GlasgowCeltic.org

Nope, they owned 'The Rangers Football Club plc', which is the club which won a few titles, rioted in Manchester, Barcelona etc. If they wanted to own that same club, they would have had to have bought the shares from Craig Whyte.

You can hope for whatever the f**k you like, it's a free country.

They're not, they're trading as 'The Rangers Football Club'.

Define 'Rangers'.

They're not registering it as a company though, they're merely using it as a 'trading name'.

Absolutely, I agree. Unless I'm mistaken, the only people who could object to it currently would be Duff and Phelps, who are tied in with Green/Whyte/Ticketus etc. No idea if BDO could once they take charge.

Unless I'm mistaken, they don't need to change anything. In theory, there's nothing to stop me setting up a company called Sevco 5089 Ltd., and trading under the name "The Football Club Rangers" or similar.

It's on the homepage of the website they bought from the now defunct Rangers FC (IA). "The Rangers Football Club, a trading name of Sevco Scotland Limited (No SC425159)"

According to the website of Sevco Scotland Ltd., they are using the 'trading name' of 'The Rangers Football Club'.

Why would it be considered a continuation of the now defunct club? The sanctions would apply to any club which chose to take on the membership of the now defunct Rangers FC (IA). If they want to keep their history, all they have to do is to get the shares from Craig Whyte, and either pay off the clubs debts, or come to some arrangement with their creditors. There's really no other option.

Does it? So what if Rangers FC (IA) had decided to move to England and join the EPL? They would have had to resign their membership of the SFA. Would that have meant that they lost their history? What if another club was started, and applied for the now vacated SFA membership? Would that club have Rangers FC (IA) history? SFA membership carrying history is just another Campbell Ogilvie inspired piece of nonsense to dupe Sevco Scotland Ltd. fans into believing that their club isny pan breid.

The marker for 'preserving history' has changed so many times it's difficult to keep track of. First of all it was 'agreeing a CVA lets us keep our history', which would actually have been correct. Then it was 'Once the SPL share transfers to us, we keep our history.' Now it's 'If we transfer the SFA membership, we keep our history'. If the SFA membership doesn't get transferred to the new club, we can expect some new line of nonsense along the lines of "aye, but as long as we play at Ibrox, we keep our history". Some people are just living in denial that their club is snuffed. It's quite worrying, if people were to walk around claiming that Third Lanark still existed and played football, they'd get sectioned.

Scots law has never recognised 'history' as an incorporeal moveable property. Like I said, if I purchased the 'history' of Rangers FC (IA), would that mean that it was fans of me who had wrecked Barcelona, rioted in Manchester etc. ? Could, for example, Aberdeen FC 'purchase' the history from AC Milan, and claim to have won umpteen Serie A titles, despite never having played in it? Nonsensical idea.

Rangers FC (IA) didn't file their accounts either. They shouldn't even have been licensed. This certainly has nothing to do with the likes of former Rangers FC (IA) shareholder, director, employee and SFA president Campbell Ogilvie.

History is not an asset. If it were, then could one person buy it, and claim that they have the history of Rangers FC (IA)? What if that person dies, and leaves all of their assets to their cat? Would their cat then have the history of Rangers FC (IA)? It's patently nonsense designed to appease those who hear what they wish to hear.

No. Sevco Scotland Ltd. are not, and never will be Ranges FC (IA). The penalties for all of the wrongdoings of Rangers FC (IA) will be applicable to any club which wishes to gain the membership that Rangers FC (IA) held. In theory, Celtic FC could revoke their membership, apply for the one previously owned by Rangers FC (IA), and if transfer is granted, Celtic FCwould be subject to the sanctions. It wouldn't mean that Celtic FC had taken on the history of Rangers FC (IA). There is no way to transfer 'history', it's not an asset, and it's not associated with any memberships of any organisation.

I'm under the impression that the SFA requirements on club licensing require 3 years of audited accounts? http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartTwo-NationalClubLicensing/8%20%20Legal%20Admin%20&%20Finance%20Criteria%20%282%29.pdf Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 would seem to suggest that they do, and that it should already have been submitted.

Yes, it existed as a privately owned organisation, which was subsequently incorporated. In theory, an individual could have bought up all of the shares in the club and unincorporated it again.

Yup, apply for a new SFA membership, instead of trying to gain the one previously held by the now defunct Rangers FC (IA), which will have the sanctions attached to it, and subsequently, to any club which wishes to take it on. Of course, this would require 3 years of audited accounts...

Rangers FC (IA) could have sold those players, as they were contracted to Rangers FC (IA). They didn't, the club went bust, and so the players were, at that point, no longer assets of the now defunct club.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495830 "as Rangers formally became a business company." http://www.rangers.co.uk/coaching-staff-profile/article/1555141 "In May 1899, Wilton was given the dual role of manager and secretary when the club became a limited liability company." Those are from the official website of the now defunct Rangers Football Club.

wut?

How can a club be an asset of itself? Do we both agree that the club started off as a body of individuals who incorporated the club in 1899?

The club is not an asset of the company, the club is the company. Instead of all this pish about agreeing a CVA, getting the shares from Craig Whyte etc, why not just buy the 'club' from the 'company' and leave the 'company behind'? Because it's impossible, they are one and the same thing. The club was formed as a private members association, and incorporated in 1899. The club is the company, and that is what is being liquidated.

Why? They were the same thing.