Jas Boyd · @Jas72Boyd
9th Jan 2018 from TwitLonger
John Clark and @TheSFMonitor at it again.......................
Santa Clause and his dirty beard still writing letters to companies trying to sell his theory that Rangers are a new club. Thought i would write a reply which may look long and a waste of time but most of it was on a previous post.
"Whilst i have read your guidelines and some of below may infringe them (using links) i feel your readers really need to see this as a previous review mentioned below could wrongly influence people. I hope its written in full but feel free to contact me on the email address if you have any questions.
Good morning from the UK. I am a Company Finance expert in the United Kingdom and I was directed to a review written by Mr John Clark where he alleges your Directors are possibly exploiting fans with a view of getting fans money dishonestly. I write this in order to give you a right to reply and also for your Directors to consider if they should pursue Mr Clark under the Federal Defamation Law, as his false statements could harm the reputation of your Directors or Company and reading your laws closely, this over-rides the First Amendment.
To the absolute crux of the matter Mr Clark states that “the club that is participating” was “founded in 2012” and “only has a five year history”
This is a lie.
Rather than just cite a personal opinion of a rival soccer supporter like Mr Clark, I would like to set out the reason his statement is 100% false and set up why it could be defamation against your Directors and Companies. I will give you 8 points of reference including supporting links.
1) The first reference I should point to is one which we have been involved in with a potential litigation case in the UK which was eventually dropped when the following was found and presented to the pursuant’s solicitor. HM Revenue and Customs, during the sale process, released the following statement.
"A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.
So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start."
This confirms what Mr Clark seeks to deny, that the football assets being sold to another company allows the club to continue playing as is at Ibrox. The statement can be found in the UK Tax Gov archives here:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130502100322/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/rangers.htm
2) In relation to the false advertising claim against you, a similar attempt was made in the UK when soccer fans like Mr Clark who supported Rangers FC rivals complained to the Advertising Standards Agency about how the club was advertising. The advert claimed that Rangers were the “most successful club” and this was the point of the complaint.
The ASA ruled on this both in an initial finding and on appeal and wrote the following:
“Whilst the ASA acknowledged that Newco had not taken on all of the debts and liabilities of Oldco when it purchased its assets and that that would normally preclude a business from trading on the reputation of a liquidated predecessor company, we noted, having read its report in full, that both an Independent Commission appointed by the SPL and the ECA had reached the conclusion that the football club RFC was a recognisable entity in its own right, and that it had continued in existence despite being transferred to another owner and operator. We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the “sporting continuity” of a club’s match record, even if that club’s corporate structure had changed. We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football “club” varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner. The SFA further pointed out that, following RFC’s transfer to a new corporate owner, Newco did not take a new membership of the Scottish FA but rather that the previous membership was transferred across to them so they could continue as the same member of the Scottish FA. We considered that consumers would understand that the claim in question related to the football club rather than to its owner and operator and we therefore concluded that it was not misleading for the ad to make reference to RFC's history, which was separate to that of Newco.”
“given RFC's history, the claim "Scotland's most successful club" was valid and would not mislead.”
This can be found here:
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/the-rangers-football-club-ltd-a13-224406.html
It is very clear from the above the ASA in the UK determined through thorough investigation that Rangers FC were still the same club and NOT as Mr Clark has claimed a 5 year old club.
3) Moving on to Right Honorable Lord Nimmo Smith who during an investigation into Rangers FC use of tax schemes. The issue put to the Law Lord was this:
“Paragraphs 2 and 6 of the list of preliminary issues advance essentially the same argument, which is that on 14 June 2012, when the business and assets of Oldco were purchased and transferred to Newco, Rangers FC ceased to be a Club as defined in the Rules, and is accordingly not subject to the jurisdiction of the SPL, and thus of this Commission, in relation to any breach or breaches of the Rules committed in the period prior to that date. “
His response, in findings, concluded this:
“While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator.”
“While there can be no question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it.”
Lord Nimmo Smith is a top Law Lord with 40 years experience and this was his summary on the topic in a legal enquiry for the SPL who were the owners of the Football League Rangers played in at the time. He clearly states the club is a continuing entity in his legal and unchallenged findings.
This can be found here:
https://spfl.co.uk/news/article/commission-reasons-for-september-12-decision-2012-09-20/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Commission%20reasons%20for%20decision%20of%2012%20September%202012.pdf
4) Next up in the quest of understanding if the club is the same or not was the Chief Executive of the Scottish Professional Football League. Essentially this is the guy at the very top of the tree in The football League organisation and he said the following:
“In terms of the question about old club, new club, that was settled very much by the Lord
Nimmo Smith commission that was put together by the SPL to look at EBT payments at that time. The decision, very clearly from the commission, was that the club is the same, the club continues, albeit it is owned by a new company, but the club is the same.”
“The member club is the entity that participates in our league and we have 42 member clubs. Those clubs may be owned by a company, sometimes it’s a Private Limited Company, sometimes it’s a PLC, but ultimately, the company is a legal entity in its own right, which owns a member club that participates in the league. It’s the same club.”
You can read his statement in the local press here:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-same-club-existed-before-4904432
5) In another court case, the "Top" Lawyer "representing" Scottish Football who has represented SPFL, the SFL and indeed Celtic Football Club, who are Rangers oldest rivals, under oath, as he was a witness made the following comment:
"It was agreed that Rangers FC, NOW OWNED by Sevco Scotland, would play in the 1st division, but this didn't work out. The Club, with a capital C, had been sold to Sevco Scotland ltd."
Rod McKenzie was the solicitor for the League bodies in Scotland and the guy closest to most of this and he confirmed in a court of law that the club was legally sold on and therefore continued.
6) The top footballing body in Europe is UEFA whom im sure you are aware of. Their stance on the issue is very clear and can be found by clicking here on their website.
http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50121/profile/
This is the profile for Rangers Football Club with all their recent scores showing however the main point is on the right of the picture where it lists their Club record in UEFA competitions. If Mr Clark was correct and it was only a 5 year old club, they would only have played 2 games however UEFA confirm that Rangers FC:
Won the European Cup Winners Cup in 1972 (40 years prior to when Mr Clark claims they were born)
Biggest win:
28/09/1983, Rangers 10-0 Valletta, Glasgow
• Biggest defeat:
09/10/1963, Real Madrid 6-0 Rangers, Madrid
• Appearances in UEFA Champions League: 30
• Appearances in UEFA Cup Winners' Cup: 10
• Appearances in UEFA Europa League: 17
• Player with most UEFA appearances: 82
Barry Ferguson ( SCO)
• Top scorers in UEFA club competitions: 21
Ally McCoist ( SCO)
7) In yet another recent court case which went all the way to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK, Lord Hodge also confirmed the continuing club by making the following statement
“RFC 2012 plc which is now the name of the FORMER owners of Rangers Football Club”
This statement has not made many headlines as it appears innocuous however what Lord Hodge clearly distinguishes here is that Rangers Football Club has been sold onto new owners and that the company RFC 2012 plc (in liquidation) are the ones on the hook for whatever he is describing as opposed to the new owners of Rangers Football Club which are Rangers International Football Club plc
You can hear Lord Hodge make this statement at 5:22 in the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttN70tYubMM
8) The final reference point is the European Club Association (ECA) who are the sole, independent body directly representing football clubs at European level. It replaces the G-14 Group and the European Club Forum, both dissolved at the beginning of 2008. ECA are fully recognised by UEFA and FIFA.
Again, having been contacted by rival fans for comments the ECA were forced to release the following statement on Rangers Football Club:
"With regards to associated membership, the membership policy states amongst others that founding members are granted automatic membership. Taking into account that the 'new entity' also acquired the goodwill of the 'old entity', it was held by the ECA executive board that the goodwill, taking into account legal and practical arguments, also included the history of the 'old company'. Consequently it was concluded that Rangers FC was entitled to associated membership of ECA as considered to be a founding member."
You can read the report on this from Scottish Television here:
https://stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/rangers/205975-european-clubs-body-downgrades-rangers-status-but-recognises-history/
In summary, this issue has been dealt with in 3 different courts where 2 Top judges and the "Top" lawyer dealing with Scottish Football have confirmed Rangers are the same club. The issue has been referred to Advertising Standards in the UK and they have also confirmed same club. It went all the way to the top of the European Football Club association who also confirmed the same club and then you have the football authorities both in Scotland through the SPFL Chief Executive and UEFA own website confirming it’s the same club. Finally, and probably mainly, HMRC who more than anyone else in this whole equation should know Company Law inside and out confirmed that the Club could continue if bought by another company even if the original company went onto be liquidated (which by the way hasn’t happened yet despite Mr Clarks note that they have)
Instead of using a laymans opinion like Mr Clark who clearly only writes these things out of bitterness and hatred towards a football club, I have cited for you all references to prove his incorrect allegations and I sincerely hope you fire a warning shot across his brows at his potential hurtful claims against your Directors and Company."
I know it shouldnt but it still stuns me that these obsessive moon howlers believe people should listen to them and not all of the above recognised and official sources.