Yes, I agree, anyone who posts with a superior air should be banned due to c*ntiness.
If Rangers FC still exist, then they are effectively being transferred to a new owner in the same was as if I bought Dundee United or you bought Motherwell. If either of those situations occurred, we would still be liable for any SFA/SPL/UEFA punishments which were put in place under the previous owners - if the share transfer goes through, Rangers FC are effectively going to be allowed to escape any punishment, which wouldn't be the case for any other club (well maybe their pals from the east end). Or at least that is what they are arguing, since they are a new company.
They are effectively arguing that the company and the club are totally separate. If that is the case, why don't you see clubs worldwide following that model? Are players owned by the club or the company? Which pays the wages? Would that not open even more cans of worms?
So a simple question - is Rangers FC simply an asset currently owned by Rangers plc or Sevco, or is (was) it a trading name of Rangers plc? If it is the latter, then Rangers FC is effectively dead (yes, they are currently in administration, but there is now no way out other than liquidation). If the former, then that has the potential to be a clusterf*ck of epic proportions.
You also raised the point of transferring non-transferable assets. I haven't seen anyone describe the share as such before, but surely if it is a non-transferable asset, there is no point asking for it to be transferred?