Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 http://galluspioneer.wordpress.com/Note - its aboot the Bheasts so if you are going to complain about the content don't read it Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlCapone 7,678 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Read it before, very interesting Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,141 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 I don't think this demonstrates anything apart from a complex set up. They still have their original company whereas we don't or we won't once it is dissolved but both clubs remain the same. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlCapone 7,678 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I don't think this demonstrates anything apart from a complex set up. They still have their original company whereas we don't or we won't once it is dissolved but both clubs remain the same.Yes they are the same.....rheeking a shite Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted February 3, 2014 Author Share Posted February 3, 2014 Yes they are the same.....rheeking a shiteOne of the companies is sustaining heavy trading losses Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted February 3, 2014 Author Share Posted February 3, 2014 http://billmcmurdo.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/celtic-fc-accts.pdfBowmore Crescent looks a nice area Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,141 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 So basically the bunnet made the original company the mother company with two subsidiaries and essentially one of the subs could go bust and it wouldn't affect the mother company?Is that not what happened to setanta uk ?Mother Fuckers... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Educator 1,572 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 "I don't think this demonstrates anything apart from a complex set up."The point is it's overly complex for it to have been done without an on going reason. Why would you create a new company to take over the club only to create another new company and change its name to that of the original company? It has to have some financial reasoning, it all reminds me of the find the pea game, which cup is the pea under? In this case under which name they using for what reason?One angle that does spring to mind is what were the rules regarding this sort of thing that were in place if any within the SPL and SFA? One would have thought that the football authorities at the time would have had something to say as one would expect that there had to be a transfer of the licence to play football as that would have been in the name of the old company, a company that ceased to exist. Surely it occurred somebody in a seat of power within the game to ask the question "why are you changing to a new company only to create another new one and give it the old name"? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted February 3, 2014 Author Share Posted February 3, 2014 "I don't think this demonstrates anything apart from a complex set up."The point is it's overly complex for it to have been done without an on going reason. Why would you create a new company to take over the club only to create another new company and change its name to that of the original company? It has to have some financial reasoning, it all reminds me of the find the pea game, which cup is the pea under? In this case under which name they using for what reason?One angle that does spring to mind is what were the rules regarding this sort of thing that were in place if any within the SPL and SFA? One would have thought that the football authorities at the time would have had something to say as one would expect that there had to be a transfer of the licence to play football as that would have been in the name of the old company, a company that ceased to exist. Surely it occurred somebody in a seat of power within the game to ask the question "why are you changing to a new company only to create another new one and give it the old name"?Excellent analogy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,141 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I don't know much about setting up companies so hopefully someone with proper knowledge can give us some input. To me, this set up (smartly) protects the mother company from any future insolvency events and on the face of it also looks like a tax dodge but I don't really know that. We also hear the scum was set up initially as a charity, was that the case.I also agree regarding SFA/SPL/SPFL and Uefa. Is this allowed, probably but which company does the membership sit with and was it transferred between companies or was it an internal transfer? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlegKuznetsov 10,816 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Strictly speaking, if company A owns the players but company B pays them, then that's a third-party paying them. Aren't there rules about that sort of thing?Also, like many clubs, including our Club, the original entity preceded the company and therefore is logically distinct from it, as recognised in the ongoing distinction between club and company names. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Educator 1,572 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 "Strictly speaking, if company A owns the players but company B pays them, then that's a third-party paying them."There is a need for clarity in how they have set up their company structure as per payments profits and losses Does anybody know of any other club set up to his model and if so did they carry out the new company old company name ploy? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 "Strictly speaking, if company A owns the players but company B pays them, then that's a third-party paying them."Which is illegal Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.