aDONisSheep

Where is The_Kincardine when you need him.Mental gymnastics you say? Well, here goes; Answer the following basics. Q. Has your club ever employed players? Q. Has your club ever owned an asset e.g. a stadium? Rob. If your answer to either is 'Yes' then you've got a problem and you'll need some mental gymnastics. If your answer is "No", then your club is something akin to a brand or licence arrangement or even a franchise. Just think, NewRangers could well be the 'Kentucky Fried Chicken' of Scottish football. Yours aDONis

Legally Aberdeen FC isn't a club. So I agree with Judge Bishopp. Clubs are called clubs for primarily historical and convention reasons. The term 'club' also engenders brand loyalty in individuals (how many of us are members of Tesco via their club card). Emotionally; I reconciled myself to my rather illogical loyalty many moons ago (certainly I was very aware of it during the period of studying for my professional exams circa 15 years ago). That having been said, after all this time I still invest both money and emotion on a particular company that employs a group of people to kick a bag of wind around. My wife quite correctly points out that i'm just a customer and that any other investment is just a bit of self-delusion. I still choose to partake of the illusion. Kinky, I'm not one of those that wants titles stripped etc. I have always said that the new entity bought the assets and chattels and has a right to use them. It's the mental gymnastics that go with the "ethereal entity with no legal personality v company" shyte that grips my tits. The old club was a company and it went bust. The new club has every right to claim titles etc, they bought those rights. To me, this new Rangers is emotionally the natural successor (old clumpany died new one bought assets, we move on). Yours aDONis

I agree. Especially since Judge Colin Bishop has already stated in a legal tribunal that. "Perhaps because of such feelings, professional football clubs are often regarded as having a special status. In some respects that may be the correct view; but it should nevertheless not be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a 'club', in the sense of an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its shareholders." The Some people need to get with the programme. Yours aDONis

Point of order Mr Chairman. The company can't 'push' a CVA through, creditors have to agree to it. Now, I accept that the major creditors could well be the same people that ran the club into the ground, but they still have to agree to the CVA, the club can't push it through. Yours aDONis

Wow, just wow, there is a lot of revisionism going on here..... again. There were lots of things that came into play, that caused the old club to be liquidated. The spectre of HMRC was certainly one of them, but are we really saying that HMRC shouldn't challenge tax avoidance schemes where there is the opportunity of recovering millions and millions of pounds on behalf of the public purse. I think Jimmy Carr should be told! That having been said. OldRangers were weak, and although HMRC had a role, OldRangers were fundamentally weak in any case. Primarily this was because of years of financial mismanagement. In case anyone needs reminding. OldRangers cumulative P&L stood at -£135.8m (IIRC). They were hooked on European cash (primarily via the CL). They simply couldn't absorb any more failures in Europe, it was that binary. Had they been run more prudently during those preceding years, they wouldn't have been so weak, but alas 'they deserved better'. Murray wanted out, he'd been trying to sell for a while (and I believe OldRangers had just lost the "wee tax case"). The fans 'deserved better' and were mumbling, HMRC were sniffing around the 'big tax case' and enter left, my hero the Motherwell Billionaire 'Nookie' Whyte. The rest, is........... hilarious! Yours aDONis

Incredible! Dave King tells more lies than Charles Green! (Let that sink in)! Where's Roy Castle when you need him. Another world record down at the Govan Shytyard, surely! Yours aDONis.

Rangers FC will be spinning in its grave.

Is this the same Judge Colin Bishopp as this one; "Although the professional football team known as Rangers had played in the Scottish Premier League until 2012, the collapse led to the ejection of the team from that league, and a team known as Rangers now plays in the Scottish Third Division." or this "....but it should nevertheless not be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a “club”, in the sense of an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its shareholders. " I like him, he's my favourite judge Yours aDONis

We only seem to be whining because it's PlasticRangers and some people have got $kerching$ signs in their eyes. Were the play-off between Falkirk and QOTS and they'd come to an agreement to reduce ticket prices to generate interest, I don't think there would be the same ire. The SC final has vastly reduced it's ticket prices in an attempt to generate interest (it may ultimately make more money, but it may make less). I don't remember the outcry at the prospect of the 'family final'. I just feel that if any other club did this, then there would be more cheers than jeers. I'm all for laughing at PlasticRangers (and my god, I've laughed heartily at their denial and 'clumpany' nonsense), but this is not one of those occasions. Fans are going to get to see their teams play an important games for £5. I think that should be applauded even if part of the motivation is 'thumbing their nose' at the SPFL (and other clubs). Yours aDONis

I think there are separate issues that I'd like to address; One: PlasticRangers FC £5 tickets. I think this is a good thing, on several levels. First and foremost, it's a good deal for fans. I understand that people are getting upset about the opportunity revenues that the "SPFL" are supposedly missing out on, but I think their gripes are a bit purile nee petty. I was in support of PlasticRangers previous proposal, but I think this one is even better, because it allows the club to recover it's costs. Two: Parachute payments. Whilst I agree that they give the relegated club an advantage (especially in the first year of relegation), I do view them as necessary. In general a clubs cost base won't/can't shrink as quickly as the loss of revenue it (the club) suffers on relegation. Parachute payments are there to provide a little more stability, during that transition period. I for one, wouldn't want to see the death of more clubs because of one bad season that ends in relegation. Yours aDONis

OK I'll say it. Well done PlasticRangers for doing this. Yours aDONis

Jesus H fvkkin Christ, did PlasticPaul really say that? Get with the programme Paul. The club has nothing to do with the P&L, THAT'S THE COMPANY! I expect a lot of greenies from the PlasticBares fans for correcting such an error. Yours, ever helpful. aDONis

I agree. If there were a problem, they'd have to tell their customers about the lack of facilities. Non story IMHO. Yours aDONis

Hmm, it's obvious that you don't understand why the two scenarios are different. I suppose you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think above the level of equine! Yours aDONis

Ted, Tedi, Tedi.... still not keen on "reading". Yes, they transferred the assets, but also they transferred the liabilities AND shareholders of the old club got shares in the new club. Is it the notion of liabilities you don't understand? Does the idea of "paying debts" not register with you? Now compare and contrast to what happened between DeadRangers and PlasticRangers? Yours aDONis

No Shull you're doing it wrong. It's the enemies of St Mirren who are at fault, and in any case it's only the company that gets relegated or something like that, and your relegation will mean you get a chance to vote yourself back into the top flight 'n stuff or you get to start a NewClub and buy the 'history and other stuff'. Oh feck, it's all so confusing? Yours aDONis

Look on the bright-side. He can now dedicate more time to guarding walls! (Pesky things that they are)! Yours aDONis

Don't be too hard on him. After all it took him about 8 years to admit he was crook, even though he knew he was a crook from day one. Yours aDONis

Go! PlasticRangers! THE GOOD GUYS DREW! :) No really, that's a good result against a team that has only conceded 23 goals in it's last five matches (stop laughing at the back ) What's left of Scottish Footall Yours aDONis

May I join the you say potato I say potato debate. Nominate can mean to appoint someone to an office, duty, role or position. Now I must admit I thought it was a substance over form argument, but in fact looking at the stock exchange release, it says this; "SD will also have the right to nominate two directors to the board of Rangers for the duration of the Facility, any such nomination will be subject to regulatory consent pursuant to the AIM Rules and other regulatory bodies." Therefore I surmise that the definition of nominate was in this case as defined above. The reason I come to that conclusion is that the clumpany (stop laughing at the back) don't seem to have any rights to deny the nomination (as it were). Yours aDONis

I'm not sure that is quite true. While the form is that the board can reject. The substance of the transaction is that if they do reject, they run the risk of Mike Ashley taking his ball home and calling in the £5m/£10m (depending on how much has been drawn down). Even though some of the investors have deep pockets, I'm not sure they'll want (although they might have to) sink that sum of cash into a previously filled hole. G&S is already talking about £20m+ investment, and that's without having seen what is under the covers! A spirit of detente may be required in the short term. Yours aDONis

Bloody hell, did King not get the memo about ethereal entity clubs. Littered throughout his interview are references to the "clubs finances", the "clubs NOMAD" etc, etc. Davy boy, that's not how it works, the club can't enter contracts or own assets, that's the COMPANY you Castlemilk twat! I think we can safely say that there will be a lot of the RangersEtherealEntity FC fans giving me plaudits for correcting such utter diddy bile! Honestly, you'd think by that Dave King interview, this notion that the club runs the ethereal entity stuff, was a load of made up b0llocks. He should be told! Yours, ever helpful aDONis

Once a PlasticBare always a PlasticBareChelsea!

So just so as I don't fall foul of the easily offended. Do, I or do I not get to call the BluePlastics, currents, (h)oinions, bluebigots, wall-guardeners, orcs or narrow-minded fvktards. Whilst I'm at it, wht level of hell am I in, when I say that Willo Flood has a heed like a spud, or that Danny McGrain walks like a woman an he wears a bra! Yours aDONis

Indeed PlasticRangers FC does have a certain ring to it!