Pull My Strings

Absolutely right. They don't show in your post history but they're still in the thread. Apologies for any offence. Anyhoo, here's what I posted: And here's your reply: And then my explanation: Now, that looks to me like you're refuting the suggestion that Rangers have been sold as an ongoing business undertaking and, since you went to the trouble of contradicting me, I assume that you also refute my explanation as to why they are not prevented from using the company name or trading name. I'd be interested to hear your properly sourced rebuttal.

You've missed the point. Sevco are trading as Rangers, they don't need to rename the company to trade as Rangers. If they were prevented from calling the company Rangers (which is what has been suggested) then they would equally be prevented from trading as Rangers under the insolvency rules on reuse of company names. There is, however, no problem under those rules because sevco bought the entire undertaking from administrators. The reason for what you have posted above is that the oldco needed to change it's name before the newco take the official company name and because there are notice requirements. Nothing to do with reusing company names/trading names.

Hmm, I would but you appear to have deleted the posts in question. The posts in your history jump from 9th July to yesterday at 13.18 but I could have sworn that contradicted me at half six in the morning either yesterday or the day before. How intriguing. I must investigate. I'll apologise in advance in case I'm mistaken.

The reason that they're not in the SPL is because the other members declined to transfer the oldco's stake. The reason that the company is not yet allowed to be called Rangers is because that name remains with the soon-to-be-liquidated company they can, however, trade under that name for the reasons I've already explained. So, not the same reason at all.

I must have missed your sources. If I recall correctly, you've been one of the guilty parties perpetuating the nonsense about sevco being unable to trade as Rangers. I've definitively disproved that one. You also suggested, I believe that sevco haven't bought the entire business undertaking of Rangers but instead have bought merely some assets with an intention of setting up an undertaking. Did you make an attempt to substantiate these fallacies while I wasn't looking?

Bravo sir.

You'll forgive me if I take your posts on this subject with a pinch of salt, considering your past form.

Sorry, but this is pish. I'm sure you're posting it in good faith but there's no truth to any of it. It's not a grey area and I would be fascinated to read a genuine, direct quote from HMRC on the subject. A couple of posters with less knowledge than they need have posted their half-understandings on the subject and several others have taken it as gospel. I've already posted the particular legislative exception which clarifies the point. Twice. Most recently two days ago.

Are you lot still banging on about this pish? Sevco bought the business. That includes the assets, the brand, any intellectual property, the goodwill etc. There are no issues about trading as Rangers, using the crest etc. because they own all these things. Similarly there is no problem with them using the trading name of company which is about to be liquidated because these circumstances (buying all the assets or substantially all the assets of a business from an administrator with the intention of continuing to trade as that business) are exempt from the general prohibition on the re-use of company names/trading names. This story generates enough genuine intrigue without flogging this particular rotting carcass for more cheap thrills.

No presumption required, sir. I've quoted the exact wording of the statutory instrument. It's all pretty straightforward for those who can bothered doing some research before shooting their load all over their internet blog.

The old co will only be finally wound up after all outstanding financial issues have been resolved. That means waiting for the action against Collyer Bristow to be concluded, the Tax Tribunal and any other claims or liabilities. Then, if there's any money, that will be distributed amongst the creditors. That could take years. In the meantime the liquidators will be investigating how the company got where it ended up and whether anyone breached their duties as directors or committed any other offences.

Sorry you're talking bollocks. The old company is dead but the business continues. That's why TUPE applied. Rangers (a football business, running from particular premises, carrying out a particular type work, with a particular brand and particular set of customers) are the undertaking. That business undertaking was sold by the administrators to Green to allow Green to continue that undertaking. Those exact circumstances are one of the exceptions to the prohibition on reusing company names/trading names. Rule 4.228 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 I can break that down and explain it to you further if you're still struggling.

The liquidators are there to wind up the company and to investigate whether anyone involved in the previous regimes should be held personally liable for the debts and/or face criminal charges.

Sorry, I'm afraid I can't share your preoccupation with history. As far as I'm concerned the whole concept of owning history is a nonsense. Things happened in the past, that's a matter of record. Whether you think this new team should take credit/shame for those things is a matter of personal perception. I personally don't think this new club can take credit for the old club's trophies but I won't be losing any sleep if someone else think otherwise. I do find it a little peculiar that there are so many people stating both that Rangers are dead and finished while at the same time arguing that this new club should be punished for their sins. That's quite an exercise in double-think. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Rangers are Dead/ Dead Spawny.

I appreciate your honesty. I hate it when I do that. I'm going to give you a greenie if I've any left, just to heighten your discomfiture.

1. We're not Scottish football chief. 2. You need to separate the horrible nature of the kunts from the issues at hand. 3. I'm pretty sure that Airdrie fans are the last people who should be taking the moral high ground here. No offence and all that. The company has gone bust. The team have dropped three divisions, lost all their decent players, will have to go a full year without signing players and have more sanctions to come but, yeah, apart from that what did the Romans ever do for us?

This is nonsense.

Go on then.

1% of what? The fine was for bringing the game into disrepute.

They're not a phoenix company. A phoenix company is one which is liquidated and is restarted by the same directors with the intention of trying to circumvent the liquidation process. That isn't what has happened here. The company is fucked. That's the bit creditors need to worry about. It's ludicrous to suggest that parliament would legislate with the express intention of killing a business which has been bought as a going concern by someone not associated with the original failed company.

They've been punished for the two misdemeanours for which they've thus far been held culpable: (i) going into administration and (ii) bringing the game into disrepute. The punishments for those two offences seem entirely proportionate to me (indeed, I was pleasantly surprised at the transfer embargo and am pleased that the SFA have stuck their guns and forced it through). As for the rest, those are either sins of the company (which is now being wound up) or sins of the team (double contracts etc.) which have yet to be addressed. So far, so good I say.

Shit, I don't want those horrible kunts to survive. I'm just pointing out that, leaving my emotional baggage aside, it's probably fair.

Fair enough, you're straight edge. I can respect that.

I would have preferred dirty arab bastard but I'll take that.

You hate Rangers, I get it. Thanks for sharing.