If this is the acceptable standard, SFA are welcome to it


Our man on the inside, Charlie Green, seems to have upset a few people over the weekend.  Charlie was playing to the gallery with his “bigotry” comment; it is not credible that the 35 clubs who voted against providing Sevco access to an elevated league are demographic significantly different from those of Rangers (1872/3).  Although, there is a good chance that each of those 35 clubs will have a more mixed profile than the former club.

Green is still fending off interest from people with far greater pull with the Rangers (1872/3) support than he has (genuinely hope he succeeds here).  He needs to sell tens of thousands of tickets to prevent his new club slipping into the hands of one of the other consortiums still trying to buy a piece of the action.  I always caution Celtic from playing to the gallery, it delivers short term populism but is surely the alternative to a strategic plan. I am sure several clubs will express their alarm at these comments to the SFA.

Unfortunately, since the SFA failed to take action on either of Ally McCoist’s earlier inflammatory outbursts so they can expect more of the same from Green and others.

Attempts are being made to convince thousands of people a bigoted bogeyman has been out to get them.  99% of the target population will do no more than complain loudly but it’s the unpredictable >1% who exist in every community we should be concerned about.

To the best of my knowledge no Scottish club has ever accused others of bigotry, not even during ‘that’ 80 year period.  If this is the new acceptable standard, the SFA are welcome to it, but it will be better for all if we go elsewhere to play our football.  Our game has been potent for a century but it has now become dangerously unstable.

Let us go now, before this is whipped up any more.  Anyone wanting to hold Scottish football together in its current form has a lot of explaining to do.

Click Here for Comments >

About Author

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 24

  1. Paul67



    The likelihood of a court order to alter the current club name of Sevco has not been ruled out. In the event that BDO deem the purchase of Ibrox etc to be a “gratuitous alienation” of the real value of those assets; with a court order being necessary to prevent the use of the name “Rangers”; and the main debt owed by RFC being social taxes, is any member of the public able to apply for such court order?



    If the door opens to the possibility of legally deleting the name; should that course of action be taken?



    The argument for months now has been that Scottish football needs ‘Rangers’, the more crucial question is; would Scotland become a better place without ‘Rangers’?



    The above question is not one of football rivalry; the bigger picture needs to be looked at.



    Politics, religion, football ….just another Saturday?



    Bang the drum

  2. Borrowed from RTC who I think might have borrowed it from KDS:



    Prohibited name



    Section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 defines the circumstances in which criminal and civil liability can be imposed on a director who acts, without proper notice being given or the leave of the court, for a company or even an unincorporated business which is known by a prohibited name.



    A name will be prohibited where it is the same name that the liquidating company was known as at any time in the 12 months immediately before it went into liquidation, or where it is sufficiently similar as to suggest an association with the liquidating company. This includes a trading name.



    Criminal liability



    Where a company trades under a prohibited name an individual can be guilty of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment or fine, or both for:



    • acting as a director of the company; and



    • taking part either directly or indirectly in the formation, management or promotion of the company.



    An individual can also be liable under Section 216 for being involved in a business using the prohibited name, even if it is not a company.



    Civil liability



    Under section 217 of the Act, a person will be personally responsible for the ‘relevant debts’ of a company if he is involved in the management of the company in breach of section 216, or if he is involved in the management of a company and takes instructions from a person he knows to be in breach of section 216. The relevant debts are those debts which were incurred whilst that person was acting in contravention of section 216 or taking instructions from a person he knew to be in contravention of section 216.



    An Example



    A simple illustration can be seen in the case of Ricketts v Ad Valorem Factors Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1706



    Air Component Company Limited (Air Component) went into insolvent liquidation; Mr Ricketts was a Director of Air Component from 2nd January 1998, that is at that time in the period of 12 months ending with the day before it went into Liquidation on 10th February 1998. Mr Ricketts was also a Director of Air Equipment Company Limited (Air Equipment) from 2nd March 1998, which is in the period of 5 years beginning with the day on which Air Component went into Liquidation.



    The leave of the Court was not sought or obtained for Mr Ricketts to act in relation to a Company known by the name of Air Equipment. Whilst Mr Ricketts was a Director of Air Equipment it incurred the debts to Hankinson UK Ltd. Air equipment also went in to liquidation. Ad Valorem, as Assignee of the Hankinson debt, sought to recover it from Mr Ricketts personally. The relevant requirements of Sections 216 and 217 Insolvency Act 1986 were plainly satisfied.



    Since Mr Ricketts was acting as a director of Air Equipment Company Limited, he had no defence if it was decided that the name was prohibited by virtue of it being sufficiently similar to Air Component Company Limited.



    The Court of Appeal did, indeed, uphold the decision of the lower court and dismiss Mr Ricketts’ appeal, finding that the names were sufficiently similar to impose personal liability. In reaching that decision they also considered the products sold by the two companies; their locations; their customers and the common management.



    And so the Court’s determination was that, bearing in mind these considerations:-



    ‘there was no doubt that the name Air Equipment Company Limited suggested an association with Air Component Company Limited’.



    If the Director was guided through these complex provisions to avoid the long reach of section 216 personal liability (and potentially criminal liability) should have been easily avoided.






    The Court of Appeal in reaching its decision found that there was no requirement under either section 216 or 217 for proof of any express misrepresentation or of anyone actually having been deceived or confused into thinking there was an association between the two companies. Instead, the test to be applied appears to be whether the names are so similar that they would be likely to suggest to a member of the public that they were associated, whether as successor companies or as part of the same group.



    Avoiding liability



    The prohibition of using a prohibited name runs for five years from the date of liquidation and applies to anyone who was a director or active in the management of the relevant company within the 12 months preceding the liquidation.



    There are 5 principal ways to avoid or mitigate liability:-



    1 A Court application can be made for permission to act for a company (or unincorporated business) with a prohibited name. Such permission is likely to be given if the insolvency of the first company is not linked to culpable conduct of the party making the application. Whilst this mechanism has not been widely used in the past it will be used more frequently in the future.



    2 There is also a mechanism for giving notice in the immediate aftermath of liquidation by giving notice PROVIDED notice in proper form is given BEFORE there is an infringement of Section 216. This mechanism is contained in an almost incomprehensible amendment to the Insolvency Rules was rushed through in August 2007 in knee-jerk reaction to the Court of Appeal Judgment in Churchill v First Independent Factors and Finance Limited [2006] EWCA Civ 1623.



    Inevitably, many advisers to successor/group businesses not familiar with these new regulations will get it wrong and not secure the intended protection. The impact of this will not be under-estimated by increasingly sophisticated creditors, such as Ad Valorem Ltd in the example above, seeking to pierce the corporate veil. Company Directors and their advisers must therefore focus on that aspect.



    3 There is no infringement of Sections 216 and 217 if the second company has been known by the prohibited name for the whole of the 12 months preceding the day on which the first company went into liquidation and has been active for that same period (sec 216(3) IA 1986)



    4. Resigning as a director or manager.



    5. Change the company or trading name.



    Act in haste, repent in leisure?



    The potentially severe personal consequences to any Director or his Accountant or Insolvency Practitioner acting for Directors of a company in contravention of sections 216 and 217 Insolvency Act 1986 cannot be ignored.



    It is strongly recommended that you obtain specialist legal advice on any potential issues with your clients; otherwise it may become your problem and not just theirs.



    Derek Cockle





    Friary Court


    13-21 High Street, Guildford


    Surrey, GU1 3DG






    This note is for illustrative purposes only and is not intended to form specific legal advice to be relied on. Each case will turn on its own unique facts and circumstances.

  3. Estadio Nacional on

    For the owner of a daft wee divison 3 club this eejit sure has a lot to say for himself.

  4. Paul 67 the thing that gets my goat is that the SFA actually gave this idiot and his club a license and a platform to spew this crap on TV and Radio what are they going to do now?



    Our focus today has been on Newco and Green but it’s actually the ruling body of Scottish Football where the stink of corruption is the strongest until that chages we are watching our game die and the real possibility of these morons causing an incident of one kind of another.




  5. Who would you expect to ask Mr Green about his bigotry comments, Paul?


    Who should ask him to explain what he is referring to?


    I seriously do not know who would ask him.


    SFA, SPL, the police, MSM.


    Maybe Alex Thomson?



    Horrible, sectarian, bigotted Scotland.




  6. Celtic Football Club ‏@celticfc



    It’s Flag Day at Paradise this Saturday, August 4, with the kick-off for the Champions’ game against Aberdeen confirmed as 12.45pm.

  7. Jane Lewis ‏@JaneLewisSport



    Re. Charles Green comments yesterday – Celtic have released a statement. “These comments are not worthy of any response from Celtic FC…

  8. Mountain_Bhoy is Neil Lennon on

    Paul67, good article. Talking to my mate after Inter game and he said that cqn/you had talked about 2 invites to other leagues? despite looking at posts over the weekend I couldnt find anything. Do we have invites? If so, I believe its now time to play football elsewhere, the unpunished insane and highly dangerous rantings of Green and his shameless GIRUY to creditors and HMRC coupled with the failure by the police and SFA officials to deal with the illegal singing at Glebe Park – all happening despite the SFA, SFL and SPL bending over backwards to transfer membership, is without doubt the last straw for me.

  9. Jane Lewis Jane Lewis ‏@JaneLewisSport



    Celtic add ”We presume the matter would now be one for the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Football League to deal with.”

  10. For what it’s worth, I’ve fired off a complaint to the SFL and BBC Alba about the ‘song book’ yesterday.



    This seriously needs nipped in the bud.

  11. As some have posted already, the second the football licence was granted new Ragers began, and now a ball has been kicked, they’re back to continue to run amok in Scottish society in the same oldco way. Extremists on the rampage in a 4000 capacity, is one thing, but the conundrum of how many season tickets they’ll sell given John Browns hard work for one, or have a sustainable business plan, is another.



    They make the same mistakes over and over, and have already began being boastful about how rich they are, the last time Green mentioned all his player signing targets over a weekend, his CVA was blown away by HMRC. He really isn’t very bright and his Captain Nemo credentials become more evident every time he speaks.



    Paul67 has called it correctly EBT’s and illegal contracts have come with the price of their licence, the law will be applied to Sevco, so if they want to bragg and be arrogant, they’ll need to be quick as they don’t have long.

  12. From Barcabhoy….



    Barcabhoy says:


    30/07/2012 at 1:55 am


    95 4 Rate This


    “We as a board have made the decisions, we have taken our steps, we do not have the debt any of these clubs have and on the last day of the season I will really enjoy [the findings of] a clever financial analyst who looks at the balance sheets, and the debt to equity ratios of every club in Scotland.”



    How to make friends and influence people, V7.4 Charles Green author



    1. You are all mugs for paying your taxes and suppliers



    2 You are all mugs for not liquidating



    3 You are all going to die, and Rangers are going to enjoy watching you do so



    4 Forget all of this when the vote for league reconstruction comes around



    Its a struggle to come up with an appropriate comment on stuff as crass as has come from Green and McCoist in recent months. I am just going to rely on the words of one of the most vile figures of last century to sum up their attitudes



    “To sum it all up, I must say that I regret nothing.” – Adolf Eichmann

  13. jock steins celtic on

    starry plough, agreed. the SFA with their bending over backwards have managed to engineer a situation whereby Green calls the shots. Sevco-believable.

  14. They fell for Craig Whyte’s crackpot brand of populism and now they will fall for the Yorkshirman’s crock-pot brand of populism. It’s been said time and again; the Huns love a con man.

  15. Paul67



    Green is an absolute jackanory. lol!



    Oh! Sevco were only granted a ‘conditional’ license on Friday. You would almost think they did not want a permananet one to be granted this week…

  16. Paul you are dead right



    I thought our club has played a blinder in staying silent( publicly at least) during there closure



    However i feel PL has made a PR error in his statement last week The sunday msn all had stories of good season ticket sales but PL’s statement did look like a begging bowl rallying cry and gave others chance to cite us as struggling



    I do hope we dont directly respond to Sevcos ramblings ( imho) thats what Sevco were trying to goad us into a statement thus giving oldco fans something to rally behind but there is ways of mentioning integrity financially honesty and tax responsibility in statements over next few days but i do feel the Celtic supporters assoc should make complaints to all governing authorities re there inflammetry statements

  17. Philbhoy - It's just the beginning! on

    From reading back I see there’s been one or two wee problems with the blog this morning.



    The page numbers on my computer are BLUE!!!!!



    C’mon Paul67, get it sorted!

  18. Mountain_Bhoy is Neil Lennon on

    ASonofDan, that thought had crossed my mind too. Its either calculated or the words of a cocky arrogant fudney whos ego is flying high with being in the position he is in. Seems to be something in the air in that organisation, look at the previous incumbents for the last few decades!

  19. Astonishing hubris from Mr Green yesterday.



    Occam’s Razor says he’s a bit unschooled and has had his ear bent by fundamentalists at the heart of oldco/Sevco5088.



    Regardless of how it came about, this ill-conceived and dangerous outburst must be censured by the SFA.



    If it is not, then we know the fix is most assuredly in.

  20. raymilland, I would have thought only BDO or a creditor could act.



    starry plough, yes, the SFA have all the cards.



    EC67, the SFA in the first instance. I am sure the president is active on the subject already!!!



    Mountain_Bhoy, no idea what your mate is referring to.



    ASonOfDan, indeed.



    shimmies33, we need to sell tickets, it is that simple.



    Philbhoy, blue is the new green.

  21. Which begs the question, is that what he wanted all along…?



    This soap opera still has another season left in it, at least…




  22. Awe_Naw_No_Annoni_Oan_Anaw_Noo on

    Can anyone tell me if BDO are actually on the case yet ? as in situ ?



    HAil Hail

  23. Anyway, read this morning that HJK have lost alot of their star players from last season and have been a bit unconvincing in the League.



    The laptop loyal will not report that right enough…

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 24