Pull My Strings

Calm down son. Pretty sure that's what I said. The company committed the sins and the team benefitted. The company is now dead (formal process pendiing) and the team is carrying over related sanctions). It's silly however to suggest that the team should have been killed entirely. Should Juve have been killed following their match-fixing shenanigans? Marseille? etc (it's a long list I'm sure). The company name problem story is more than a month old and is nonsense. There are some prohibitions on re-using trading names but there are exceptions and one of those exceptions is where the business is sold as a going concern by administrators. I explained all this about 1500 pages back if you can be arsed looking (including a link to the relevant statutory provisions, I believe).

Fair enough. I'd like to hope that you're wrong but we're just putting opinions out there. FWIW I'd say that what Airdrie subsequently got away with was far more distasteful than simply admitting them to the 3rd division so you can read that precedent either way.

Really, Is this what we've become? If you're not part of the lynch mob you must be one of them. If you're genuinely interested why don't you go back through my previous posts. I don't have anything to hide.

I don't think so. Nobody would have lobbied for them to remain in the SPL or try to shoe-horn them into the First but I think a newco Motherwell would have been accepted into the Third. I would certainly hope so.

Yes but a lot of that horrible shit isn't directly related to this current episode. It takes a lot to make me sympathise with those horrible kunts (and I'm nowhere near there yet) but, equally, this current blood lust just seems a little hysterical.

It was the company which defrauded the tax and was in debt to the tune of £140m. That company is dead, the shareholders have lost their investments and the parties responsible for any legal wrongdoing are being investigated. The football team has been denied entry into the SPL and the First Division and has been hit with a significant sporting sanction, with more to come. The company has been wound up and the assets have been sold off to pay the creditors. You're all over the place. Who is your problem with: the business or the team? The sins were largely committed by the business and that business is dead. The team benefitted from those sins and are being punished accordingly. Let's say it was Motherwell, or Dundee or St. Mirren who had committed these financial sins - would there really have been such an appetitie for their absolute destruction?

Awesome, I want a diamond swimming pool but I won't pretend it's unfair when I wake up tomorrow and it's not there. You probably need to distinguish between what you want and what it's reasonable to expect. It'll do your mental health a power of good.

Behave yourself. There was no appetite in Scottish football to completely destroy its most successful team and nor should there have been. I hate Rangers as much as the next man but it would have been vindictive in the extreme to deliberately bury them forever (as much as we might all have enjoyed that outcome). Their crimes are serious and I'm sure there's more punishment to come but I think we need to retain a little bit of perspective here. The reason we hate them (the bigotry, the arrogance, the bully boy tactics) are not related to the current situation and it would be unfair to punish them for the sin of being generally offensive and obnoxious. The last company folded. This new company are trying to keep the football team alive. They've been granted some special dispensation in order to do that but, equally, they have been told that they must also bear some special sanctions if they want to retain the link with the old club. Personally, I think the outcome is entirely fair and proportionate, certainly far more just than what could have been foisted upon us.

Indeed. The effect of TUPE is that terms and conditions are protected despite the transfer and any dismissal because of the transfer is automatically unfair. Timing is irrelevant.

There's no problem with the name etc. That was covered about 1200 pages ago.

Indeed. Even if that is what he believes, why would he say it publically? Idiot.

I heard that. Stupid twat. If you have no interest in, or knowledge of, a subject you might be better keeping your opinions to yourself. He also suggested that fans would have a rude awakening next season when they realised they had no games against Rangers to look forward to.

Traynor really is all over the place. He can't finish a single coherent argument without veering off into silly rhetoric and ludicrous strawmen. Rob McLean is just as bad. Here's a tip, Rob, when your colleague is insulting the intelligence of your listeners it's a bad idea to agree with every comment he makes. Having the audacity to pretend that they agree with Pressley when he contradicted every significant point. They've got some gall.

Doncaster's problem is that he genuinely believes that his job is to maximise revenues for the SPL member clubs in the immediate short term, and to be fair to him, in any other type of business it would be. That being the case however he really has no place getting involved in this issue which is about fairness, sporting competition and the long term health of Scottish football. His other problem is that he's clearly a lying cunt.

That bit in bold isn't entirely true though. Those clubs who can't afford to lose Rangers and everything that goes along with them are clearly operating to a broken business plan. Not only that but years of historic overspending prior to the current business plan have put them in a position which is vulnerable to even slight errors in judgement. They've no one to blame but themselves. If any of these clubs were in the black then they could swallow a modest drop in income (and the figures talked about are modest in the scheme of things), redraw their plan and move on without the newco. I include my club in that situation. United overspent terribly to put themselves in this position. They've reigned back well in the last few years and made a dent in the debt but if they can't survive a Rangerless league then it's their own fault. Hell mend them. I've bought my season ticket already, on the back of the baldy shagger's announcement the other week. I shall not be a happy bunny if it turns out he was being coy/dishonest.

When ra peepul come to Tannadice they bring a bigger stand with them! Ra peepul. How they'll be missed. Ho hum.

It's more a general understanding than a personal relationship. Eewww.

If I know Rangers fans (and I do, unfortunately) that was his own pish. The dirty beggar.

Nope. Nope. D&P are still in charge and, in any event, the deal was between Rangers and Green not between D&P and Green. Even if liquidators had already been appointed they'd still have been bound by the contract. You think fulfilling a legally binding contract is a breach of some law? If that was their intention they've had several weeks to challenge the deal. Why on earth would they wait until after the sale has been completed before acting? Jesus, have you not read any of this thread?

Bill Miller's bid was for the assets only until he shat himself looking at the books. In any event, I'm not sure that the absence of bids for something is particularly strong evidence of a high demand.

Ahem.

The Illuminati?

Really. I suppose he doesn't want to get too technical. In any event, he's right. You can't call a newco exactly the same name as the oldco (and, in any event, you can't call a company a plc if it's not a plc) but you can use a very similar name if you've just bought it from administrators and you properly publicise the new name and it's relationship to the old company etc.

Yes, you're missing the fact that the deal to sell the assets was agreed several weeks ago.

Unless you can provide a source for that bit in bold, I'm going to assume you've just made it up.