabilities and limiting overall liability, but a holding company cannot be created by multiple share holders, but only when a vast majority of shars belong to one person. Consequently, rfc, the club is being liquidated because of the unpaid debts. When we buy shares in Celtic we buy shares in the club, not a holding company, because there is none. Rfc according to the kit kat argument, which was rejected by the FA and the courts in Engand in the case of Southampton must have held membership, concurently with two organisations, the SFL and the SPL. This of course is not possible and is proof that the kit kat argument holds no water. When rfc went into liquidation, their membership of the SPL is automatically suspended and then later transferred to Dundee. Rfc membership of the SFA then ceases to exist, as the club is in liquidation. Rfc membership is then transferred to SEVCO who call the new club TRFC. In this process SEVCO inherit the history of rfc, as this transfers with the SFA membership, as with Airdrie United inheriting the history of Clydebank. In conclusion, SEVCO retain and inherit the membership of rfc, but TRFC is unsquestionably a new club. The media should have explained this to rfc fans, who would not have developed the paranoid victim role created by the likes of Green etc. For those who doubt this outline of the new club and perpetuate the kit kat viewpoint, some questions. Who are the holding company of Celtic? Could Manchester United simply liquidate the holding company removing the debt and yet, retain membership of the epl? Could Manchester United then hold dual membership of the epl and the fl? How did rfc hold dual membership concurrently ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19292124 By Alasdair Lamont BBC Scotland Rangers marked their first home match in the Third Division with an emphatic win, but had to work for the points.
Reinforces the point. Would halo clarify the real situation if the media made it clear that this is new rangers rather than rangers or referred to them as The Rangers. Never mind BDO may well clarify the issue for us.
will be interesting if bdo do follow through with what was said in june. i expect a further media campaign about kicking them while they are down. If traynor was not allowed to buy the airdrie badge without taking on the debt i cannot possibly see how they can play under the name rangers with the same kit and badge.
As far as I can gather, if they manage to operate for 12 months after FULL liquidation, as opposed to going into liquidation, they can legally retain the badge etc. BDO as we know will not be handicapped by political pressure in the background as HMRC were. BDO should simply operate the liquidation in the interests of ALL creditors and not simply HMRC. I think that there is much more flack coming the way of TRFC and CG. BDO should as I understand it surely challenge the sale of assets, which have been greatly undervalued. Will be interesting to see if they do and even more interesting to await their explanation if they do not.
Does anyone know what rent, if any, Sevco are paying for the use of Ibrox and Murray Park. Charlie Green promised to change the name of Murray Park, but has forget to tell the Seccoittes that he can't as he doesn't own the Park.
