Clarification_Bot

If you're going to libel someone, poppet, it's best not to choose a lawyer.

Oops.

?

No need for the quote marks on legal, and totally irrelevant in context of the Big Tax Case. Rangers FC has been found guilty and is appealing. We're waiting for the appeal verdict. Why does no one ever note that detail?

That's not a boycott, you berk. It's just not going. I don't watch WWF Wrestling. It's not a boycott, I just don't like watching fake competitions that have been gamed solely to make the most money possible. If that's what the SPL becomes then I'll not watch that either.

But what would make it Rangers? I'm not arguing, I'm genuinely curious. If the company has so little to do with Rangers that it's able to form without falling foul of the law, what makes it Rangers? You guys have given some serious thought to Theseus' paradox, right? So is the newco going to be founded on a Madhyamaka Buddhist interpretation the principle of essence? Because I'm not sure how well Buddhism goes down in Ulster.

Depends what you mean by "easier". If you mean creating an entirely new club run by people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the dead club but happen to be wearing its name as a flag of convenience then yes, that would be easier. At that point, though, I'd start questioning what precisely I was supporting. Wouldn't you?

Note the reference to shadow directors -- which for a football club would be likely to include senior team management. Here's the rest of the relevant statute. For anyone wanting to set up a hermit club in Rangers' dead shell, these are quite significant barriers. Much easier to ditch the name.

If anyone had bothered to read the Insolvency Act 2006, they'd have chanced upon this note on names. So Newco Rangers can't use the word Rangers.