12 June 2013

78 sad obsessed souls had their dreams officially crushed

Here's the bulk of the ASA's ruling. Sorry, Timmy. (Not really, just in case you plan to file a report on us, too.)



ASA Adjudication on The Rangers Football Club Ltd

Ad

A regional radio ad, a press ad and an e-mail ad, for Rangers Football Club:

a. The regional radio ad stated "Join Scotland's most successful club at IBROX and guarantee your seat for the last four games of the season. Rangers season tickets are priced from £69 for adults, £48 for concessions and just £17 for kids ...".

b. The press ad stated "JOIN SCOTLAND'S MOST SUCCESSFUL CLUB AT IBROX ... STILL GOING STRONG ... 54 TITLES ... RANGERS THEN ... RANGERS NOW ... RANGERS FOREVER".

c. The e-mail ad stated "JOIN SCOTLAND'S MOST SUCCESSFUL CLUB AT IBROX".

Issue

Seventy-eight complainants challenged whether the claim "Scotland's most successful club" was misleading, because they understood that the current club had only been formed in 2012.
(Ed's note: MEGALOLZ)

Response

The Rangers Football Club Ltd (Newco) explained that The Rangers Football Club Plc (Oldco), which previously owned and operated Rangers Football Club (RFC), went into administration on 14 February 2012 and that, in order to preserve RFC after a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement failed, its business and assets were purchased by another corporate entity, which was now known as the Rangers Football Club Ltd and that, therefore, the same Club was now owned and operated by themselves. They provided an extract from a Decision concerning RFC, by an Independent Commission appointed by the Scottish Premier League, in which it was stated that "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". They said the Commission had clearly stated that the same Club continued, regardless of the legal entity that owned and operated it and, therefore, that RFC had continued in existence since 1872. They also provided a letter from the European Club Association (ECA), concerning the RFC's continuing membership after the liquidation, in which it stated that, although run by a different legal entity, it considered RFC was still the same football club, having the same registration number with the Football Association, the same fans, the same stadium, the same club coefficient ranking and the same trophies, and it therefore recognised RFC as a founding member of the ECA, despite the change of ownership. Newco advised us that RFC was a full member of the Scottish Football Association (SFA) and that when Oldco, the legal entity who previously held the membership, went into administration and agreement was put in place to transfer exactly the same membership from Oldco to Newco, which had resulted in membership of the SFA being maintained. They further pointed out that the websites of the Scottish Premier League, the SFA and UEFA all confirmed that RFC had been in existence for 140 years by detailing all honours that the Club had won since its formation in 1872.

The RACC said they felt that, given RFC's history, the claim "Scotland's most successful club" was valid and would not mislead.

Assessment

Not upheld

Whilst the ASA acknowledged that Newco had not taken on all of the debts and liabilities of Oldco when it purchased its assets and business and that that would normally preclude it from trading on the reputation of the former company, we noted that both an Independent Commission appointed by the SPL and the ECA had reached the conclusion that the football club RFC was a recognisable entity in its own right, and that it had continued in existence despite being transferred to another owner and operator. We further considered that consumers would understand that the claim in question related to the football club rather than to its owner and operator. We therefore concluded that it was not misleading for the ad to make reference to RFC's history, which was separate to that of Newco.

We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 (Substantiation) and CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

(Special thanks to Brother Nimmo Smith for putting in a good word for us at the ASA.)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Keep it civil, lads.