Pull My Strings

Only fair to give the Dees plenty of notice of bedtime.

Anyway, it's Dillon or Souttar and Dow or Gauld. The other nine positions are nailed on. Jackie obviously considered the possibility of Watson at centre half but the possibility of Keef's knees randomly locking is probably too much to bear. FWIW I'd drop that mentalist Gunning and take my chances with Dillon and Souttar but obviously that won't happen and we'll have to cross our fingers that Gavin can manage 90 minutes without at least one brain fart. Seems highly unlikely to me.

What is this, I don't even ... ?

And feel like a right daft c**t once a fortnight because you forgot you don't live anywhere near Munich?

Galactus (Devourer of Worlds) Ryan Gauld (above, with John Souttar)

I think you may have misjudged the mood of most non-OF fans on this forum. As far as I can tell the most frequent expressions are of unbounded glee (plus some rather unpleasant hubris but that's forgiveable in the circumstances). If anything the widespread denial amongst supporters of Rangers/ICBTNR fans only makes the whole episode more enjoyable.

No fair. I've been on my best behaviour this morning. Edit: You're not going to be able to read this since I'm on ignore. In which case, your maw.

Wings, do me a favour and stop replying to my posts, there's a good chap.

Happy endings cost extra.

I'm sorry but that is simply not right. There is a general prohibition under the Insolvency Act 1986 (Section 216 )on the reuse of company names and that prohibition extends to trading names. However, there are exceptions to this general prohibition: one being where a new company buys the assets (or substantially the assets) of a company in administration or liquidation with the intention of continuing to operate that business. I've posted the exact rule three times on this thread now. Rule 4.228 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. If you'd like to post the section of the Business Names Act 1985 which you think applies in this case I'm happy to reconsider but I've had this discussion with several posters already on this thread and no one seems to be able to provide any authority for their position. I've had a quick look again at the 1985 Act to refresh my memory and I can't see anything in there which would prevent sevco from trading as Rangers. Here's the Act if anyone feels like diving in. My understanding is that, actually, most issues with business names (not already addressed under insolvency legislation) are actually dealt with in the Companies Act 2006. Incidentally there is a well recognised distinction between a company and a business undertaking. A business is the work carried out whereas a company is the legal personality under which that business undertaking operates. There has been a great deal of judicial discussion on the point at which a transfer of business property becomes a transfer of undertakings but the gist is that the same work is carried out by the same people, usually from the same premises with substantially the same customers etc. It's well recognised that in this context the purchase of the assets by Green from the oldco constituted a transfer of undertakings. We can see that by the fact that TUPE applied (TUPE only applies where there has been a transfer of undertakings). Anyhoo, I've got a paying client in now so must dash. I'll try to find you a legal definition of undertaking later if you like.

Sorry, bud. I have tried but these things tend to degenerate into nonsense. That post above was made in the midst of dealing with a particularly unsatisfactory digression. My apologies to all who I have offended. I do have a very unattractive tendency to condescension and sarcasm when I'm irritated. It's a fair cop.

Jesus wept.

That presumably explains the fact that you clearly have a little knowledge (which is a dangerous amount). My partnership isn't incorporated. Does that make me more or less of an expert than you. Most of whom fucked off because they exercised their right to f**k off rather than transfer under TUPE. I'd hope that you'd understand the concept of TUPE (kit requires an understanding of a business undertaking) but I don't really care. You've digressed enough. Okay, so your argument is that sevco are not a business. You've mentioned numerous problems but haven't been able to specify a single one other than the frankly bizarre assertion that a company which employs dozens of staff, who transferred over from their previous eployer because the law explicitly recognises the associated business undertaking is not a business. Incidentally, I haven't asked you to prove anything, I merely asked you to explain your argument with sources, since you stated earlier that you had cited sources. You've explained your argument, it's nonsense, and you have no sources. I've wasted enough time.

I do hope you're being ironic.

You guys are absolutely mental. BDO and HMRC do not give a single fuck about sevco trading as Rangers.

Companies House issue trading names now? Seriously?

The quid pro quo being that I am explaining my position for the purpose of clarification while you continue to hide behind vague 'err lots of problems and shit'. My suspicion is that you don't know what a trading name is, you don't know what a business undertaking is, you don't understand the concept of the transfer of a business undertaking, you don't get that Sevco have bought Rangers the business rather just some property. I haven't carried out any transactions with Rangers personally so I can't post a picture of a receipt with them. They are very clearly marketing themselves as Rangers. That's a trading name. They have many trading names (as do many businesses), but you digress. Why do Sevco not have the right to trade as Rangers? That's clearly your position. You've contradicted my explanations with that blunt assertion so let's have it: Why do Sevco not have the right to trade as Rangers? What is the legal impediment? If you can't provide an explanation for that I can only assume that you're bluffing and you really don't have a clue.

No but when you inevitably went bust and I bought the business from the administrators I could continue to trade as Chicken Wings Over Scotland. That's what has happened here.

Too easy. You're not going to embarass yourself by suggesting that The Rangers Football Club is distinct from Rangers are you? From the Rangers website.

Cool. We're making progress. Can we agree that I have posted an answer to those who say that the prohibition on business names is the problem and have shown that it is not the problem? Yes? Super. Now, quid pro quo, can you explain what the problem is. It's not particularly convincing to say 'there are numerous problems' without explaining what those problems are. Genuine question, btw, my posts have been in response to those peddling pish about pheonix companies etc. If there's actually some other problem I haven't considered I'd be interested to hear what it is. That way we can all be better informed.

Argh. No that BBC article is bullshit. You'll note that it was posted over a month ago and there's has been no follow-up whatsoever. I'm putting it down to a slow news day and the YTS boy phoning round looking for something to submit to his boss. Sevco are already trading as Rangers.

Gotcha. I can see where you're going wrong now.

Sorry, who suggested that? I'd be delighted to read that particular quote.

With all due respect, it's rather poor form to contradict someone publically and then refuse to provide a proper explanation of your position. You remarked that I was talking cobblers when I said that there was no problem with sevco trading as Rangers. Which part of that is cobblers and where is the source that you claim to have posted in response?

Go on then, I am all ears. The problem with bluffing on the internet is that occasionally someone will call you on it. The reason they are not in the SPL is because the other members refused to sanction the transfer of the share. It's not an unusual concept and it's got nothing to do with the use of company names or trading names. Unless you're suggesting that the other members of the SPL own the name, 'Rangers'. Now that would surprise me and would make your argument coherent. I fear you're not arguing that, however.