Club Vs. Company

[The Educator 1,572]

With the posting of the thread regarding the non-payment of money to Rangers by Setanta it occurs to me that perhaps it is time for the football authorities to publish a definition of what contracts are signed by the club, and which are the responsibility of the parent company.

As we all know Rangers are still Rangers, the change was in who owns the club, Old Co/New Co, however there have been a number of financial matters that have arisen that seem to ignore this which have been used to stop the club from gaining access to millions in revenue. We know that the 2.3m that was due to the club from the SPL was withheld even though the rights to it were sold as part of the assets when Green and co took over the club, so does this not apply to the Setanta cash as well?

As there looks to be a trend forming in Scottish football for clubs to be going through administration isn't it time that everybody was aware of what will be regarded as assets of a club or the parent company when it comes to contracts such as this? I would have thought that this would be of interest to most football fans in Scotland, not just those of Rangers though I can see how some would rather not have clarification as they can use the current situation to basically siphon off income that should go to the club or to the liquidators of the old parent company.

So here is where I would like to see some clarity.

Players are signed and registered by a club or are they signed and registered by the parent company.

Likewise a club enters into the league and cup tournaments, is the money generated from this due to the club or the parent co.

TV contracts are these signed by the club or the parent company and in the event of administration who will be regarded as being legally entitled to any revenue. I may be wrong, but didn't they pay Hearts TV money in advance to keep them afloat during the summer? Surely this money should not have been payable as a precedent had been set by the way they seized the same payments from Rangers?

Personally I feel that all pre-administration income should go to the pot to pay the outstanding debts, if not it should be paid to the club. I do not believe that the football authorities should be able to simply exploit the situation to save themselves from paying out what is due as has in my opinion been done regarding the situation involving Rangers. By having a clearly set out document covering the eventualities of an administration on a club, at least the fellow clubs in the league could not be accused of voting with a bias as they would be the ones benefiting from any situation similar to ours. Then again perhaps the truth of the situation is that we will never see such a document being created as it would limit their ability to fleece more cash out of Rangers in the future.

[OLE SUPER WILBERT 2,475]

Company, 3-1.

[AMcK 92]

The club in itself does not have a legal personality, but is merely a recognisable entity. All contracts, entitlements and such likes are with the company. For example this is why the authorities had to blackmail us into accepting the liability for football debt as legally there was no need for us to pay it.

[Big Al 55 9,536]

To be fair its only after what has happened to us that anyone gives a fuck about the distinction. Is it a surprise others are either struggling or unwilling to make the same distinction.

[The Educator 1,572]

To be fair its only after what has happened to us that anyone gives a fuck about the distinction. Is it a surprise others are either struggling or unwilling to make the same distinction.

They seem to have totally forgotten about this scenario regarding Hearts, makes me wonder why we seem to have four Glasgow c****c's though.

[BertContraband 283]

Everyone is contracted to the holding company. Thays the legal entity of the club and it runs the clubs affairs. Dont know if there is actually a "club" as such. Just the business assets and fans and so on.