Nice take on the Club, Company, history et al

[der Berliner 3,743]

Snatched from FF after a Hooped Horror went into overdrive elsewhere:

 

+ + +

 

I'm not generally moved to make comments on news articles but I felt it important to correct you on a couple of points.

 

HH "RFC became a limited company in 1899 as you say. This was done to protect the directors from personal liability arising from running the club. Later became a PLC when shares were offered to the public. The club were not bought by RFC Ltd. They BECAME RFC Ltd and then BECAME RFC PLC. The club and changing methods of ownership remained one entity with one company number at companies house. This single company is now in the process of liquidation."

 

You are correct that by creating a limited company the directors are effectively "ring-fencing" themselves from claims by creditors in the event that the company becomes insolvent. However this also works in reverse, in as much as the assets, whilst owned are held separate from the company. Assets are "used" to generate a profit for the company. If these assets are mismanaged then they do not generate a sufficient profit and the company becomes in solvent. However in this case the assets remain for the benefit of creditors or whosoever takes over the management of these assets. In the case of Rangers the assets are the stadium, the players, the brand and the goodwill which would include Rangers history, as without this there is no goodwill. You can't argue therefore that the Rangers "BECAME" anything as a result of the change in the company. The assets have always been the same. In other words, the Stadium, the players, the brand and the loyalty of the support are the assets that are "used" to generate a profit and cash flow for the company. These never die.

 

The "assets" as you know do not have a number at Companies house because they are not a Company.

 

HH "Perhaps Empire can explain why the SFA had to TRANSFER the membership. Surely if it's the same club there would have been no need to transfer membership."

 

I'm not sure how this is an argument for a loss of history. If the SFA had to "ISSUE" a new membership to Rangers then you might have a point. A transfer, e.g. Home Ownership, Share Holding, etc. implies the continuation of the underlying asset, not the creation of a new one.

 

I think the struggle here is the conflation of ownership with existence. Clearly Rangers like any club has had many owners over its 140 year history. However these people move on (they die, they become insolvent) however the Club (not the company) remains in perpetuity, i.e. exists, for as long as it fulfils its purpose which is the provision of sports entertainment.

 

&

 

On a serious note, it is this kind of thing Rangers PR should be on top of wherever and whenever it appears in the media. It's not that difficult employ someone to monitor the daily press and respond accordingly. We have to fight fire with fire but it's left to us most of the time.

 

+ + +

 

Lord Nimmo's statement for dummies

[Zappa 0]

Lord Nimmo Smith is an idiot, so it's probably not very wise to use his statement in our defense.

[der Berliner 3,743]

Lord Nimmo Smith is an idiot, so it's probably not very wise to use his statement in our defense.

 

I was using the "Lord Nimmo's statement for dummies" with not a little sense for irony

[Scott7 6,002]

Lord NS may not be entirely worldly-wise but he's not too bad at purely legal analysis. Sets out the position very well.

[craig 5,199]

Lord Nimmo Smith is an idiot, so it's probably not very wise to use his statement in our defense.

 

To be pedantic, there is absolutely no way that Smith is an idiot. Try becoming a judge and see just how difficult it actually is.

 

To call him an idiot is a lack of appreciation of what it takes to get where he is. Or a dislike of him.

 

He may have alternative views which seem strange to the masses (who doesnt), but to call him an idiot is just wrong IMO.