Wings Over Scotland

Just in case anyone hasn't seen this already, btw: EDIT: Well, that didn't work. Try this: http://twitpic.com/aaucul

He didn't sell it anyway. That transaction referred to the shares, and in the end Green never bought Whyte's shares.

They're not. Celtic, however, didn't go into liquidation.

I believe HMRC have a somewhat contradictory opinion. All we can say at this point with certainty is that he hasn't yet been arrested and charged with anything.

"The Rangers Football Club PLC" != "The Rangers Football Club Ltd"

Indeed. I believe the value attached to goodwill when the assets were sold to Green was £1.

As I've been saying all day - IF Green overcomes the various obstacles, the team will be called "Rangers", and will to all footballing intents and purposes be Rangers, because the SFA (rather than the law of the land) will deem it to be so.

Yes, that's correct. The point there being the future tense.

No. Whyte and Murray owned The Rangers Football Club PLC. That entity is NOT owned by Charles Green - Wikipedia lists its owner as Craig Whyte, who as far as I'm aware still owns the bulk of its now-worthless shares, and it's in the process of being liquidated by BDO. Charles Green TRIED to own it, by proposing to take it over via a CVA, but it was not accepted. Instead he bought the assets of the old company and is using some of them in a new company under a different name, although he proposes to change its name to one very similar (but not identical) to that of The Rangers Football Club PLC.

Something we can all agree on there. If you ever come up with any evidence of Sevco trading as Rangers in any way whatsoever, do feel free to get back to us.

Probably, technically, but who would have an interest in doing so? Plus, any action would be overtaken by events almost immediately.

Any tickets sold by Brechin City are, of course, a function of Brechin City's trading, not Sevco's.

Speaking as a director of a limited company myself, kindly stick your staggeringly arrogant condescension up your hole. I don't get it because it isn't the case. They bought some assets and used them in a new business. Charles Green paid £2.75m for the contracts of some players, most of whom have since fucked off because it turns out he didn't own their contracts at all. They WILL be. Not yet they're not. What have they "marketed" other than a spurious line on a website? You can't even buy a season ticket yet, six days from the start of the season. Why not? Because they don't have a business yet, since their only function is to play football and they don't yet have a licence to do so. I can't prove a negative. You constantly assert that Sevco is trading as Rangers right now, yet are unable to provide a shred of evidence in support of that assertion, because there isn't one. There probably will be soon, but as we speak there isn't. You can bluster around that fact all you like, but it won't change.

That's a bit like saying Celtic could trade as Manchester United if they got permission. You can do anything if you get permission.

I'm not sure anyone wants to buy food from a company that sounds like it sells birds with tampons in them.

Good grief. No it isn't. The whole subject of debate here is the difference between "company name" and "trading name". You could own a company called "Chicken Wings Over Scotland", but you could no more trade as "McDonalds" than I could.

Pathetic. That's an empty assertion made by Green, to go with the roughly 10,000 others he's made since appearing on the scene. Remember the classic "players have broken their contracts by not transferring over to the newco", the immortal "we'll have £30m available by the start of the season", or the unforgettable "we expect the CVA to be approved"? Seriously, if that's your evidence, stop wasting my time.

Given that's also what I've said all along, yes we can. I've consistently and repeatedly noted that they are not a "phoenix" company in the eyes of the law and as such CAN adopt Rangers' marks. Quid pro quo? What exactly did you trade there? You asserted something that I've consistently agreed with. The problem is that Sevco Scotland Limited does not currently have the right to trade as "Rangers". You can win this debate at a stroke - you keep asserting that Sevco are currently trading as Rangers. No problem, then - prove it. Show us evidence of a transaction they've conducted under that name. If you can't, why are you so sure it's the case?

If I opened a cafe with the company name "Chicken Wings Over Scotland", I still couldn't trade as "McDonalds" and put that name over the door.

Proof please.

The part that says there's no problem with it. There are in fact numerous problems with it. The fact that they will likely be overcome doesn't mean they don't exist.

There would be if you attempted to pass it off as the business it's named similarly to, though.

When did I dispute that? I merely, and I'm dismayed to have to say this AGAIN, refuted the previously-made assertion that buying the assets of the oldco automatically granted the ability to use them, noting the SPL share as an example. The specific reasons in the case of the share are utterly irrelevant, all I was pointing out was that the mere purchase of assets didn't necessarily provide the concomitant rights.

Sigh. Yet again, you've provided proof that Sevco CAN trade as Rangers, which I've at no point disputed. The fact that they CAN do so, however, is not the same as the assertion that they are CURRENTLY doing so.

That's not proof, that's an assertion. As we've already seen, the name change won't actually happen until July 31st.