BinoBalls

'Evidence' is Bennett's middle name. Obviously you won't get anything out of Ted other than "it's been SUCH AMAZING FUN watching you diddies stamping your feet and demanding answers all week" or some similarly hollow tripe.

I enjoyed the FF posts crying about Rangers being the victims of crime. Even though the EBT situation was during Murray's tenure. They're like a bunch of spoiled thick primary school kids when they get started.

Accepting evidence and coming to your own conclusions, even if it differs from the SFA, is perfectly reasonable. Denying certain evidence even exists because you don't like what it says - now that takes a proper flat earther.

Jesus. Have you read any of the parts where I've said I accept its the same club and I accept most of the evidence, though some of it is clearly unobjective and should be ignored (eg D&P and the stock exchange). You don't need to ram your evidence at me - I get it and I accept most of it. All I'm trying to do is to get you to acknowledge that there is some evidence of another viewpoint. It's so ironic you calling other people flat earthers when you, too, are determined to completely ignore anything that doesn't suit your agenda. Have you found The King's post yet with the Blue Knights statement and the tweet from Chris Graham? It must be on the last 3 pages somewhere on here.

Is there an item on an accountancy sheet for Newco Rangers which says "purchased: club, £1"? I can answer that for you if you like.

King provided screenshots on #1 and #3 in the last 24 hours on this thread. #2 listen to last 10 seconds of this: I am however heartened to know that most Rangers fans knew "100%" that this was all nonsense though. Weird that the fans chief was out of line with what the people he represents were all saying though. But I'm sure you're not exaggerating and focusing only on what suits you, it's not your style is it.

They wouldn't be very good administrators if they said "by the way the history is wiped", would they? It would be professional suicide. Lord Nimmo's opinion means much more than quoting the people responsible for getting the most amount of money from the assets.

What defines a "club" is fairly central to why this issue is so debatable. However you won't get a coherent definition out of him. Insults are all he does. I pity his offspring when they were at school. "Dad what's 6+3?" "You should know this, you idiot" "Yes I know but can you tell me" "If you don't know the answer then you truly are an imbecile" "Yes but what is the answer?" "You kids are all the same, you're all desperately thick" "Can you teach me how to add?" "Shut up you little fuckwit"

I have no issues with you believing it's the same club, it's the fact you are so blinkered and won't accept any of the evidence to the contrary. Maybe you need to look up the word evidence. Five questions: (1) the Blue Knights said you'd lose history if you didn't get a CVA. Do you accept they said this? (2) Charles Green said you'd lose history if you didn't get the CVA. Do you accept he said this? (3) Your deplorable fans chief said a liquidation means the club dies. Do you accept he said this? (4) The vast majority of Rangers fans had the same opinion as the 1-3 above. Do you accept this? (5) During the time of administration, is it correct to say that you, wee Nacho, were under no doubt that they were all talking bollocks? Seems you and Tedi both knew. What clever chaps you are.

You're trying to teach a card trick to a dog here. Bennett's purpose in life is to distort the truth and obsess over blogs. You could point a gun at his head and ask him to discuss what the gates say on them and why, and he'd reply with "bloggers, lol".

Sums it up. Practically everyone thought liquidation = no more history, it was only when this became inevitable that everyone associated with Rangers changed their tune. But I've yet to find a single Bear who will admit this. Note wee Nacho will still dismiss this evidence because it's 4 years old. Pretty sure Chucky Green also said they needed a CVA "to preserve the history". Not that I'd take his word for anything as he's a lying toad. But again it was an almost universal assumption at the time (except for Tedi of course - he knew all along).

Hmmm who to believe - Bennett (IQ 82 with an addiction to telling porkies), or Monkey Tennis? It's a tough one for sure.

I gave him a green to even it up, at least he's debating the issues. Even if he doesn't use capitals.

What happened a couple of years back to turn you so angry at the world? Is the alcohol stopping parts of your body functioning like they used to?

Come on chief, you can't make 50 seething posts then throw in a smiley to pretend you're chilled. I accept the views of all the sources you quoted. The stock market one I'll ignore as it's straight from Rangers themselves (you ignore that I see), but YES I accept those and they inform *part* of my opinion that, on the whole, it's the same club. However I'm not so stubborn and blind to say there is no evidence to the contrary, or that it isn't a grey area. You keep saying "4 years ago" as though Rangers players and officials' opinions don't count because of the elapsed time. You are basically ignoring everything that doesn't suit your agenda. So in summary I'm closer to your point of view than the average Celtic fan, but even I get grief for daring to say it's a grey area. Question - if SFA and UEFA had said it's a new club, would you accept that view and adopt it as your own?

:lol: An angry mess of a man these days. Pleasing.

I'm glad you're not upset though. Somewhere tonight there's a parallel universe where Celtic have been liquidated and you're on a message board saying the opposite of what you're saying here. Imagine for arguments sake the SFA (and therefore UEFA and therefore ASA) said it's a new club. Would you be standing by their word? No. You stand by their word because you like what they say, not because you respect everything that comes from the SFA. I already said I accepted it was the same Rangers yet you still sound like a seething mess. If you can't see that there are two sides to this argument then you're a certified fuckwit.

For Bennett it's most definitely All About The Bloggers.

"All the evidence" What hope is there with such generalisations? It's a massive can of worms and a hugely contentious subject. You ignore your ex manager, ex captain, ex media head, Steven Naismith, the editors of every newspaper in Scotland, your ex fans chief ("liquidation means the club dies"), your own fans with their red card protest, the TUPE situation, the licence situation, Rangers I getting vote on Rangers II's admission to the SPL, etc. Not to mention the fact that if this was happening to Celtic and not Rangers, you'd be saying the exact opposite. I have no wish to go into the rights and wrongs of every aspect as it's been done to death on here, but there is a wealth of evidence on both sides. I accept its the same club of sorts, but the record books will always show "got liquidated" which is a massive red neck. The fact they gained so many titles while spending what they couldn't afford doesn't sit well with me either. It was the same with Gretna. Only they went bust and didn't feel this crushing need to preserve their history because, by and large, their followers aren't world class gloryhunters who get off on lording it over everyone else.

^^^ insults everyone who doesn't agree with his opinion on every subject (unless My Team = Rangers) whilst lamenting lack of meaningful discussion on this thread.

I like how you followed that up with this:

Stubborn Ted will be along shortly to openly acknowledge his inconsistent opinion and apologise for any confusion. He definitely won't deflect or sidestep this, it's not his style.

Chucky Green is a horrible, dishonest, racist man who deserves nothing.

:lol: Always nice to see someone so wound up he can't type properly.

You sound like a really grounded, intellectual and totally-not-insecure chap. Good to have you on board.