robo2
-
Posts
209 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by robo2
-
-
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
the club employed players and owned a stadium pre 1899 when a different structure was in place, after this point the club created a company to do this, at no point after 1899 have we been without a company to do this, we changed companies in 2012 and remained the same club according to all the legal experts who commented on it - an absolutely easy answer from me backed up with proof - what possible reason did you have for thinking this question was even remotely challenging?
0 -
Yes, a recent tactic the rangers fans are adopting is to claim that the same thing that happened to them has happened to other clubs.
Strange that they didn't shout this claim two or three years ago?
Not that strange really because it's not true. They've just reached the stage of clutching at straws now...
....speaking of stages, Forever_blue - have you reached that Anger stage now????
it was mentioned numerous times three years ago
0 -
Its interesting that you bring up other clubs. I can think of two that both suffered similar fates to Rangers although there will undoubtedly be others.
First example Airdrieonians who when they were liquidated had to reform as Airdrie Utd. They were a new club who were formed from the embers of the old club. This happened mainly because the new owners if I remember correctly could not afford to buy the name Airdrieonians off the creditors. So a new club albeit one that had a connection to the old one same fans etc was formed.
Second example is Fiorentina who went bust in 2002 and came back as Associazione Calcio Fiorentina e Florentia Viola later incorporated into AFC Fiorentina after they bought back the rights to use the name Fiorentina. Notice the could not call themselves Fiorentina out right as this company went bust.
In both cases am sure their fans see themselves as the same club although legally it is a new company.
Now the only difference in Rangers case is because Green and Whyte appear to have had control of the liquidation process they have been able to transfer the name, strip, stadium etc to a new entity in the close season. This has prevented the problems that both Fiorentina and Airdrie faced and helped create the illusion that it was the same club the whole time. If this hadn't happened Scottish football would have had a year or two without a club at Ibrox while the whole process was sorted.
So in short I have no problem with Rangers fans claiming same club etc but legally the club/company are both new entities. You should also probably look at erecting a statue of Green outside Ibrox for saving you.
Appologies for the bold I don't know what happened.
neither of them suffered a similar fate to rangers, no-one attempted to buy ardrie or fiorentina, leeds, hearts and a number of other english clubs transferred the club to a newco and liquidated the oldco and continued on as usual without a peep about them being a new club. which was an identical situation to rangers
0 -
Legally Aberdeen FC isn't a club. So I agree with Judge Bishop. 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 aDONisthe only mental gymnastics come from the new club delusionals, the facts are, what has happened to rangers has happened to other clubs before, they are the same clubs and no-one made a peep about this new club pish regarding them, officially we are the same club according to every footballing organisation home and abroad, legally we are the same club according to the evidence available. That "ethereal entity with no legal personality v company" stuff you have trouble with has been backed by two judges who have more knowledge about the law than you a thicko on a message board could ever dream of, they say it makes perfect sense and also that is what happened in rangers case, added to that hmrc, the stock market and all other business organisations who have commented on it says we have surived.
in opposition to that backing the new club stuff, you have some newspaper headlines + some ex pros offering their opinion (both examples of non experts, who have since stated that we are the same club) and a mythical law that not one of you can provide and a few crackpot theories that dont stand the slightest scrutiny and are contradicted by the available credible evidence - the whole new club strategy is based on ignoring that absolutely every single bit of evidence backs the stonewall fact that we are the same club, then repeating various flawed arguments over and over again until someone points out your stupidity and then you move onto the next one until you get back to the start
0 -
Are they any better than Hearts were last season though?
we are 2 points, 7 goals and +7 in the goal difference better off than hearts were at this stage in the season last year, we are also a round further than hearts managed to get in the challenge cup last year - based on the stats so far its pretty clear we are better than hearts last year
0 -
:lol: laugh away dummy, my point still stands, the club survived, only an idiot would believe otherwise with every credible legal and business source saying we survived and every footballing organisation officially recognising us as the same club, you have not one single credible source that can contradict this and thats the facts
:lol: :lol:0 -
Oh dear.
oh dear indeed, you have just outed yourself as an idiot, well done
0 -
Yeah, but Rangers FC are in liquidation. So it looks to me like they died. That's usually what happens when a football club is liquidated.
nope the old company is in lquidation, the club survived, only an idiot would believe otherwsie considering all the evidence backs the club surviving
0 -
'Rangers coming is a big occasion for the club and the town of course. The last time they played Cowdenbeath in a league game was April 1971.'
he makes it pretty clear that we are legally the same club in that article with the quote above, his point of view it that is wasnt the same club bcause of the scumbags running it, that has now changed
0 -
The BBC continue unashamedly to donate tens of thousands of pounds to the The Newcunto FC cause.
St Johnstone tie covered live by TV.
And their moronic bigot fans despise them.
Lol
nothing to do with the fact we are the best supported team in the land as last years tv figures show, just you continue talking pish though, you moronic chimp
0 -
a bit like the Oldco Rangers administration and the 'continuation' then. So you should be quite at home
it makes perfect sense unless you are a idiot, which is why every credible source who has commetned on it says we survived, what bit are you having trouble with? and what evidence from credible sources do you have to back your new club pish?
0 -
BT sports. Lol
and every other organisation that has commented on it - amount of organisations that back your new club shyte - 0
0 -
^^^clubs company gone
are you two muppets the same person - same shyte patter, same inability to constract a coegent argument for your outlandish insane views, same obsession with rangers
0 -
he's comedy gold. He should have a show on Dave
chased you from the new club thread didnt i though, still wating on your explaination of why you say "I see my club as starting from 1874." when they went through the same process of liquidation of oldco and transfer of the club to newco in 1905 that rangers did in 2012. either Hearts were founded in 1905 and Rangers in 2012 or they are both the same clubs they have always been since inception, which one is it?
-2
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
:lol: 
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted
exactly the same, hope that helps