The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Leopard reappears, spots identical

Posted on June 14, 2012 by

We’ve been having a little poke around in the insolvency laws today, and we have to inform Wings Over Scotland readers with shame and regret that we made a mistake in our Rangers Liquidation FAQ a couple of days ago. It turns out that it is in fact permissible for a new company to take over the name of an old one, so long as the old company was purchased in the process of liquidation, an exemption which would seem to clearly apply in the case of Rangers.

In the light of bizarre and intriguing recent developments, then, we’re faced with an interesting prospect: a new Rangers FC, playing next season under the old name, in the old colours, with the old history, in the SPL, at Ibrox Stadium, led by Walter Smith, with the current playing squad, completely free of debt and with a £20m bank balance from season ticket sales. (After paying back the bargain-basement purchase price.)

One can only imagine the tone of triumph from the Govan club’s friendly supporters.

The Big Tax Case would be irrelevant, buried with the oldco, as would the SFA investigation into dual contracts and the punishment for bringing the game into disrepute. Tens of millions of pounds owed to the taxpayer would simply disappear in a puff of smoke, as would the millions owed to other football clubs, to Ticketus, and to hundreds of smaller creditors for whom the money could (and now will) be the difference between their business surviving and dying.

The new Rangers wouldn’t be eligible to play in European competitions for three years, but business would otherwise carry on exactly as it did last season without interruption. It doesn’t seem much of a punishment for 10 to 20 years of deliberate, blatant, industrial-scale cheating, robbing other clubs of tens of millions of pounds and driving the Scottish game to the brink of destruction in the process, does it?

The above is, of course, a best/worst-case scenario according to which side of the debate you’re on. Even if the new Rangers could secure an 8-4 Yes vote to their entry into the SPL, the SFA could apply conditions and sanctions, as could the other clubs in return for their vote. But the new Rangers could always renege on any promises it made (eg in respect of agreeing to a change in SPL voting rules or sharing TV money), and it could challenge any SFA conditions in the civil-law courts, were the SFA to be so toothless as to let them get away with doing it previously.

The press is reporting that the attitudes of several of the the other clubs in the top division is hardening against the notion of admitting the phoenix Rangers directly to the SPL. In the circumstances we can’t say we’re surprised.

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 17 06 12 05:48

    So what did you learn at school this week? – Scottish Roundup

19 to “Leopard reappears, spots identical”

  1. TheMaganator says:

    Are you sure, Wings? s216 seems pretty clear:

    216.— Restriction on re-use of company names.

    (1) This section applies to a person where a company (“the liquidating company”) has gone into insolvent liquidation on or after the appointed day and he was a director or shadow director of the company at any time in the period of 12 months ending with the day before it went into liquidation.

    (2) For the purposes of this section, a name is a prohibited name in relation to such a person if—

    (a) it is a name by which the liquidating company was known at any time in that period of 12 months, or

    (b) it is a name which is so similar to a name falling within paragraph (a) as to suggest an association with that company.

    The link to the ‘business’ site refers to the London Gazette – are you sure sure the information there is compatible with Scots Law?

    Reply
  2. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    That was my initial interpretation too, but S216 only applies to directors of the new company who were also directors of the old company, and in any event prohibited names are subject to the exemptions linked in the article.

    Good point about Scots law, though – need to check if it’s different to English re: insolvency, though I thought all UK companies were registered at Companies House and subject to the same rules. STAND BY.

    Reply
  3. Kenny Campbell says:

    The artist formerly known as Prince is now The Prince ?
     
    link to heraldscotland.com
     

    Reply
  4. Confucious says:

    I don’t thing your statement that “Tens of millions of pounds owed to the taxpayer would simply disappear in a puff of smoke” is quite accurate. The reason that HMRC refused the CVA was to better enable them to pursue the individuals who benefited from the EBT. They seem to be taking the view that it was the responsibility of the individuals to ensure that they paid the correct amount of tax. The unpaid tax and fines since White took over will be lost however as that was solely the responsibility of the club / company.

    Reply
  5. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    Indeed – the Small Tax Case money would be lost, and the PAYE and NI dodged by Whyte would be lost. I think that’s already over £10m. Bear in mind also that Murray and Whyte are pretty much broke, so even if HMRC could recover more from them than from a CVA it’s still likely to be a very long way short of what they – we – are owed.

    Reply
  6. Arbroath1320 says:

    Speaking from a point of absolute naivety and ignorance of all things related to the inner operations of Scottish football, can I just say that I believe the SFA have already made a rod for their own back.
     
    If my mind serves me right, and I admit it may not here, is the current Rangers situation not similar to that of Livingston and Gretna in the past. At least in terms of going into administration/liquidation. If so then these two clubs were unceremoniously kicked out of the SPL and down into the SFL Division 3.
     
    My blinkered point is this. If demotion to Division 3 is good enough for Livingston and Gretna then why is it not good enough for Rangers?
    Surely, any option other than demotion to Division 3 is tantamount to showing favouritism towards Rangers, something I am sure the rest of Scottish football would not take too kindly to. Immaterial of what the end result is with regards to players, grounds etc surely if the SFA want to show any sort of consistency then they have only one option, namely demotion to division 3.
     
    By following the precedence of previous decisions the SFA will, in my view, sort out the wheat from the chaff, in terms of Rangers supporters. I mean by this that only the die hard Rangers supporter will follow Rangers to Division 3, the “sunny day” type of supporter will disappear until Rangers returns to the SPL.

    Reply
  7. TheMaganator says:

    Yes, right enough – it seems that if the director bought RFC after the date of liquidation he’d be free to bash on?

    All very confusing… 

    Reply
  8. Kenny Campbell says:

    Gretna were relegated as they could not guarantee their remaining fixtures, Livingston as it was the second time they went bust. So the same but different.

    Reply
  9. Arbroath1320 says:

    The latest as per BBC is that Green has bought Rangers.
     
    link to bbc.co.uk
     
    It is claimed that he bought the club under a previously agreed binding deal. I assume this is the binding deal with Duff and Phelps. However, as H.M.R.C have their own accountancy firm looking into Rangers as a result of H.M.R.C. refusing the C.V.A. would they not take precedent over Duff and Phelps, particularly as I read, I think it was here, that Duff and Phelps would themselves be part of the H.M.R.C.’s accountants investigation.
     
    Could we yet see  this “rushed”, in my view, announcement of Green buying Rangers being overturned?
     
    I don’t believe that this announcement by Green is a done deal. I have a feeling there are more than a few twists and turns yet to appear, not least as a result of a) the C.V.A. being formally rejected this morning and b) the appearance of Walter Smith on the scene with more money would, I think seem to be a very attractive offer at least to the H.M.R.C. accountants.

    Reply
  10. Kenny Campbell says:

    I’m enjoying a 10 minute period of watching the anti Rangers brigade hand wringing instead of the Pro Rangers Battalion 🙂

    Reply
  11. TheMaganator says:

    @Kenny Campbell
    I am not anti-Rangers. I am pro-Hearts. I want our money for Lee Wallace. I take no pleasure in seeing any legitimate football (ie non-bigoted numpty) fan losing their club.
    It is your board I take issue with – not your fans.

    Reply
  12. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “I’m enjoying a 10 minute period of watching the anti Rangers brigade hand wringing instead of the Pro Rangers Battalion :)

    Hey, I’m just making sure nobody gets overconfident, eases off the pressure and lets their club vote New Rangers back in…

    😀

    Reply
  13. Randomscot says:

    I used to think the Rangers-Celtic stuff was bad until I saw the seething contempt Jambos have for Hibees, especially in the Wallace Mercer days.

    It’s SPL attitudes like that that made me the Petershill fan I am today

    Reply
  14. TheMaganator says:

    @Randomscot

    I am not sure that is true. Most Hearts fans I know see Hibs as being ‘the funny wee neighbour’ type – to be mocked and ridiculed. There is not the element of hatred that there is with the OF.

    I have only been watching Hearts for 25 or so years though so cannot really comment on the 70s/early 80s and before. 

    Reply
  15. Randomscot says:

    @ Themagnator

    I’m basing it on working in Edinburgh from 87 to 95, amongst Jambos and Hibees and weird displaced Old Firm fans of the east.

    The Old Firm had the visceral rage and hate, but there was a cold contempt from Jambos to Hibees, it was weird, not as weird as when they were talking about buying out the Hibs.

    It led me to think “this supporting a big club is madness, isn’t it, so, Springburn for me!” 

    Reply
  16. Kenny Campbell says:

    There was a tweet from Spiers today saying that some very strong rumours that HMRC have cut some deal, even if not true its put a few Celtic fans off their Jelly by all accounts.

    Reply
  17. John Lyons says:

    hmmmm….

    There are some other questions I’d like to ask.

    How did Craig Whyte ever expect to make money out of buying Rangers? I’ve never been able to get my head around that…
    How does Charles Green expect to make money out of buying Rangers? Same reasoning applies, no-one buys football clubs to make money do they?

    If the SPL clubs vote Rangers out, will Green walk away? Because he’s always said his deal is conditional to Rangers being in the SPL. If he’s rushed himself to Owner status because of the threat of Smiths bid will he live to regret it?

    If the SPL clubs vote Rangers out, and Green does walk away, will Smith still be intersted? He’s true blue, but is he true third division?

    Interesting times.

    Personally, I want Justice. My biggest fear here is that other clubs lose out on money owed to them by Rangers and are pushed dangerously close to closing down themselves. It would then only take one other club (I suspect Hearts Cause Mad Vlad is crazy enough to do it!) to see Rangers get through administration and liquidation virtually unscathed and to follow suit and if Hearts owe these same clubs similar amounts of money we’ll see clubs fold. Rangers need to be punished for thier crimes, not only because it is right that wrongdoers are punished, but also to deter others from copying.

    I feel some pity for Rangers fans, but not a lot. When you are down and need the help of other clubs to survive, you should not get money together and then refuse to give it to Dundee Utd. I think there’s a very real chance Utd will vote against Rangers being in the SPL, and if that’s the vote that sends them to the third Division I think the Rangers fans deserve it, not because of the actions of David Murray or Craig Whyte who have very nearly destroyed thier club, but because of thier own pettiness.

    Reply
  18. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “There was a tweet from Spiers today saying that some very strong rumours that HMRC have cut some deal, even if not true its put a few Celtic fans off their Jelly by all accounts.”

    Eh? Who would HMRC be cutting a deal with? They have no lawful interest in New Rangers or Charles Green – all of Old Rangers debts die with the oldco.

    Reply
  19. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “How does Charles Green expect to make money out of buying Rangers?”

    I’m just about to do a wee blog on that.

    Reply


Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.


  • About

    Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.

    Stats: 6,852 Posts, 1,232,333 Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • Cynicus on How Far To Go, How Far: “Mark Beggan says: 13 December, 2025 at 6:26 pm “I reckon 3-1 to St Mirren tomorrow.” ======== Is that a…Dec 14, 00:21
    • Lorncal on How Far To Go, How Far: “No, Hatey, I get it completely because I’m a woman, and my survival as a woman depends on my getting…Dec 13, 23:37
    • william G Walker on How Far To Go, How Far: “Saffron Robe is right in his forensic analysis as led by Stuart. He is also right in “objective reality” and…Dec 13, 22:30
    • McDuff on How Far To Go, How Far: “Rev you are worth your weight in gold!Dec 13, 21:34
    • Saffron Robe on How Far To Go, How Far: “Forensic analysis of the highest order, Stuart, of immense benefit to all those interested in the pursuit of justice which…Dec 13, 21:00
    • Hatey McHateface on How Far To Go, How Far: “Far more importantly, if the pattern on the carpet has left an indelible mark, what tartan is it? That’s the…Dec 13, 20:26
    • Hatey McHateface on How Far To Go, How Far: “@Alf Baird When you write that the need for decolonisation is “absolute and urgent” I wonder how it is that…Dec 13, 20:22
    • Hatey McHateface on How Far To Go, How Far: “You missed one, Northy, phallusy.Dec 13, 20:06
    • Hatey McHateface on The ginger stepchild: “Multiple accounts, Bilbo? How you must wish that was true. My “stalking” of you was me pointing out the quite…Dec 13, 19:58
    • Northcode on How Far To Go, How Far: “I meant to do this earlier, but forgot. Here it is now, better late than never. Correction: “through-away” in paragraph…Dec 13, 19:05
    • Mark Beggan on How Far To Go, How Far: “I reckon 3-1 to St Mirren tomorrow.Dec 13, 18:26
    • Andy Wiltshire on How Far To Go, How Far: “Mistakes tending to both sides of a controversial question roughly equally may well be just mistakes. If they all point…Dec 13, 16:49
    • James Barr Gardner on How Far To Go, How Far: “The real problem is ye jist cannae git the staff these days !Dec 13, 15:40
    • Marie on How Far To Go, How Far: “That’s EXACTLY what it looks like.Dec 13, 15:03
    • Sven on How Far To Go, How Far: “You’d know, I’m sure, I wish you well “James Cheyne”; were every independence minded Scot as single minded, determined and…Dec 13, 14:56
    • Northcode on How Far To Go, How Far: “Nae bother, James. The longer you stay around here the better as far as I’m concerned. And thanks for the…Dec 13, 14:55
    • Northcode on How Far To Go, How Far: ““But that flame still burns.” I’ll tell you what ‘burns’… YOUR SHITTY RHETORIC! BOOM!!! Northcode drops the “Ad Hominem”, arm…Dec 13, 14:46
    • James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “robertkknight, Better together, as the prime ministers statement once said. Why not have the upper ruling class grouped with the…Dec 13, 14:36
    • James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “North code. Thank for those kind words, It would appear that I could be here for as long as the…Dec 13, 14:23
    • robertkknight on How Far To Go, How Far: “I don’t think that there are any depths left to which the NuSNP Govt. won’t stoop. For years they’ve been…Dec 13, 13:55
    • Jill on How Far To Go, How Far: “Me too.Dec 13, 13:45
    • Stu on How Far To Go, How Far: “Lomcal, I don’t think there is. Like I said, if a judge was hypothetically going to go for a specific…Dec 13, 13:17
    • Rob on How Far To Go, How Far: “I normally don’t normally give much credence to conspiracy theories, basic incompetence usually explains most of the screw up. However…Dec 13, 13:16
    • Jill on How Far To Go, How Far: “The most generous reading of this debacle is that the judge is incompetent. I’m inclined to be less generous. Trans…Dec 13, 13:09
    • Northcode on How Far To Go, How Far: “I for one will be sorry to see you leave this place, James. Your stoical perseverance in acquiring and presenting…Dec 13, 12:58
    • Mark Beggan on How Far To Go, How Far: “Is that carpet burns on Swinney’s face?Dec 13, 12:50
    • James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “Thoughts for today, I will retire and make way for others after the two year long wait from DWP and…Dec 13, 12:36
    • Northcode on How Far To Go, How Far: ““…I write, as always, to educate the readers on the world’s most-read Indy website.” We uneducated plebians here on “the…Dec 13, 12:22
    • James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “The gender issue of how to use women and children spaces as a trademark fetish is dangerous. I suppose if…Dec 13, 12:06
    • Northcode on How Far To Go, How Far: “An excellent comment, Alf.Dec 13, 11:45
  • A tall tale



↑ Top