Why the word Sevco matters

Published on 16 December 2012

Yes, Sevco. Yes, a different club. Yes, it matters.

Debates will, and do, rage about the legal status and definition of a club and there’s a brand new conversation happening in Scotland over which components are required for a club to exist. However, most of it doesn’t really matter in the overall picture, because the heart of this story has nothing to do with combing through football regulations to define a club, at the heart of it is injustice.

This is about injustice, and everyone who continues to use the word Sevco instead of Rangers is standing up to it.

Respect to you all.

Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872 and went bust in 2012 owing millions of pounds to 276 creditors, including the taxman.

Please, read that again. Millions of pounds, 276 creditors. They will never be paid.

The new guy at the helm, Charles Green, took up his part in the pantomime in 2012 when he bought the assets of Rangers for a small £5.5m and formed the NewCo. The original name of the company, Sevco Scotland Limited, was later changed to The Rangers Football Club.

Yes, the new team plays at Ibrox. Yes, the new team plays in blue. Yes, the same supporters go to see them and yes, that is probably satisfactory enough for those supporters to believe it is the same club.

That’s understandable. What isn’t understandable is the turning of a blind eye to the carnage left behind by old Rangers. The mess left by the club was shameful.

Rather than acknowledge the extent of the damage caused by this sorry episode to Scottish football – and society, remember that the taxman was left out of pocket, as were a number of public services – the reaction of the NewCo has been to act with complete defiance and the fans have a renewed love of the “We Are The People” slogan.

Sevco is not a demoted Rangers. Rangers went out of business. The club went bust. Sevco is a new club and rules were created on-the-go by the SFA to accommodate it. Sevco is lucky to be in the Third Division, other small clubs which have paid their dues should have been ahead of them.

And yes, the club has thousands upon thousands of fans and had the SFA followed the rules that were already in place it would have left those fans without a club to follow this season. It is pretty unthinkable, but imagining my local High Street without Woolworths was unthinkable once as well. Me, the customer, I lost out because of a financial crisis that I played no part in. However, rules weren’t rewritten because the situation was unfair to the loyal customers. It’s the ruthless nature of business, it just doesn’t seem to apply to Rangers.

Football is a sport, bending over backwards to accommodate a club, or its many fans, makes the validity of the competition questionable.

The mainstream media is not reflecting the truth of this story and is largely happy to go with the “same old Rangers” line without significant challenge.

Thankfully, Scottish football fans aren’t so forgiving. They see the fundamental injustice of this saga and find the same-club claim insulting.

Now that the internet has provided the platform and the tools to bypass the mainstream media, don’t expect those fans to get any quieter about it.

The word Sevco matters. History is not just about the trophies won on the pitch, it’s about conducting business properly, fairly and within the rules. Rangers didn’t play the whole game and it will be another injustice if we allow ourselves to forget it.

188 thoughts on “Why the word Sevco matters

  1. joe December 16, 2012 at 5:08 pm Reply

    good blog Angela.

  2. faza2010 December 16, 2012 at 5:14 pm Reply

    What a refreshing and honest post Angela, well done and thanks!

  3. peter hilland December 16, 2012 at 5:49 pm Reply

    Well said,I’m sick to death of the media especially making compensation for this mob.if I didnt pay my bills I would be out on the street.well done Alison

  4. peter hilland December 16, 2012 at 5:50 pm Reply

    Sorry meant Angela x

  5. fatmidget December 16, 2012 at 5:54 pm Reply

    Agree 100%..they’re now adding Montrose to the list of enemies for putting a factual paragraph in the programme. It seems that
    a)they’re going to completely ignore any factual reasoning that doesn’t follow the ‘same club’ party line (which a compliant media assists in)
    b) wipe any possibility of wrongdoing (& financial carnage) from their collective consciousness

    Think they seem tks believe if they stick their fingers in their ears for long enuff, it will be business as usual, back to the old days, when everyone’s forgotten in a year or so time

    If it’s same club…..
    Q1.why did u play in early round of Scottish cup this season?
    Q2 why did both RFC (IA) and Sevco hold separate SFA memberships earlier this year?

    • Mckimmie December 16, 2012 at 6:29 pm Reply

      If its a diffrrent club, why is this title stripping on the table. Make your minds up

      • Tony December 16, 2012 at 6:51 pm

        It wont affect “The Rangers FC”, they have never won anything.
        The Old “Rangers FC” may be stripped of titles if its proven they did not register the double contracts…which would prove the Titles the old club won were done so by cheating.

      • Fairplay December 16, 2012 at 7:03 pm

        Title stripping is on the table since the OLD club should still be stripped of titles for cheating. The fact that they don’t exist any more doesn’t make their cheating fair. Simple.

      • James December 16, 2012 at 9:49 pm

        The titles that were unfairly won have nothing whatsoever to do with the newco and that’s why Green said they won’t take part in the process. He said they were never in the SPL and on that point we are all agreed.

      • Fionnbharr Leodhas (@Alba_Bhoy) December 17, 2012 at 10:32 am

        After all this time they still don’t get it! LOL

      • sarissa December 17, 2012 at 10:47 am

        So if this new club are winners or runners-up in the Scottish Cup in May 2015, they won’t lay claim to the old club’s UEFA co-efficient points and be happy to be unseeded at every stage of the Europa league?

        That’ll be right.

    • William Wilson February 4, 2013 at 8:27 pm Reply

      As a punishment for what previous regime, do u think they were just gonna walk in & b top seeds, the original SFA membership was transferred to new company which means newco is just a continuation of oldco, it’s same club I admit just but same never the less, legal papers tell u wot was bought, business history assets, these r legal court of law papers, r u saying that its lies, u just have 2 accept its the same club

      • peter keicher March 16, 2013 at 6:25 pm

        if that was true im sure pinochio green would be waving the reciept that says you can buy a companys history in our faces but im sorry as there isnt a prosses in britain or europe that allows you to buy someone or somethings history after death or liquidation,sorry mr wilson your old club is officially history in the

        past ,deceased,dead,not alive,sound familliar

  6. Cozzy December 16, 2012 at 6:06 pm Reply

    This blog belongs in a fanzine

  7. James Atherton December 16, 2012 at 6:07 pm Reply
    • James Boco December 16, 2012 at 6:30 pm Reply

      Team #105 – FC Unirea Urziceni.

      Disolved in 2011


    • Tony December 16, 2012 at 6:35 pm Reply

      Yeah it says Rangers FC…Not “The Rangers FC” which is the new club.

      • kiza December 16, 2012 at 8:11 pm

        First of all if you knew anything about the history of the club,which it’s clear that you don’t,you would realise that the name of the club has always been The Rangers Football Club.

        Now as for club continuity,the transference of the SFA Membership, obtained by the club in 1874,is the original membership of that association which continues unabridged from The Rangers Football Club PLC to The Rangers Football club Limited,therefore carrying historical continuity of the club. Secondly,in a football context the club is recognised as continuos by the European Club Association,which is funded by UEFA and fully endorsed by UEFA and FIFA.

        There are many clubs that have went through the same liquidation process that have had their club continuity recognised by UEFA,why should this not apply to Rangers,a member club of UEFA. Or is it simply just in Scotland that there is a refusal to recognise the club continuity because of the hatred against the club.

        Here’s a question for you;as UEFA recognise SSC Napoli,AFC Fiorentina,
        Strasbourg,Middlesborough among other clubs history and continuity that went through this process do you?

      • Angela Haggerty December 16, 2012 at 8:13 pm

        The company was originally called Sevco Scotland Limited, the name change required renaming the old club before the new club could call itself The Rangers Football Club. As for the rest of the post, refer to my article.

    • paulsatim December 16, 2012 at 11:51 pm Reply

      James Atherton, why, if you hold the cursor over the rfc badge does the cursor not find a link to that team, when all the others do? Also go to this link on eufa web site, http://www.uefa.com/search/index.html#Rangers FC&c=50121&ob=c It shows rfc’s last game was v St Johnstone in May 2012. RIP !

      • Adam December 17, 2012 at 5:05 am

        The UEFA website only updates teams in the Top League. Look up Dunfermline Athletics page and look at their last game. Do the same with Blackburn Rovers as well.

        Are you saying Dunfermline and Blackburn are dead ?

  8. Frankie B December 16, 2012 at 6:10 pm Reply

    “Newco”. There’s an interesting term. It clearly means new company. Not new club. Rangers are not a new club, just run by a new company. This has been recognised by the likes of the Scottish Football League, the UEFA-backed European Club Associiation, and even Lord Nimmo-Smith and his legal colleagues on the Scottish Premier League tribunal. Fans of other clubs can obsessively cry “You’re dead” all they want. That won’t make it so.

    • Angela Haggerty December 16, 2012 at 6:15 pm Reply

      Rangers went out of business because of debts run up by the club, this new distinction between company and club has been invented to suit the Sevco narrative.

      • William Wilson February 4, 2013 at 8:47 pm

        Rangers were formed in 1872, in 1899 they created a company to operate the club, there r 2 seperate entity’s here, as lord nimmo smith stated, the club is an asset of the PLC which among everything else apart from 3 years of accounts was bought by sevco, so lord nimmo smith a legal law expert is wrong as is legal court papers stating that the business history assets were bought by Charles greens consortium

      • Angela Haggerty February 4, 2013 at 9:01 pm

        They are not separate entities. In 1899 Rangers Football Club changed its legal status when it was incorporated. The company and club were the same thing. When the club could no long pay its bills, the company and the club simultaneously went out of business. What Charles Green bought was the assets of that club, not the club itself.

      • William Wilson February 4, 2013 at 11:46 pm

        Yes they r seperate entities, the courts ie lord nimmo & even the liquidators BDO say they r, who do u want 2 believe, it’s the same SFA membership downgraded yes but same membership, that means that original club continues, UEFA have ranked us 88, we wouldn’t b there if we r new club, the sale & purchase documents which r legal court papers state wot Charles greens guys bought , r u saying these people r liars, how can u say we r new club, the proof is right there in black & white

      • William Wilson February 14, 2013 at 9:57 pm

        Angela why is it the whole world with the exception of urself & fellow embarrassing super rangers haters keep denying we r same club, don’t really need 2 answer that do I, u have a nice night now. WATP 1872 lives on whether u like it or not, the official, legal hard facts of the matter r there for all 2 c, just take the time 2 google it or r u scared 2 find something u don’t want 2 read

    • Tony December 16, 2012 at 7:00 pm Reply

      They are a new club.
      Charles Green bought the “assets” of the old club….He is building a new club with the carcass (assets) of the old club
      If he bought the club they would not be in liquidation and they would still be alive but with huge debts to pay.

      • William Wilson February 4, 2013 at 8:15 pm

        No he bought the assets of the PLC which was rangers fc among other things, the only thing he didn’t buy was 3 years of financial accounts that doesn’t make us a new club, SFA, UEFA, ECA, SFA. SFL, lord nimmo smith, London stock exchange, share certificates, sale & purchase documents, BDO all say club survived these r official legal hard facts, deal with it

      • Angela Haggerty February 4, 2013 at 8:58 pm

        They’re not. The club went out of business.

      • William Wilson February 5, 2013 at 12:16 am

        When a club is incorporated angela a seperate & distinct legal entity is created, an incorporated club acts independently of its owners, so the company & the club are seperate, legal facts

      • Angela Haggerty February 5, 2013 at 12:20 am

        The club ran the debts up, therefore the club went out of business. The club and company are the same thing, the club requires legal status (in the form of the company) to carry out its business. You will believe it’s the same club regardless of what I say. We’ll have to agree to differ.

  9. lubosmagicdust December 16, 2012 at 6:12 pm Reply

    Excelent Angela, once again you’ve hit the nail on the head..

  10. Frankie B December 16, 2012 at 6:14 pm Reply

    Incidentally, as regards the Scottish Cup, Rangers entered at the same round as the other Division Three clubs (the club were not exempt from that round). As for the SFA membership, Rangers have the same membership as always (though at one stage a temporary membership was issued while things were being sorted out).

    • Angela Haggerty December 16, 2012 at 6:17 pm Reply

      Ah, the temporary membership! The one nobody had heard of before the SFA created it to ensure Sevco could begin the season. The reason is because the new club had no status. At that point, two Rangers Football Club’s were in existence.

      • William Wilson February 4, 2013 at 8:37 pm

        Angela it’s the same original membership, just status was downgraded from full 2 associate mwmbers r u saying UEFA (club rankings) ECA, r wrong, legal court of law sale & purchase documents tells u legally wot was bought r u saying that its all lies, these r official legal hard facts

    • garry December 16, 2012 at 6:51 pm Reply

      Scottish cup entry is based on where a team finished in the league set up the season before. Top 16 teams start in 4th round. If it were the same club shouldn’t they have started in this round due to finishing 2nd in the SPL? Also SPL clubs took a vote to see if they would change the rules to allow an invite to join the league to be extended to THE Rangers/ sevco/ inter rangers/ insert any number of names. If its the same club why should they need to be invited to join a league they are already in. The SFA has bent over backwards to accomodate this new club. A corrupt organisation who are now being bullied and mocked by charles green because he knows R.C Ogilvie will ensure he gets away with it time and again. We can all see the truth even if the MSM and the zombies don’t want to believe it

    • Frankie B December 16, 2012 at 8:18 pm Reply

      No garry, entry to the round Rangers at which entered the Scottish Cup is based on present league status. As for your conspiracy theories, I don’t go in for such things.

    • fatmidget December 16, 2012 at 8:32 pm Reply

      Frankie….Scottish cup seedings meant that if newco were same club, they wldnt have played until most recent round due to their SPL finishing position in season 11-12.

  11. Regilives (@regilives) December 16, 2012 at 6:15 pm Reply

    Good blog Angela.
    (Dis)Honourable mention must go also to the SPL/SFA involvement. They have tried to influence and fudge so many issues on this admittedly new scenario that it has allowed others to blue the lines between fact and fiction.
    As you rightly say, the ‘Oldco’ ceased when it went into liquidation, but the shoehorning of sanctions not actually in the rulebook being applied to Sevco (transfer of licence linked to payment of Oldco debts & a transfer embargo) has allowed the myth to be permeated that this entity is indeed one and the same.

    The sign above the Ibrox door should have read (ironically) ‘Nil by Mouth’ to allow the newco to take shape. Maybe this might have shed some of the baggage whichis still very much apparent

  12. Dave December 16, 2012 at 6:18 pm Reply

    The company went bust. The club is an asset transferred from the old company to the new company. It’s quite simple really.

    • Angela Haggerty December 16, 2012 at 6:21 pm Reply

      Club and company are the same. The narrative here is an understandable one coming from Rangers fans, but it’s unrealistic.

    • DhenBhoy December 17, 2012 at 7:28 am Reply

      Where was the club listed as an asset in the sale documents ,,, OHHH that’s right It wasn’t !!!

    • portpower December 17, 2012 at 3:01 pm Reply

      New entity = new club. trfc2012 = new entity. FACT.

  13. borussiabeefburg December 16, 2012 at 6:21 pm Reply

    James Atherton December 16, 2012 at 6:07 pm Reply

    Team #88.


    You’re welcome.

    Team #371 Sporting Fingal FC
    Team #441 Neath FC

    Oh, and Team #105 FC Unirea Urziceni

    Along with Team #88, they all no longer exist.

    • armchairbhoy December 19, 2012 at 1:34 am Reply

      The rangers will still get co efficiency pts thru scots fitba for 5 yrs….even tho they are deed…crazy rules man…ECA doesnt list sevco as a full member…

  14. ordinaryfan December 16, 2012 at 6:22 pm Reply

    James Atherton: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cirdmanual/cird30535.htm

    “Purchased goodwill is defined as ‘the difference between the cost of an acquired entity and the aggregate of the fair value of that entity’s identifiable assets and liabilities”.

    I know I have posted a couple of times on this so apologies for going over it again.
    This is from an official HMRC site. It certainly doesn’t tie in with Chuckles description of Goodwill, for starters Chuckles didn’t buy an “entity” but the ASSETS of an “entity”.
    From what I’ve read, it looks like Goodwill can only be purchased when buying a business/company as a whole.
    Even if this wasn’t the case, what Chuckles has purchased would be classed as “Negative Goodwill”.


    “Most of the time, a company will be purchased for more than the value of its tangible assets, and the difference is attributed to goodwill. When the price paid is less than the actual value of the company’s net assets, you have negative goodwill”.

    Whichever way it is spun, there is no way that Chuckles could legally have purchased the “history” of RFC.


    • James Atherton December 16, 2012 at 6:29 pm Reply

      I shall take UEFA’s stance over yours.

      Thanks all the same though.

      • Tony December 16, 2012 at 7:15 pm

        UEFA stance is that a club cannot play in Europe unless it has 3 years accounts.
        Sevco fans think this is a punishment for sins committed.
        It is not.
        It is UEFA rules.
        The rangers FC does not have any accounts, hence new club and not able to play in Europe.

      • Frankie B December 16, 2012 at 8:20 pm

        Tony is half-right. Rangers are barred from Europe for not producing accounts. This happened in Whyte’s time. The deadline for accounts was 31 March. Green’s company didn’t take over the running of the club until mid-June so it was nothing to do with that.

  15. Sevco December 16, 2012 at 6:28 pm Reply

    Frankie whats your IQ? The Rangers are a new company…the old Rangers 1872 is DEAD!! so are the current shares for club or company? Surely ( in your low IQ world) as it is financial then its the company, that means fans are NOT buying into club hahaha

    • Frankie B December 16, 2012 at 8:21 pm Reply

      What’s my IQ? About double yours.

  16. Cozzy December 16, 2012 at 6:29 pm Reply

    The proof is in the pudding Angela, Rangers have the most season ticket holders, highest average attendances and highest viewing figures for a Scottish club, all this despite being in the bottom tier. Defiance or not, new club or not, rule bending or not the game in Scotland as we know it, poor as it is would die without them, do you agree?

    • Tony December 16, 2012 at 7:12 pm Reply

      Proof is in the pudding,
      The SPL is better than it has ever been without Rangers.
      Celtic in last 16 of Champions league.
      Armageddon never happened as spouted by the compliant main stream media
      The game is far from dying.
      That point of view you are pushing is made up by the self importance and denial of the fans of Rangers and Sevco.
      Absolutely no evidence that the game in Scotland would die without them…all evidence from the SPL this season is the exact opposite.

  17. raz December 16, 2012 at 6:34 pm Reply

    I can find a rangers women team but not rangers, or the rangers, in the teams and players pages. Guess the women did’nt get liquidated… 🙂


    • Dave December 16, 2012 at 6:40 pm Reply

      Also we’re in Division 3 and do not participate in any competitions. Can’t see Clyde on there either. Are they not in existence anymore?

    • Adam December 16, 2012 at 7:35 pm Reply

      Can you find Blackburn Rovers in there ?

  18. Colm December 16, 2012 at 6:35 pm Reply

    Angela, great post.

    Re Company and club. Google Southampton.

    Their “company” went into admin but club did not accept the “club” was in admin.

    The FA laughed and stated club and company cannot be separated and deducted 10pts.

    End of.


  19. Lord Wobbly December 16, 2012 at 6:38 pm Reply

    “Rangers FC as we know them are dead. It’s all over. They are about to shut down for ever…”

    “But Rangers FC won’t. They’ll slip into liquidation within the next couple of weeks with a new company emerging but 140 years of history, triumph and tears, will have ended.”

    Jim Traynor 13/06/2012


    • Stephen McCormack December 16, 2012 at 6:48 pm Reply

      And that is coming from Jim Traynor, the newly appointed Ibrox Director of Communication. Agent Green’s plans are falling in place much quicker than Agent Whyte’s….

  20. Stephen McCormack December 16, 2012 at 6:45 pm Reply

    Angela, any truth in the story that Charles Green is about to buy Neil Armstrong’s astronaut suit and claim he was the 1st man on the moon. From what I understand you cant buy history….its created every day.

  21. luke December 16, 2012 at 6:50 pm Reply

    Fans of all clubs in all the divisions in scotland should demand that the SFA, once and for all,put this ‘still the same club’ nonsence to bed once and for all

    They must be made to state unequivocly that Newco is the newest club in scotland awaiting it’s first piece of silverware.

    We must never let up on this and keep the pressure on for a statement from the powers that be.

  22. Henry Clarson December 16, 2012 at 6:55 pm Reply

    A magnificent article, Angela.

    What fascinates me most about the ongoing Rangers/Sevco scandal is that it is a microcosm of a corrupt society. The Scottish media has bent over backwards to endorse the notion that a zombie club doing a semi-credible impersonation of the defunct Rangers is sufficient reason to pretend that nothing serious really happened.
    Everything is supposed to be more or less okay apart from the unfortunate temporary displacement of Sevco-Masquerading-As-Rangers from the pinnacle of Scottish football.

    Compare the media’s relentless campaign against Neil Lennon when he was the innocent victim of a calculated deception by the former referee and discredited liar, Dougie McDonald. McDonald’s boss, Hugh Dallas, tried to continue the cover-up and sustain the lies. When Dallas came under pressure after shooting himself in the foot by sending sectarian emails through the SFA’s internal mail system, the entire body of Scottish Grade One referees rallied to his aid by going on strike.

    The Scottish media could not do enough to help them.

    When match officials were called in from abroad to enable the scheduled fixtures to go ahead, Chick Young availed himself of the BBC’s resources to phone a referee in Israel and present him with a wildly imbalanced misrepresentation of the reasons for the strike. The same Chick Young then sped to Glasgow Airport to intercept another referee and persuade him to go back home.

    Former referees Kenny Young and Stuart Lovell appeared to have unlimited access to the airwaves of all the major broadcasters while simultaneously having the sympathetic ear of every Rangers-friendly hack in the press.

    All of this energy was expended in order to put Neil Lennon and Celtic on the back foot despite the fact of the overwhelming evidence that they had been lied to by the game’s leading officials on the matter of a relatively minor refereeing blunder.

    This particular episode highlights as well as any other the proof that the Scottish media wilfully ignore the facts and peddle outright lies in a sustained campaign to defend the interests of a corrupt system which has always taken it as read that – whatever else happens – Rangers must always be guaranteed a position of dominance in the Scottish game.

    That preposterous and outrageous premise is still close to the centre of the Establishment agenda in Scotland and that is why the ludicrous idea that a dead club still exists is being promulgated with such fanatical determination by the poodle media.

    Rangers are dead.
    Sevco are trying to step into the vacuum.
    No honest, honourable person is going to lie down and allow them to do that.
    Keep up the good work.

  23. Chris White December 16, 2012 at 6:55 pm Reply

    If the company and club are different, why was the club deducted 10 points for going into administration!!

    • Tony December 16, 2012 at 7:21 pm Reply

      The Old Rangers were deducted 10 points for going into administration.
      They finished the season as the old club before going into liquidation.
      Sevco the new club started in division 3…with no points deducted.

      • Chris White December 16, 2012 at 9:09 pm

        You miss the point Tony, this fabrication that the club and company are different is nonsense. The old company was a football club, the new company is a new club, end of.

    • Adam December 16, 2012 at 9:16 pm Reply

      Another one i would like to ask. Why is Leeds still the same club when they went through the exact same as Rangers ?

      • Henry Clarson December 17, 2012 at 5:34 pm

        Leeds didn’t go through “the exact same as Rangers.”

  24. Adam December 16, 2012 at 6:57 pm Reply

    Unfortunately, no matter how many times this is blogged or said online, it wont ever be true. Rangers are the same club they have always been. It might be unfair and it might stick in peoples throats that they have got away with it, but it is true, nonetheless.

    The reasons that it is true:

    Reason 1. We have a precedent.

    Leeds United(LEEDS UNITED ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (THE) under company number 00170600) went into administration in 2007. The creditors initially accepted a CVA but HMRC objected at the very last minute. The administrators,KPMG were left with no option but to then sell oldco to newco ((LEEDS UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED under company number 06233875).

    HMRC later dropped their claim and the Football League asked KPMG to reverse the sale of the club in order to preserve the CVA but KMPG refused to do so. Newco remained the new owners of Leeds United and oldco (LEEDS UNITED ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (THE) under company number 00170600) were liquidated on 15th February 2008.

    The Football League authorities at the time canvassed members and it was decided that the punishment already given out to Leeds United (docking of points and relegation) was deemed enough and the FA membership transferred from oldco to newco on the premise it was still the same club

    Leeds United are still the same club today as they were in 1925 or 1960. Their history is displayed on various League authority sites and UEFA clearly recognise its the same club given some of the statistics you can view.

    There is not a single better scenario to compare to. The only difference between Leeds United and Rangers is that for now, Rangers oldco are not liquidated yet. When that happens in the new year then the situations are identical in law.

    Reason 2. European Club Association(ECA)

    The ECA are the sole INDEPENDENT body recognised by both UEFA and FIFA who represent clubs all across Europe.

    As an INDEPENDENT body, they have no allegiances, no hysteria, no bias and can be considered as completely neutral when it comes to looking at things from the outside.

    Over the last few weeks, the ECA Board, made up of 15 very senior footballing figures, including Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, Florentino Pérez and David Gill reviewed Rangers case as members of the body.

    The INDEPENDENT body considered everything and “taking into account legal and practical arguments” they concluded that Rangers are still the same club that were part of the ECA from its foundation in 2008. They went one step further to conclude that in their INDEPENDENT view, “the club’s history to be continuous regardless of the change of company”

    No axe to grind. No establishment accusations. An INDEPENDENT body, working out of Switzerland who can look at it without the baggage that comes with anyone in Scotland looking at it.

    Reason 3. UEFA.

    A quick glance at the UEFA club rankings will show Rangers are still Rangers. This season, Rangers have been awarded 0.860 ranking points and sit in 88th place in the UEFA rankings.


    If the club is a different club, then can someone please tell me who UEFA are giving these ranking points to.

    Before i finish, and to save anyone linking me to Rangers FC page and asking me to look at what it says for their “last match” as evidence, then i would ask you to kindly look at Dunfermline Athletic FC page and look at their “last match” or indeed Blackburn FC “last match”. UEFA only update pages of teams in the top division of each league, hence the outdated information on Rangers page.

    Thanks for reading.

    • armchairbhoy December 19, 2012 at 1:41 am Reply

      John mc lelland ex rfc director was on the ECA board when it was founded…the ECA are feck all with 200 odd clubs…pile a shyte

  25. mick December 16, 2012 at 7:07 pm Reply

    meery xmas angie thanks for the article heres a we xmas tune for you from the clattering bampots

  26. Steff December 16, 2012 at 7:17 pm Reply

    First of all, let’s cut right to the chase. If Rangers (yes the club) didn’t go bust it would still be in the SPL. It wasn’t relegated, it wasn’t demoted or kicked out. It ceased to exist.

    As for the line where “the company went into liquidation but the club survived” – that is propaganda that would put the media in North Korea to shame.

    Incidentally the company that owed and operated the club was Wavetower (which changed its name to THE RANGERS FC GROUP LIMITED).

    The company that owned and operated Rangers FC previous to that was Murray International Holdings.

    Neither of those entities went into liquidation. Rangers Football Club did.

    Their is so much ambiguity with regards to wordings of statements but there has never been one definitive statement from the SFA or UEFA one way or the other. So rather than look for words or statements, let’s look at events.

    1) As stated above – if the club did not go bust, it would be in the SPL. If you are of the Sevco persuasion, can you give a definitive description as to why your club is not part of the SPL?

    2) If the club did not go bust, it would be eligible to play in Europe. It can’t because it does not have 3 years accounts. Oh and before anyone says “company accounts” … when Wavetower bought Rangers, the company had less than 3 years accounts. But Rangers were still eligible for Europe because UEFA look at the CLUBS accounts, not a holding company’s accounts.

    3) SFA Membership was transferred from Rangers FC to Sevco(Scotland). Some people take that as proof that the club didn’t go bust. Me? I read that as Rangers FC were no longer members of the SFA because the membership was transferred to Sevco(Scotland).

    It is utterly amazing that people cling to the idea that Charles Green bought the history – as though that meant trophies.

    First of all you can’t buy history. It’s laughable to suggest otherwise.

    But second, if he is claiming he bought the history – does that mean he bought the historical debt? Well it seems not.

    Now I am reading a statement from the ECA which, forgive me for being cynical about the timing of the statement, but … is there a share issue coming up? And there are so many flaws in the statement, I mean it states that the club had to “re-apply” for membership. Tell me, why would a club that didn’t go bust have to re-apply? It was already a member?

    And you can say the same for SFA membership – why would Rangers FC need to transfer membership if the club was already a member?

    I’ve never heard of liquidation being described as “Break in accounts” or “Break in timeline” before. Yet STV have reported this twice now. And in any case, the ECA is a private members club. It is not UEFA.

    I think even the Sevconians would admit – not publicly though – that if any other club in the land went bust and tried to pull off the “company not club” excuse, they would be the first ones in the queue to laugh at it. They know it.

    In reality, Scottish football and many in the media has chosen not to accept that Rangers went bust. In doing so it has facilitated a way in which millions of pounds of debt, much of it to the taxpayer, can be wiped out – no questions asked – and it is utterly shameful.

    Who cares about trophies or history – that is irrelevant.

    What matters is that a club owed millions. It went bust, leaving creditors and every taxpayer in the land out of pocket, then the Scottish football authorities pretend that it never went bust at all.

    To wipe away millions of pounds of debt via liquidation, then pretend you are the same club, then boast about being debt free, is not unsurprising coming from the dignified ones.

    But when the Scottish Football authorities and Scottish media facilitate this, then it is a scandal.

    Good article Angela, keep up the good work.

  27. scottc December 16, 2012 at 7:26 pm Reply

    Adam December 16, 2012 at 6:57 pm Reply

    Hi Adam. Your statement regarding Leeds United differs from the Rangers case in one significant way. The NewCo, you say, bought the OldCo, which was then liquidated. That is not what happened in Rangers case. Charles Green bought only certain assets of the OldCo. The OldCo did not become a wholly owned asset of NewCo. Different scenario.

    I’m off to study exactly what happened in the Leeds case

    • Adam December 16, 2012 at 7:37 pm Reply

      Newco Leeds bought Leeds United Football Club and its assets. Newco Rangers bought Rangers Football Club and its assets.

      Can you clarify exactly why that is a different scenario please.

      • James December 16, 2012 at 10:07 pm

        Because your chairman stated on the record that if a CVA was not agreed the history was gone. You don’t believe your own chairman Adam?

  28. Pichichi December 16, 2012 at 7:27 pm Reply

    “This is about injustice, and everyone who continues to use the word Sevco instead of Rangers is standing up to it.”

    On the contrary, everyone who continues to use the word Sevco is using it as a wind-up against the same set of fans they’ve been bantering with for generations. Don’t masquerade it as some sort of moral crusade for justice.

    If the “fundamental injustice” is that “other small clubs which have paid their dues should have been ahead of them”, and not the visceral hatred of some fans during the summer that demanded the club dead forever, then which of the other small clubs would have been better placed – in terms of facilities and fanbase and the other factors considered as part of an application – than Rangers?

    • broadswordcallingdannybhoy December 16, 2012 at 8:12 pm Reply

      Those with 3 years accounts?

      • Frankie B December 16, 2012 at 8:23 pm

        3 years’ accounts are not required for entry to the SFL.

  29. JohnBhoy_67 December 16, 2012 at 7:50 pm Reply

    Interesting and well written article. If only I could bring back my dead friends and family as easily as the Newco support and MSM seem to have Rangers risen from the dead.
    Rangers died in 2012 and anything that plays at Ibrox now and in the future is nothing more than a tribute act.

  30. waco61 December 16, 2012 at 8:03 pm Reply

    oh dear adam no matter how much you try it wont work ,RFC are awaiting liquidation, chucky never bought the company or the club he bought the assets as stated by duff&duffer for less than £3mil , all he bought was the bricks and mortar thats why a lot of prized assets like players walked away ,if he HAD bought the club he would also been handed a bill for all debt thats why he said a cva was the only way to keep the club and history ,no cva no club no history so all he bought was the assets history is not an asset if it was it would be on sale all over the planet lol , great blog angela, hope you got your stir fry and grapes lol

  31. Cozzy December 16, 2012 at 8:05 pm Reply

    Anybody realised that Scottish football would be worse than the league of Ireland without Rangers yet?
    Wade through the hatred, bitterness and moral crusadering against the ‘shamefulness’ of the owed money and ask yourself this – How much money has the Rangers Brand contributed to Scottish Society since it was founded? Ask the buisnesses around Ibrox if its fair that Rangers still exist, ask all the 3rd divisions teams that are making a killing also the businesses in the surrounding areas. What about all the millions Rangers have paid to Scottish clubs for players, TV money they have helped generate for the game, Money given to charity………I could keep going the list would be endless.
    But in your eyes Angela and many others who have replied there seems there is no room for any middle ground at all, indeed Rangers are ‘lucky’ to be even playin at all.
    Its all a bit desperate and hate filled in my opinion.

    • Angela Haggerty December 16, 2012 at 8:08 pm Reply

      Rangers went out of business owing money to other clubs. The policies of Rangers did far more damage to Scottish football during the Murray era than good.

      • kizablog December 16, 2012 at 8:34 pm

        I referred to your article as asked and yes i know full well what the name of the company was before changing to The Rangers Football Club Limited. However that company is not registered as the company that owns and operates the club now,that company is the one mentioned.

        So to be honest if you think calling the club Sevco gives you credence with this blog,you carry on,personally it seems to me that you are trying to play to an audience of people that hate the club. However as i stated to you it’s very obvious that you don’t know the history of the club,the clubs correct name has always been The Rangers Football Club.

        Now at the risk of repeating myself,why is it that UEFA recognise the historical continuity of other clubs that have went through similar process as The Rangers Football Club PLC and Rangers,a member club of UEFA,should not have their historical timeline recognised as continuos by the ruling body. Can you answer that,without showing your undoubted dislike for the club that is.

        Furthermore,it does not matter in the least what your opinion of this is, as the club continuity is recognised by the football authorities and indeed the next trophy won by the club will go down in the annals of Scottish football as being added to the other 225 trophies won by the club in all competitions since date of formation,1872. The transference of the SFA Membership ensures that.

        Maybe you should concentrate on subject matters that you have got a better understanding of Angela, because your understanding of the workings of the ruling bodies of football is very,very low indeed.

      • Angela Haggerty December 16, 2012 at 8:46 pm

        The default is to accuse those who point out truth as doing it out of “hatred”. Nonsense, I’m writing in the interests of truth and justice. We disagree and we will continue to, I understand completely why Rangers fans will not see this from my point of view, but do try to be civil.

      • Adam December 16, 2012 at 8:56 pm

        I believe I have been civil Angela. Are you able to answer my point re Leeds United and why you think Rangers should be treated as a new club when Leeds United were and have not.

      • Angela Haggerty December 16, 2012 at 9:03 pm

        I’ve said my piece on it, hence the referral to my article. Read the second paragraph.

      • Adam December 16, 2012 at 9:05 pm

        So you agree that whilst it may be an injustice, the precedent of Leeds United, one that no-one can explain, proves that Rangers are the same club.

      • Angela Haggerty December 16, 2012 at 9:09 pm

        No. What we can probably both agree is that we’re not going to agree. I understand where you’re coming from, I really do, but I see it very differently. Thanks for the chat, all the best.

      • Adam December 16, 2012 at 9:14 pm

        So essentially, you are saying you are not interested in the fact there is a perfect replica precedent 5 years ago, 226 miles away in one of the biggest League organisations in the world as well as a European Body operating out of Switzerland saying that you are wrong.

    • broadswordcallingdannybhoy December 16, 2012 at 8:18 pm Reply

      How much damage did the Rangers brand do to Manchester?
      How much was the facepainter owed?
      What happened to the proceeds of the last charity match?

      It didn’t take any hatred or bitterness to quickly come up with those three questions, just a desire for the truth.

  32. Alan December 16, 2012 at 8:14 pm Reply

    If a business that was formed in 1899 is liquidated, then please explain what this has to do with a football club that was formed in 1872.

    For the record, I’ve been to hundreds of football matches, watching football teams. I’ve never been to a football game to watch business men / women. Just footballers. So excuse me if I’m not exactly gutted that a business that’s from 1899 will no longer exist.

    • Angela Haggerty December 16, 2012 at 8:18 pm Reply

      OK, if you take part in the share issue, are you buying shares in the club or company? If the company goes bust, do those shares carry on with the club? The answer is no, because the club and company are the same thing. The club took that legal status as a company in 1899, the club eventually ran up debts it couldn’t pay, and when the club went bust, the company went bust with it – because they are the same thing.

      • Adam December 16, 2012 at 8:23 pm

        So why are Leeds still the same club with history fully intact ?

      • Frankie B December 16, 2012 at 8:25 pm

        The club and company are the same thing? So a football club can’t be sold to a different company?

      • Alan December 18, 2012 at 11:11 am

        An honest question here.
        Rangers play in Scotland under SFA rules. People keep mentioning clubs from Italy an, England andd other European leagues as examples.

        Of the many liquidated clubs in Scotland, ie third lanark, airdrionians, Gretna extra.

        Have any of their reincarnation clubs ever officially continued their history ?

        Surely that should be the precedent ?

  33. barney rubble December 16, 2012 at 8:18 pm Reply

    Its about standing up to bullies and a complicit media. Rangers died, Sevco grovelled their way into the 3rd division and they will forever be known as Sevco to all except those who follow them and of course the aforementioned media. Makes you laugh when you see them parading the armed forces at Ibrox while singing god Save the queen, oh dear, Sevconians don’t do irony do they?

  34. liepo December 16, 2012 at 8:46 pm Reply

    Personally I couldn’t care less about whether the club is the same as it was. There are compelling arguments on both sides. The most important part thing mentioned in this blog is the utter lack of humility shown by the officials and supporters with regard to the outstanding, unpaid creditors. Everyone above defending the continued existence of “the club” would do well to pay them some respect (if not a lump of cash) whenever talk of transfer kitties or season ticket sales are mentioned. THAT is the real hypocrisy in this horrible mess. Shame on you.

  35. StevieBC December 16, 2012 at 8:48 pm Reply

    Good piece Angela.

  36. kiza December 16, 2012 at 9:12 pm Reply

    Can you please answer this question,Angela. Why is it acceptable for other clubs that have went through the same or similar process to Rangers to have their historical timeline continuity recognised by UEFA and yet in Scotland there is such a furore over Rangers,a member club of UEFA, being accorded the same by UEFA? Many clubs have had their club continuity recognised by UEFA why not Rangers?

    • Alan December 18, 2012 at 11:19 am Reply

      Why would it be fair if Airdrionians who actualy played in the Scottish leagues cannot continue their history ?

      People are cherry picking precedents from all over Europe when they could easily look to their own country ?

      UEfa will go along with what ever the “local” governing bodies decide.

      The SFA will break with all tradition and rules they have worked under for a century to make sure the cash cow continues.

      The game was corrupted long before rangers liquidation

      • Adam December 18, 2012 at 7:22 pm

        Airdrie were not bought whilst in administration. Neither were Gretna. Nor Third Lanark. Leeds were. Hence the “cherry picking”

  37. Fans against corruption December 16, 2012 at 9:50 pm Reply

    The club live on, it has only been transferred or sold to a new company after the old one went bust. Really? OK, I remember the club being sold before, from John Lawrence’s organisation to David Murray’s, then from David Murray’s to Craig Whyte. Strangely, I don’t remember in any of these occasions, when the club was definitely sold as a whole entity, debts included, that it, the club, had to reapply for a position in the SPL or equivalent league, or for SFA membership – and yet, this time, purportedly it has simply been sold to Charles Greens consortium, but has to go through all these applications. Why? Something different this time, right?
    The club and company are separate, its the company in liquidation, not the club. But hold on – did the company get docked the sporting points sanction for going into administration, or the club? Ah, right, it was the club – but what for? If the club and the company are/were separate, why did the club get punished with sanctions? I mean the club didn’t run up any debts did they, it was the parent company, right? After all, that administration has led to liquidation of whatever entity was in administration. So if the company only is being liquidated, it must have been the company that was in admin – not the club? Yet the club were docked 10 points. So, how did the parent company, as is now perpetuated in the media, get itself into this situation where it ran up massive debts, couldn’t pay them, and got itself liquidated. What was it buying to run up such massive debts? What did it own, what assets did it pay for? Players, perhaps? Players which played for and were registered with…..what entityave Rangers been playing for years with loans from its parent company (now almost departed)?
    Its certainly a sound argument, that the club has been simply sold on to new owners. In fact since it is the parent company which is in trouble, the club was never ever in trouble at any time in the last few years – there was no risk whatsoever, was there? Why all the fuss? Why did the assets have to be bought?
    And as for those assets, one is the history, right? History can be bought and sold as an asset, can’t it?
    So why didn’t Charles Green buy the stadium, the players, etc – but offer Nottingham Forest a few million for THEIR history to be attached – so that this club he was piecing together could have two European Cups in their history? I mean, its not ridiculous is it? History can be bought and sold as an asset after all.
    I MEAN, IT’S NOT RIDICULOUS, IS IT????? Then again…….

  38. James Boco December 16, 2012 at 10:03 pm Reply


    “Its most striking feature is the absence of legal personality accorded to associations and clubs which do not choose to establish themselves as companies or as some other form of unincorporated body. Put shortly, the current law does not recognise the existence of such organisations as separate legal entities.”

    Note rangers choose to incorporate itself in a company. When the company was liquidated that was it as there is no such ‘separate legal entity’ called the club that can be fired off, sold, transferred etc. As above notes the law does not ‘recognise the existence of such organisations as separate legal entities’ the club wasn’t bought or transferred as you cant enter into a contract to buy something that the law doesn’t recognise as actually existing.

    If someone wants to claim the spirit of Rangers lives on etc I have no issue with that. I agree that football clubs are ‘more than just a team’ so if ‘in your heart’ you want to believe the history etc continues go for it. However, the cold hard legal facts are that The Rangers founded in 1872 exists no more.

  39. jinky44 December 16, 2012 at 10:05 pm Reply

    Imagine not paying ur paper laddie? How embarrassing is that??

  40. greenjedi8 December 16, 2012 at 10:29 pm Reply

    Leeds United WERE NOT LIQUIDATED, a CVA was accepted.

    • Adam December 16, 2012 at 10:42 pm Reply

      Leeds United WERE LIQUIDATED. The CVA was rejected by HMRC. Read my post above and check Companies House, not wikipedia.

      • Alan December 18, 2012 at 11:24 am

        Did airdreonians get a CVA ?

  41. colin December 16, 2012 at 10:40 pm Reply

    First it was sporting integrity,now its injustice sound bites don’t you just love them lol

  42. buffythecat December 16, 2012 at 10:43 pm Reply

    Oh for God’s sake SEVCO fans get real!

    Ranger’s are DEAD and will always be dead. What you are now supporting is SEVCO F.C a tribute act that runs about the Third Division pretending to be a club that died months ago . . .get over it. Famous band tribute acts get thousands and millions of followers all over the world . . .but they all know that they are still a tribute act. Nothing wrong with that. Just keep shovelling in the money to Mr GREEN and learning the words to ‘God Save The Queen’ and Bingo back to the good old days with a trip down memory lane. Just don’t expect the rest of Scotland to play along.

  43. jbj712 December 16, 2012 at 10:50 pm Reply

    Can you tell us when the club was separated from the company?
    The name on the gates was RFC limited was it not?

    And if you believe that the club cannot die but goes on regardless – can you tell us if you support the IPO or would that be a waste of £500 since all that would seem to get you is a share in a holding company of a holding company that might own the club?

    • Adam December 16, 2012 at 11:07 pm Reply

      Can you tell me when Leeds United the club was separated from the company ? Can you also tell me why Bradford or Huddersfield fans didnt write to every governing body under the sun in order to wipe Leeds history ?

      This type of thing could only happen in Scotland.

      In England, they simply sorted it out and Leeds carried on as they were. In Switzerland, they used legal and practical arguments and decided Rangers were the same club.

      In Scotland, its not good enough. Carry on believing what you want. Its still the same Rangers.

  44. Gerry December 16, 2012 at 11:26 pm Reply

    @Adam.Anti catholic signing policy for over 100 years.

    This type of thing could only happen in Scotland.


    • Adam December 17, 2012 at 5:09 am Reply

      Well not really. I think Athletic Bilbao have a comparative signing policy…..but not withstanding the fact that it shouldnt have been and no-one should be proud of it, you are now 25 years behind the times. Are you still wearing tartan trousers and shoes with grolsch bottle tops on them as well ?

  45. jbj712 December 16, 2012 at 11:28 pm Reply

    Sorry Adam but you are the one who claims that there were two entities
    The football club and something else called the RFC limited company – if that is what you believe then no doubt you can tell us all when this separation happened
    can you also tell us what the shareholders (circa 26,000 I believe) actually owned shares in?
    I notice that you also fail to answer the question on why the new club started in the early rounds of the Cup
    Then again there is UEFA – do you think that if the new club were to win the cup this season or next they would play in Europe the season after?

    • Adam December 17, 2012 at 5:16 am Reply

      Im claiming what has happened to us is what happened to Leeds and they are still the same club. Im also claiming that the ECA in Switzerland have ruled us as the same club. Which leads me to kind of claiming that the English Football League and an Independent highly thought of organisation in Europe are in a better position to know how this works and their rulings on Rangers and Leeds mean more than a few thousand people on the internet.

      Re the Scottish Cup……..teams in the 3rd division start in the earlier rounds so not sure of your point.

      Re Europe, i dont think we will get the chance to find out but if your hypothetical question does happen then Rangers will seek to play in Europe. UEFA will then face a similar decision to the ECA and its my opinion that Rangers will be seen as the same club and allowed to play.

      • Angela Haggerty December 17, 2012 at 8:04 am

        Adam, read the second paragraph of my piece, you’re missing the point entirely.

      • Adam December 17, 2012 at 8:34 am

        Ive read it Angela and I understand people will feel an injustice. I have no arguments against that as you cant change the way people “feel”. However, others have moved from any potential injustice and are discussing the legal status and club argument, and that is the part im referring to.

        There are injustices everywhere in businesses when someone goes into administration. Never before though has there been such a public outcry.

        I may be wrong, but i think you yourself have said its a completely new club with no history and on that front, i will challenge it.

  46. stephen r (@cardiffbhoy) December 17, 2012 at 12:01 am Reply

    Can someone ask Adam if Gretna FC 2008 are the same club as Gretna who played in the SPL, and if that would that not be a more relevant comparison than Leeds ? Or Airdrie United and Airdrieonians, who played in Scottish Cup Finals etc ? Are those 2 clubs the same ?

    • Adam December 17, 2012 at 5:19 am Reply

      No. Gretna FC 2008 did not buy Gretna who played in the SPL whilst they were in administration.

      And No. Airdrie United did not buy Airdrieonians whilst they were in administration. They did however buy Clydebank FC and their official history is that of Clydebanks.

      • Alan December 18, 2012 at 12:01 pm

        Sorry Adam Airdie (newco) did not buy “the club” as an asset of airdrie old co because it was not an option. This option seems to have been invented in 2012 for the Scottish game.
        I wonder if the clydebank supporters trust knew that they were also given the “club” when they aquired the right to use the badge and name ?

        You have a point with the Leeds thing. But your point is reversed when you use a club from Scotland as your precedent. Ie is it fair that no liquidated club in the history of the scottish game was allowed to continue its history, even after a sale of assets ?
        The new rangers are receiving something that other clubs were refused.

  47. stephen r (@cardiffbhoy) December 17, 2012 at 12:03 am Reply

    Adam, my granny died, there is a wee old woman who lives in her house in Carntyne now, she has similar coloured curtains and a fireplace, the house was still built in the 1930s, but she is not my granny.

    • Adam December 17, 2012 at 5:21 am Reply

      When your granny died, did you know she owed £5,000 to MasterCard and was due to serve 10 days community service for shoplifting. Did the wee old woman who lives in her house pay that debt off and serve that punishment just because she now lives in that house ?

      • DannyMc December 17, 2012 at 10:50 am

        Obviously the wee woman that moved into Stephen’s granny’s house didn’t have to pay Stephen’s granny’s debt.
        I think it was a bit harsh that the wee old woman had to serve the 10 days community service just so that she could take up Stephen’s granny’s pensioners club membership.

  48. Gerry December 17, 2012 at 12:03 am Reply

    If you are the same club,where are the transfer fees for K.Laugherty,A.McGreggor,S.Naismith etc,who were under contract to Rangers?
    Would a club with players under contract worth circa,”£30 million” walk for free?I rest my case.

    • Adam December 17, 2012 at 5:26 am Reply

      Convenient that you forget about the transfer fees negotiated for Steven Davis and Rhys McCabe but you pick your examples well to suit.

      If we are not the same club, can you explain why we have had to pay the transfer fees for Lee Wallace, Jelavic and Mervan Celik ?

      I trump your case. 🙂

      • smartbhoy December 17, 2012 at 2:19 pm

        Green agreed to pay for them to allow Sevco SFA membership in the so called covert 5 way agreement.At the moment, Jelavic’s final instalment has still to be paid( Overdue), Celik’s has still to be paid(Overdue) and there’s still an outstanding amount on the transfer fee of Wallace.

        I trump your case. 😀

  49. badgerbhoy December 17, 2012 at 12:18 am Reply

    Adam if club and company are separate can you explain why the SFA membership was transferred from Rangers Football Club PLC to Sevco Scotland Ltd? Holding companies cannot have SFA membership only football clubs do.

    • Adam December 17, 2012 at 5:35 am Reply

      I will allow the SFA to answer that question. “Sevco Scotland Ltd bought Rangers Football Club PLC’s share in the SPL and membership of the Scottish FA as part of their acquisition of assets. Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements.”

      • Steff December 17, 2012 at 8:19 am

        That’s a fantastic post Adam.

        First of all, buying a “share” does not equal buying a club.

        Second, Sevco did not get the SPL share, Dundee did. (Does that mean Dundee can claim Rangers SPL history btw?)

        Third, when Sevco get SFA membership it was transferred from Rangers to Sevco. This means that Rangers were no longer members but Sevco were now the new members. The membership was trasnferred specifically to ensure Sevco would not have to wait 3 years in order to play football.

        But getting SFA membership does not mean anything other than belng permitted to become a member. You want (and hope and pray) that it means that if Sevco get this membership then they can claim all past glories of Rangers.

        If the club remained intact, if it didn’t go bust, if it didn’t go into liquidation, then it would still be a member of the Scottish Football Association – there would be no need for membership transfer would there?

        The company that owned & operated Rangers was Wavetower – previous it was MIH. Companies that own clubs come and go all the time in football but a club keeps its football membership. Was there a membership transfer when Craig Whyte bought the club from David Murray? No.

        What’s different this time around?

        Q. Why would a club that is currently a member need to transfer membership in the first place?

        A. Rangers, who were heading into liquidation after the CVA failed, transferred their membership to Sevco. This meant that Rangers were no longer members, but Sevco were now the new members. Sevco then changed it’s name to The Rangers.

        Only the blind or the deep in denial cannot see the reality here.

        Rangers FC owes millions to creditors and the taxpayer. That’s without the big tax case. If HMRC appeal and win, this debt is considerably higher. Which is why the article written by Angela is correct and why this argument will never go away.

  50. badgerbhoy December 17, 2012 at 12:21 am Reply

    Adam if club and company are separate can you explain why the SFA membership was transferred from The Rangers Football Club PLC to Sevco Scotland Ltd?

    Holding companies cannot have SFA membership only football clubs do.

  51. Billybhoy December 17, 2012 at 12:30 am Reply

    Its only a matter of time before the term ‘sevco’ will be deemed sectarian and offensive, this is the mindset of the ‘wee arra peepil’ offended by everything and shamed by nothing. Parading their so called heroes wiilst hijacking the poppy to serve their own aganda is shameful but then again, it is, was and shall ever be the ‘sevco’ way, The govan shipyards were full of sevconian heroes during both world wars, hiding in plain sight. Scotlands shame is alive and well and we will be laughing at them for years to come

  52. smartbhoy December 17, 2012 at 12:38 am Reply

    More whataboutery by Adam. What about Leeds, what about Leeds, what about Leeds. His reputation keeps getting lower and lower. From RTC as a so called respected fair minded Rangers fan and blogger, to his trips overseas work trips with no internet ( He changed his stance from no internet to…….. he had internet access but was too busy with work to blog) Wow Oh wow!!!!! Now he’s clinging onto something else.

    Leeds United AFC Ltd’s administrators achieved the necessary 75% support for a CVA.

    They withstood the challenge from HMRC, paid creditors and concluded the transfer of assets, including League share, to Leeds United FC Ltd, according to the terms of the CVA before winding up the old company. No loose ends were left.

    This is not a Liquidator’s Charter. Provisions in football only exist to transfer a League share from one company to another if creditors are satisfied, either by being paid in full or, as with Leeds United, with 75% agreeing to accept a diminished amount.

    There is no precedent at all between Leeds and TRFC.

    I may ask why were Rangers Football club deducted 10 points last year by the SPL when it wasn’t them that went into administration but their holding company Rangers FC Group

    Surely an club who’ve been deducted points for going into Administration can now surely sue?

    Dundee??? Livingston??? Rangers???

    These clubs didn’t go into administration or liquidation it was their holding companies.

    Why were Rangers Football club refused entry into the SPL?

    It was the company that went into liquidation. Sevco became their new holding company and the club lived on, so why were they voted into SFL3 and not allowed into the SPL????

    As Mr McCoist says ” I demand to know”

    I say sue…Sue the SPL/SFA/SPL CLUBS/RTC/ Fans on websites who say we’re dead….SUE I say SUE……………

    Surely if it was just the holding company of Rangers that went into administration, surely they should have never been deducted points?
    Why aren’t they still in the SPL?
    Why did Motherwell Play Champions League qualifiers instead of them?
    Why was their football revenue money withheld by the SFA? WHY? WHY? WHY??

    Also……………. If Rangers are still alive with their history and existence from 1872, why are they selling shares in the club?

    Don’t they have shareholders already??

    What are they selling shares in?
    A holding company??
    A holding company of a holding company???

    Whatever Mr Green is selling shares in Good luck to you………..You’re going to need it.

    • Adam December 17, 2012 at 8:19 am Reply

      Completely wrong re Leeds United. Instead of using wikipedia and other Celtic sites, here is what happened from a non tainted site back in 2008.

      Click to access season200708chronology.pdf

      Leeds Timeline.

      Tuesday 3rd July = HMRC reject the CVA

      Wed 4th July = Rival bidder states intention

      Friday 6th July = KPMG state that due to HMRC rejection they have no alternative but to sell the club to the highest bidder in order to get creditors best return

      9th July – KPMG confirm they are checking both bidders have proof of funds before announcing the winning bid

      10th July – KPMG confirm club is sold to Ken Bates

      31st July – Football league say the share will only be transferred if the CVA is resurrected (CONFIRMING IT DIDNT HAPPEN)

      2nd August – KPMG reject a call to resurrect the CVA and Leeds are given a 15 point penalty. The licence is transferred to the newco


      • smartbhoy December 17, 2012 at 2:34 pm

        Wow oh Wow! http://www.mightyleeds.co.uk/pdf/season200708chronology.pdf is obviously an untainted website which is a fountain of knowledge based on all true events and everything written on that website is fact God help us for gaining knowledge from tainted websites and not Mightyleeds.. I’ll keep that in mind.Ha!

        So that’s your only comeback?

        Maybe want to reply to the rest of my post or you just like to pick and choose which parts you like to reply to?

        You’ve been caught out lying before Adam

        ” I was away on business and had no access to the internet” RTC

        Changed lately to suit your own needs on another website.

        ” I had internet access but I was too busy with work to read or post on blogs” Paul Mc.

        Lies, lies and more damn lies.

        Care to reply to that?

        You post that much on on football blogs that you forget where and what you’ve posted. Luckily for you a lot of us don’t 🙂

        I know you’re hurting and trying to give some hope to your fellow Sevconians, So you can start by replying to ALL my points, yes? I’ll await your reply with anticipation.

        Maybe met your match my friend! 🙂

      • smartbhoy December 17, 2012 at 3:08 pm

        HAHA!!!! Oh Adam, such a twister of words, some may even say picking and choosing, maybe even just a plain damn liar haha! Tut tut, Bad Adam!!

        Tuesday, 3 July 2007
        Just before the 16.00 BST deadline, HMRC serves notice of their intentions to challenge the CVA. ( Where does it say HMRC reject the CVA)? The CVA had already been passed. 🙂

        Friday, 6 July 2007
        A preliminary High Court hearing in Leeds is adjourned after setting 3 September as the date for the full hearing.
        The Yorkshire Post reports that the Football League will discuss the situation next week and are likely to allow Leeds to start the new season despite the looming court case. But there are concerns that Bates’ threat to cease funding due to a legal challenge by HMRC could have severe implications. Leeds are in the hands of administrators KPMG who are legally obliged not to run up any more debt and, if no funding is coming in, to begin to wind the club up.

        Adam says ( ” Friday 6th July = KPMG state that due to HMRC rejection they have no alternative but to sell the club to the highest bidder in order to get creditors best return”) More false information.

        Tuesday, 31 July 2007
        KPMG and United meet with League chairman Lord Brian Mawhinney for four hours in an attempt to restore the Football Share – but the Football League insist that the matter is resolved via a CVA. This means that the trade embargo placed on the club remains in place just nine days before United’s season opener against Tranmere Rovers. However, Lord Mawhinney reiterates that Leeds CAN start the season in administration.

        Adam says (31st July – Football league say the share will only be transferred if the CVA is resurrected (CONFIRMING IT DIDNT HAPPEN) More lies from the fountain of truth and knowledge, Adam. Resurrected Adam? More Lies 🙂

        Thursday, 30 August 2007
        HMRC withdraw their challenge to the Bates deal. However, they will continue to take all possible steps to secure a “fair return” on the £7.7m owed.

        But it’s a New Company/Club????? Surely HMRC has no claim then as that debt would have died with the old Compay/Club???

        We all can pick and choose what parts we like and what parts we don’t like. You tend to actually pick the parts you like, then put it into different words! 🙂

      • Adam December 17, 2012 at 3:32 pm

        I never said I had no access to the internet. That is outright lies. I said from the outset that I was working on a project and invoked a self imposed ban on blogging. There are very very few corners of the world where you cant access the internet and working for a UK company abroad, anyone with a modicum of sense will know that constant communication with back home is a necessity.

        Say it enough though and all will convert it to fact.

      • Adam December 17, 2012 at 3:49 pm

        Im not picking and choosing any words.

        Leeds United April 2007 to February 2008

        Did the CVA go through ? NO
        Did KPMG sell Leeds United, its ground, its players and its history to a newco ? YES
        Did the Football League ask KPMG to reconstitute the CVA ? YES
        Did KPMG agree to do this ? NO
        Did Newco buy all those assets for £1.5m ? YES
        Did creditors all get paid ? NO
        Did oldco end up liquidated ? YES

        Rangers FC February 2012 to 2013

        Did the CVA go through ? NO
        Did D&P sell Rangers FC, its ground, its players and its history to a newco ? YES
        Did Newco buy all those assets for £5.5m ? YES
        Did creditors all get paid ? NO
        Will oldco end up liquidated ? YES

        There is no better comparison.

  53. Sevco December 17, 2012 at 12:57 am Reply

    Frankie b idnt contribute much to the argument, his knowledge is limited to what hes read…thte bottom line for most sevconians is…..it just is right…!!! Sevco…no honours, no history, just cup exits….

  54. Stephen O'Donnell December 17, 2012 at 1:25 am Reply

    I can’t find anyone to successfully answer this question.

    Would Duff and Phelps have been able to sell the players of Classic RFC for more than £5.5m? If so, why did they then deprive creditors of these funds by apparently selling them as a job lot, along with property, to a new, and as yet unregistered football club called Sevco?

  55. Mathew December 17, 2012 at 1:35 am Reply

    Adam, you fail to grasp the the newco has not purchased the oldco.

  56. Torquemada December 17, 2012 at 2:13 am Reply

    Poor Adam, still demolishing straw men with aplomb to impress the ignorant among the Sevcorati, which is all of them. God love you, mate, The reason rival fans of Middlesbrough and Leeds and Fiorentina don’t go on about them being new clubs is not because they are not. It’s because nobody cares that much. And the reason nobody cares is because none cheated their way to title after title, trophy after trophy, in the shameful and unembarrassed fashion that Rangers 1872 (deceased) did. Neither did they tilt the playing field by adopting a sectarian employment policy because it was the only way they could compete with their much more successful rival.

    Sevco is a new football club. It is thus barred from European competition. It has adopted the trappings of Rangers 1872 (deceased) but so what? It bought the assets of Rangers 1872 (deceased) but so what? It claims to have bought the history of Rangers 1872 (deceased) but so what? If I buy a Victoria Cross won by a namesake at a Sotheby’s auction, does that mean I won it? Ridiculous!

    You and your fellow Sevco fans may “thcream and thcream and thcream” like Violet Elizabeth Bott but Sevco fans you are and so shall remain — at least for as long as Sevco does which, given the rumours of the impending IPO flop, might not be that long. Will you support the next handle on Trigger’s Broom?

    • Adam December 17, 2012 at 8:28 am Reply

      Just out of curiosity, has UEFA confirmed Rangers are barred from Europe ? I know it has been said from the word go but the only thing we know for certain is that the club cannot play in Europe this season because the audited accounts for the previous season were not filed on the 31st March 2012 and as such the SFA were unable to grant a licence for the club to play in Europe.

      Will Rangers win the Scottish Cup in order to test their European status ? Highly unlikely given the form of the team to be honest. I guess we will never truly know, though the thoughts of the Rangers Board have moved recently and from a starting point of believing there would be no European football for 3 years, it has been pointed out to them in the last month that it may not be the case.

      Surely if Rangers are barred for 3 years, then someone from UEFA will be on record. Does anyone have a copy of that ?

      Thanks in advance.

      • Angela Haggerty December 17, 2012 at 8:38 am

        It’s in the rule book at UEFA, nobody needs to go on the record to clarify it, Sevco needs three years of books, they don’t exist because it’s a new club.

      • Adam December 17, 2012 at 9:19 am

        And what if UEFA, like their Swiss counterparts ECA agree that Rangers are NOT a new club ?

        How does that affect the rules. Reading Chapter 2, Article 12, it is very specific in stating that if the legal for Company structure has changed “IN ORDER TO FACILITATE ITS QUALIFICATION……” is deemed an interruption of membership.

        Clearly, Rangers situation was not carried out “IN ORDER TO FACILITATE ITS QUALIFICATION……”

        Im not saying its not in there, but can you point me to the part where three years of books is mentioned in UEFA rules as i want to read the context and I cant find it.

        Thanks Angela.

  57. pogin December 17, 2012 at 3:53 am Reply

    The entity founded in 1872 by Moses and Peter McNeil, Peter Campbell and William McBeath, became members of the SFA in 1873.

    The entity founded in 1872 existed as a Club before it’s membership of any Association. Membership of an Association, transferred or otherwise, does not make a Club a Club.

    The entity founded in 1872 incorporated itself as a Limited Company in 1899. When a Club takes this step, the Club BECOMES a Company. A holding/parent Company was NOT created in 1899 to own Rangers FC, instead, Rangers FC(the entity founded in 1872) officially BECAME Rangers Football Club Ltd.

    The entity founded in 1872 was placed into liquidation in 2012. It no longer holds it’s membership in Association Football.

    Soon, the entity founded in 1872 by Moses and Peter McNeil, Peter Campbell and William McBeath will be liquidated and it will cease to exist.

    Sevco Scotland is NOT the natural continuation of the Football Club that the gallant pioneers founded in 1872. That Club is about to be dissolved because it tried to buy success with money it did not have and neglected to pay it’s taxes. It ran up unsustainable debts and paid the price for making a mockery of, and breaking the rules of the sport it was founded to participate in. It’s failures on the pitch in 2012, coupled with it’s failures in a business and moral sense off it, were the stake through the heart that killed the entity that the gallant pioneers founded in 1872.

    Sevco Scotland have taken up Rangers FC’s SFA membership, but it is NOT the same entity that was founded by those 4 good men back in 1872. It doesn’t matter what Charles Green says(although he did himself say that only a CVA could save the Club), what the media say, what the SFA or UEFA or FIFA or ECA say(all of which were not even in existence when those 4 good men started their Club back in 1872), the cold hard fact remains that….

    The entity they founded in 1872, by it’s own choice became a Ltd Company in 1899. No parent company was created in 1899. The entity they founded in 1872 is about to be liquidated and it will cease to exist forevermore. It will go the way of the dodo and it will NEVER come back. It will NEVER field a team of players again, just like Third Lanark. That is 100% REALITY. Anyone that can’t handle the pain of that reality is of course free to delude themselves into believing an entity founded in 2012 and an entity founded in 1872 are the same entity. Just try to contain your rage when people living in the real world try and fail to keep a straight face while you tell them of your fairytales.

    Being in denial is one thing. But claiming something is true when it is simply IMPOSSIBLE is ridiculous.

    Charles Green is not Santa Claus and Rangers FC are stone dead.

  58. johnbhoy 57 December 17, 2012 at 6:58 am Reply

    excellent piece angela,they dont like the sevco name do they,so come on be nice to them
    so lets all call them” THE TONIGHT MATTHEWS”

  59. Figgy December 17, 2012 at 8:28 am Reply

    so explain pacific shelf 1994

    • michael December 17, 2012 at 10:22 am Reply

      Actually, it’s incumbent on you to explain why you think Pacific Shelf has any relevance here at all. Anyone who has looked at it knows that it is complete and utter nonsense and it thrown in as a deliberate red herring. Either you know this and are deliberately trying to muddy the waters or you don’t know anything about it and are just parroting what others say.

      Here’s the simple explanation of Pacific Shelf. McCann turned Celtic from a private company into a PLC. This led to a name change from The Celtic Football and Athletic Coy Ltd to Celtic PLC. This was the same legal entity, it simply changed its name. To stop anyone else ever using the old name of Celtic (The Celtic Football and Athletic Coy Ltd) McCann renamed an off-the-shelf company (Pacific Shelf) to this. To use a simple analogy, it is like buying up an internet domain so that no-one can use it to pretend to be your site

    • Steff December 17, 2012 at 10:44 am Reply

      Oh here we go, more whataboutery.

      For a start the Celtic situation – even if we were a newco, has no bearing on the current Sevco situation.

      People like you and Adam cling on to other events in other clubs at other times as though they are relevant. They are not.

      On to Pacific Shelf.

      Pacific Shelf was a company that was created so we could retain our historical name of “THE CELTIC FOOTBALL AND ATHLETIC COMPANY LIMITED”.

      After the share issue we then changed our name to Celtic PLC but we still retained our old name.

      We never went into admin, we never went into liquidation.
      We never had to get SFA membership transferred, nothing, zilch.

      Same club.

      On the other hand, Sevco ….

    • pogin December 17, 2012 at 11:16 am Reply

      Pacific Shelf is not and never has been a Football Club and it has never applied to be a member of an Association. It was renamed in 1994 to protect the the historical Celtic name when the Football Club founded in 1887 by Brother Walfrid BECAME a Public Limited Company.

      Celtic FC were not liquidated and did not cease to exist unlike Rangers FC.

      Celtic FC paid it’s debts in full unlike Rangers FC.

      Celtic PLC is the natural continuation of a Football Club founded in the 1800s, unlike Sevco Scotland.

      Anyone that believes otherwise obviously believes in Chucky Claus because they can’t handle the truth that their own Football Club ceased to exist.

      Of course it’s painful that the supporters of Rangers FC were so easily fooled by the people running the Club down through the decades. These people had no right to kill and shame a 140 year old Football Club by cheating taxes. These people had no right to partake in a sectarian signing policy, attracting bigots to it’s support and giving it a bad name in the eyes of decent people everywhere. These so call Rangers people had no right to bring shame to the men who founded the Club by allowing it to die as one of the most disgraceful Football Clubs in the history of the game.

      The gallant pioneers probably would never have bothered founding it at all had they known their Club was going to be hijacked by the lowlife cheats and bigots that ultimately killed it.

    • Adam December 17, 2012 at 3:41 pm Reply

      Pacific Shelf 1994 have absolutely no relevance in this. Its a complete nonsense comparison.

  60. naefear (@Naefearrfc) December 17, 2012 at 10:20 am Reply

    From Companies House:


Name & Registered Office:
RFC 2012 P.L.C.
G2 8JX 
Company No. SC004276

Status: Liquidation 
Date of Incorporation: 27/05/1899

Country of Origin: United Kingdom 

Company Type: Public Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC):
93120 – Activities of sport clubs

Accounting Reference Date: 30/06
Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/06/2010 (GROUP)
Next Accounts Due: 31/12/2011 OVERDUE
Last Return Made Up To: 27/01/2012
Next Return Due: 24/02/2013 

Last Members List: 27/01/2012
Last Bulk Shareholders List: 27/01/2011.

    Anyone see a football Club established in 1872 above? wait that is a company and companies House deals with companies! funny that, so what about football authorities well:

    European clubs body downgrades Rangers’ status but recognises history
    14 December 2012 15:07 GMT

    Rangers are founder members of the European Club Association. Pic: © SNS Group
    The European Club Association has confirmed that Rangers remain as members of the organisation but that their status has been downgraded following the transfer of ownership.
    Following administration and the subsequent transfer of assets to a newco owned by Charles Green’s consortium, Rangers lost their place in the Scottish Premier League and were later admitted to the third tier of the Scottish Football League.
    The ECA is the sole independent body recognised by UEFA and FIFA as representing clubs at European level. Ordinary members of the group are required to be playing in their domestic top division and be licensed to play European football.
    Rangers do not hold a UEFA club licence as a result of a break in their accounts and, having lost their top-flight status, are no longer ordinary members of the ECA, the organisation confirmed.
    “Rangers FC held ordinary membership with the ECA before entering into administration and later into liquidation,” an ECA spokesperson confirmed to STV.
    “Meanwhile Rangers FC, owned by the Rangers Football Club Plc, transferred all its assets, including its goodwill, to Sevco Ltd (Sevco Ltd later changing its name to the Rangers Football Club Ltd)
    “Alike at Scottish FA level, this ‘new entity’ had to re-apply for membership with ECA as according to Swiss law, membership of an association is neither heritable nor transferable (article 70.3 of the Swiss Civil Code).
    “In dealing with these re-application, ECA applied the terms and provisions of our membership policy and statutes.
    “According to the prerequisites set out in the membership policy, Rangers FC did not meet the requirements to be granted ordinary membership (top division and European licence).
    However, Rangers are permitted to hold associate membership, which holds no voting rights, as they are one of the founder members of the ECA. The organisation considers the club’s history to be continuous regardless of the change of company.
    “With regards to associated membership, the membership policy states amongst others that founding members are granted automatic membership,” the spokesperson explained.
    “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’.

    That’s not right the Law must be able to clarify it surely:

    RANGERS FC 1872.
    It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule I1 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club. Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated. 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. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise.
    THE SCOTTISH PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED REASONS for Decision dated 12 September 2012
    The Commission appointed by Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Scottish Premier League Limited dated 1 August 2012 in relation to RFC 2012 Plc and Rangers FC

    But, But, surely an accountant can sort it?

    The corporate entity that formerly housed Rangers FC, now in liquidation, had the scheme in place between 2001 and 2010 to pay £47.65m to players and staff in tax-free loans.


    BUt, but, surely the SFA will stop this?

    Agreement on transfer of membership
    Friday, 27 July 2012

    Following the completion of all legal documentation, the Scottish Premier League will conduct the formal transfer of the league share between RFC (IA) and Dundee FC on no later than Friday 3rd August 2012. At this point, the transfer of Scottish FA membership will be complete. 

    There were a number of complex and challenging issues involved but, primarily, the Scottish FA had to be satisfied that the new owners of Rangers would operate in the best interests of the club,

    We have reached agreement on all terms and conditions attached to the transfer of membership and are able to grant conditional membership, ahead of the formal transfer of the SPL share a week today.


    But, but Uefa know the club has gone?

    Club coefficients 2012/13


    88 Rangers FC SCO 0.375 6.533 12.720 2.050 0.860 22.538

    But, but big jimmy says it not the same club;

    Fail! fail!

  61. badgerbhoy December 17, 2012 at 10:42 am Reply


    Pacific Shelf was a company setup in 1994 by Fergus McCann which was used to protect the old name of Celtic PLC (the club), which was The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Ltd.

    Just like Rangers the club was incorporated in the 19th century (1897) and remained “The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Ltd” until 1994 when Fergus changed the name to Celtic PLC upon launching the share issue which helped rebuild our stadium.

    The rest as they say is history.

  62. waco61 December 17, 2012 at 11:21 am Reply

    ah the auld pacific shelf lie lol ,have a look at companies house you will see celtic still hold the very same company number they got way back in 1888 ,as for celtic athletic company it never went bust it still exists within celtic, it never went into admin, it never went into liquidation, it did`nt even leave any one out of pocket, so that little avenue of hope for sevcovians all around the globe is closed and so too VERY VERY SOON will the liquidation process of RFC 1872/99, when that happens its all over and all thats left is the bricks and mortar that chuckie might own, though wee craigy might just have an ace up his sleeve to scupper that lol,all that you see is sevco5088 that became sevco scotland that became The rangers that then became rangers internationali all those have one thing in common they are all PRETENDYGERS

  63. John McFeerlay December 17, 2012 at 11:30 am Reply

    It is pointless trying to debate with fans of the “tribute act” currently residing in Division 3, their arrogance will not permit an honest and factual debate.

    To refer to some dated UEFA coefficient page sums them up. They are dead and no posting links can convince the great people of Scotland otherwise.

    The OldCo deprived me and many others of a level playing field for 11 years (probably a lot longer)

    Welcome to the age of parity NewCo Tribute act, your defiance assisted by your compliant media will never be forgotten.

    Oh I hope you are looking forward to Green shafting you guys again like Murray and Whyte did but of course your “defiance” will not see this coming, for the 3rd time.

  64. third lanorc December 17, 2012 at 12:10 pm Reply

    Angela great blog mate,dont let so called dignified fans who threatened to burn down Raith Rovers stadium put you off,of course they are upset their club died but the rest of society wont be lied to especially as most of our clubs are run correctly and we all pay our taxes.

    Leeds Utd were totally different ,Ken Bates bought the club not its assets plus the English FA didnt try bend the rules to keep up the pretence,try taking your Leeds argument to either a Leeds fan or an Ibrox loving radio show like Clyde SSB and ask why they dont answer callers with the Leeds example,try asking the SFA and every newspaper why the front pages dont point to Leeds.

    They dont,they stay schtum on the subject because they know there is no comparison and are indeed caught on the fence because they dont want to incur the much exercised wrath of the billy boys who threaten journalists and threaten to burn down stadiums.

  65. Pablo December 17, 2012 at 12:31 pm Reply

    Celtic football club
    125 years of unbroken history.

    And even through the biscuit tin years…

    We ALWAYS paid our bills.

  66. Dave December 17, 2012 at 5:56 pm Reply

    Rangers Football Club have 140 years of unbroken history.
    And no matter how many times you complain to Glasgow Trading Standards (Pathetic is an understatement for this action.) it will never be taken away.

  67. Yourmanfrom MK December 17, 2012 at 6:36 pm Reply


    I’v been directed to your blog from CQN and it’s added to my list of favourites already.

    It’s fascinating reading the posts of the more lucid Sevco fans but to a man/woman they blithely ignore the carnage they’ve created and their wanton disregard for their creditors and other clubs in Scottish football.

    Other blogs are dismissed because it suits the narrative of the Sevco agenda to say everyone hates Tangers/The Rangers/Sevco but I’m sure you’ll tread a path that doesn’t permit such accusations.

    Keep up the mission.

  68. faza2010 December 17, 2012 at 7:39 pm Reply

    Must be a seismic event due, Adam is out & about again ;-D

    • rab December 17, 2012 at 10:27 pm Reply

      Yip. Adam who can’t understand where this “obsession” by Celtic fans on all things sevco comes from, sure spends a hell of an amount of time on Celtic minded blogs, arguing with Celtic fans.

  69. Dub December 17, 2012 at 8:00 pm Reply

    In the kingdom of the blind Charley reigns supreme.

  70. third lanorc December 17, 2012 at 9:15 pm Reply

    You know something,see about three years /four years ago when there was the first rumblings of trouble and the talk of tanks on the marble staircase? see if you had’ve told me that it would end in orcs pathetically defending and having to do so for the rest of their lives,that their Ibrox club still had its history ffs I wouldve gladly handed over the winning Euromillions ticket,it is such sweet joy that we will always be able to give them it tight about existence and history,it will be their biggest battle for their born days trying to argue a case and its so funny because everything they use as evidence can be ripped to bits,sure the msm will stick up for them to protect sales from their largest demographic but the ordinary punters in the street,on terraces,in pubs ,on forums,at work,everywhere will always mock them for it because its true,its another ‘no can do’ for the peepil,cant wint the big one,cant do the ten and cant persuade anybody with a brain the history ended.

    The tanks sure did climb the stairs!

    • Pablo December 17, 2012 at 11:27 pm Reply

      I cannot wait till early next year when we can congratulate the orcs happy 1st birthday then watch them self combust

  71. luke December 17, 2012 at 10:45 pm Reply

    Newco fans should read ‘The Emperors New Clothes’

    history is repeating itself here (Hans Christian Anderson style)

    To all fans of all other established clubs: DONT BE AFRAID TO SHOUT,


    Put it in your matchday programmes but Dont apologise for it
    Shout it from the rooftops (stands)




    • Pablo December 17, 2012 at 11:40 pm Reply

      It’s great knowing that their history means soooo so so much to them that they hiss and spit like a injured cornered rat to protect that errrrrr history?

      No accounts
      No trophies
      No history
      Rangers international….

      Nearly 1 year old! What a milestone…
      Record breaking attendances for the 4th tier of football!!!! I will check my yearly xmas present of a Guinness book of records for that !

  72. Joe M December 18, 2012 at 1:05 am Reply

    Sounds to me like Adam has bought a load of shares and is only now realising he has been duped poor guy. Still you cant really blame them when the MSM feeds them a daily dose of pure tripe that hasn’t been properly cleaned and prepared, and it’s just handed over for them to gorge down without chewing. Everyone on the planet knows Rangers died it was all over the news even Charlie Green bless him admitted that when the CVA is rejected they lose their history, have you noticed how they never mention that and journalist never ask him about it. I suppose it’s because it suits them not to. I think deep down the newcos know it as well and weep into their big pillys night after night, The sad thing is they will never admit it and that just makes them tiresome and boring to listen to..

    • Adam December 18, 2012 at 9:52 am Reply

      Sounds like you are wrong. I have purchased the minimum amount just simply to pass on. Ive not been duped. I know I will never see my money again. Im fortunate in that i can afford it. If it all goes horribly wrong and someone new comes in in 2014 and asks again, then no doubt i will do it again, as long as i can still afford it.

      • Joe M December 18, 2012 at 12:31 pm

        Let me get this right you handed over five hundred smackers which you know you will never get back, but because you can afford it, that means you haven’t been duped? And you are prepared to do it again and again as long as you have the cash. Good lord you’ll be getting bumped like a puggy on a regular basis if Charlie finds out. Whatever you do don’t let him find out your surname or phone number, he’ll be phoning you up more than that PPI mob.

  73. BRADYbhoy December 18, 2012 at 1:13 am Reply

    It was Rangers 1872’s ” OBSESSION ” with beating all of Celtic’s records of 9in a row and winning a European Cup that ended up with them dying and i notice the RFC fans who like to say we are obsesses with them seem to forget how obsessed they where with us in the 90’s when they would wait on the Paisley Rd West every week on our coach passing their pubs when they would start singing about winning 10 in a row and they wonder why we are now laughing our asses off at them but they think it’s an absession,lol,if that’s obsessed i’ll take it allday long.As for Rangers being dead,we know it,they know it and e1 knows it.RIP

  74. Mick December 18, 2012 at 5:32 am Reply

    Angela, firstly, apologies, I thought in the first instance that you were were Ramsay’s coleague. That aside, fine words. It is a waiting game now, ask Sheffield United fans. I’m quite thankful that my life isn’t informed by hatred, as expressed by the bully boys. Chuckie will ruin them, and personally speaking I cannot wait for him to do so.
    I’ve said on Phil Mac’s site the same thing. We don’t have to indulge ourselves in polemicism, it is but a matter of time before their latest saviour sheds his (its) cloak.

  75. Chuckie Arla December 18, 2012 at 11:58 am Reply

    All I want for Christmas is for the fans over at Ibrox to be able to have an open mind on this whole situation and ask themselves logical questions, do not be manipulated by the mainstream media, the only people I can see asking the hard questions and finding out the hard answers are the Celtic community, congratulations on the well written article Angela.

    As Adolf Hitler once said, “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

    Nollaig Shona duit a chara.

  76. dunky December 18, 2012 at 1:56 pm Reply

    These arguments will rage on forever. We might as well get used to it. This team/company/oldco/newco/sevco/goinloco/orinoco and too many of it’s supporters have brought shame on this country on too many occasions, and will most likely continue to do so. They seem to glory in that notoriety. The football world would be a better place without them, but we’re stuck with them, in whatever shape they shift in to. If they are the people, then the people should hang their heads. However, we must all live in hope that Charles Darwin was right, and they will eventually evolve into a more-or-less intelligent species.

  77. Torquemada December 18, 2012 at 3:11 pm Reply

    There is no sign of the statement quoted by STV sports on the ECA’s website, at least not that I can see. So what was its provenance? Could it possibly have been ”tweaked” after being leaked? Was it made in answer to specifically framed questions? Could somebody who knows where it is, kindly post a link to it so that we can parse and analyse it? Was it the ECA itself who put quotes around ”new entity” and ”old entity”? Until we see the statement, we cannot tell. Forgive me if I’m reluctant to take the Scottish MSM’s word for it, given that STV failed to mention that Aberdeen were elected in Rangers place.

    Phil Mac Giolla Bhain certainly believes the ECA board was fed duff information about what actually happened to Rangers 1872 before it came to what STV claims is its decision. How could that have happened? lol!

    To any Sevco fans clinging desperately to the straw that is the Uefa rankings that still include Rangers, the fact is that until Rangers are categorically liquidated, we cannot know what Uefa’s view is. Urine Infection FC, the club which gave Walter the most humiliating defeat even in his embarrassing European history, is still rated at 105 even though it, too, is as dead as last week’s mutton. Curiouser and curiouser!

  78. Phil Osopher (@Phillozziffer) December 18, 2012 at 3:22 pm Reply

    Sapphires, Emeralds & flawed Diamonds!

    Never mind Leeds United! How do fans really feel about what happened to how the blue club was appallingly ran, for decades? Don’t forget the green half of Glasgow, calling for the ‘biscuit tin’ board to get out due to the money they squandered and filtered out the club for decades? Those were angry days that took the green club to the brink of collapse!

    However, the green half of Glasgow got answers, as the media were only to happy to divulge as much information in national press as they could lay their hands on. Selling newspapers was the ambition for making murray, sorry money. Green board members appearing on prime time news, answering awkward questions about the green business. That is answers! That’s why they had to go! Green fans were afforded candid detail on what was happening courtesy of a motivated media, determined to reveal the truth about the green club.

    The blue half are not afforded this and are suffering because they are the ‘establishment club’. A blue friend said, he believes more about what he’s read on JFK than RFC; as the upper echelons of their support continue to tangle weave a web full of knots controlling blue information. Now, they’ve gone and put an emerald (that claims to be a diamond) in charge, of the sapphire media. What serious blue fan would complaints to someone who has all the conviction of a patsy? Not one. That’s why’s he’s there.

    Is the blue side not,…Angry? Upset? Annoyed? Do you not deserve answers? Yes you do? Craig Whyte is not an answer! Leeds United, is not an answer! The EBT! The HMRC! The BBC! The FTT! The Judicial Review & The Book Depository, are all,NOT answers. They are excuses! And as any Blue and Green fan knows there can be,…NO EXCUSES !!!

    Before and green supporters pipe up,

  79. Torquemada December 18, 2012 at 3:25 pm Reply

    There is no sign of the statement quoted by STV sports on the ECA’s website, at least not that I can see. So what was its provenance? Could it possibly have been ”tweaked” after being leaked? Was it made in answer to specifically framed questions? Could somebody who knows where it is, kindly post a link to it so that we can parse and analyse it? Was it the ECA itself who put quotes around ”new entity” and ”old entity”? Until we see the statement, we cannot tell. Forgive me if I’m reluctant to take the Scottish MSM’s word for it, given that STV failed to mention that Aberdeen were elected in Rangers’ place. .

    Phil Mac Giolla Bhain certainly believes the ECA board was fed duff information about what actually happened to Rangers 1872 before it came to what STV claims is its decision. How could that have happened? lol!

    To any Sevco fans clinging desperately to the straw that is the Uefa rankings that still include Rangers, the fact is that until Rangers are categorically liquidated, we cannot know what Uefa’s view is. Urine Infection FC, the club which gave Walter the most humiliating defeat even in his embarrassing European history, is still rated at 105 even though it, too, is as dead as last week’s mutton.

  80. Torquemada December 18, 2012 at 3:27 pm Reply

    Apologies for the double post. Uppity iPhone.

  81. Phil Osopher (@Phillozziffer) December 18, 2012 at 3:43 pm Reply

    Earlier post meant to finish…Before blue and green supporters pipe up demanding to know what foot I kick with… I like the game but almost all players who play annoy me with their lack of responsibility and willingness to dare i say it, cheat!

  82. AntoniousF December 18, 2012 at 10:02 pm Reply

    i am of to DFS to order a lorry load of sofas on interest free credit. i am going to sell them on for cash in hand and pocket the lot. when DFS coming calling for their doe, i will tell them that i am not ‘AntoniousF’ but am in fact ‘The AntoniousF’, and therefore not the same person. They wont have a beech effect leg to stand (or sit) on.

    it’s fail safe. do you want in?

  83. Mick December 20, 2012 at 7:31 pm Reply

    Frachise football fans, question if you don’t mind. Club/company; which other part of the company turned a profit to offset the losses incurred by the club? If I’m correct there are no subdivisions, only “the club”.
    The sooner you accept you are the 2nd franchise team after MK Dons, the happier you’ll be.
    Now please jog on to your next game against (?), we’ve got Juve to think about.

  84. jackblack December 31, 2012 at 5:36 am Reply

    Hibs 1 tic 0 bring on Juve . Cmon the Gers what a marvelous old Scottish institution they are have been and always will be.Happy new year to one and all from the nightshift boy.

    • William Wilson February 4, 2013 at 8:06 pm Reply

      I think u should do a bit of research on ur own team mr hibby. Hibs ceased to exist some 15 years after u were formed hasn’t stopped u lot claiming the trophies u won before that, cos if u think gers r new club then u lot r most definitely r, rangers were bought before anything was liquidated can u say that about hibs

  85. William Wilson February 4, 2013 at 8:00 pm Reply

    Angela, Angela, Angela, oh dear. Sevco as u put so lovely bought everything from the PLC apart from 3 years of financial accounts, & that makes rangers a new club, behave yourself. SFA, UEFA (club rankings), ECA, administrators, BDO, 2 legal law lords, London stock exchange, share certificates. Deal with it Angela your comments are embarrassing, rangers newco is just a continuation of oldco, same club

  86. Rocky Von Smirnovalenko February 28, 2013 at 9:43 pm Reply

    Why were oldco players allowed to leave when newco took over if it were the same club? Surely players play for the club not the company or is club and company really just one and the same? Once again today the establishment has backed it’s bastard, that will never change wether oldco rangers or newco the rangers. Threat of civil unrest really is a potent force for the walking dead!

  87. Anon bhoy March 17, 2013 at 2:29 pm Reply

    Got fed up hearing about same club shite! So came up with a song for all of Scottish football so it never be forgotten. Had all sort of clever versions, but thought best to keep it simple and if anything has been learned from this whole thing is that they have to be told twice!

    To the tune of King of kings:

    Rangers they died in 2012,
    And that includes their history
    Rangers they died in 2012
    Cause they didn’t pay their majesty.

    Now they’re Sevco
    Now they’re Sevco
    Now they’re Sevco
    With no history

    Now they’re Sevco
    Now they’re Sevco
    Now they’re Sevco
    They should have fuckin paid their majesty!

  88. William Wilson April 7, 2013 at 12:43 am Reply

    Officially & legally rangers are the same club here’s the proof. OFFICIALLY: Transfer of same membership by the SFA you cant transfer a membership to a new club. UEFA have giving rangers a club ranking for this season. ECA have kept rangers as members. LEGALLY: Rangers are listed on the stock exchange as “rangers international fc plc owners of rangers fc founded 1872” now it’s illegal for one company or club to represent another company or club if that said company or club ceases to exist. 4 legal law experts including two lords have categorically stated that rangers fc is a separate entity from the company & that sevco Scotland Ltd bought the “club” from the PLC. There is no debate on whether rangers are or are not same club, OFFICIALLY & LEGALLY rangers fc as of today is same rangers fc as of 1872. When rangers win a scottish cup for example the history books not just rangers history books will officially list it as the clubs 34th win

  89. jamabhoy June 1, 2014 at 7:44 am Reply

    Great blog Angela. The effect Rangers going out of business had to ordinary people trying to run a business cannot be iignored. The broke the rules they should be made live with the consequences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: