nacho

and there you have it, every time the new clubbers have tried to advance their nonsensical position in the real world, they get slapped down with an embarrassing failure

of course you dont, because your whole new club position involves ignoring all the main evidence as it proves you wrong We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the ‘sporting continuity’ of a club’s match record, even if that club’s corporate structure had changed,â€

the two legal experts who have commented on it say we are the same club, there is no legal evidence to counter that - so your position is nonsense, two high court judges say you are wrong

absolutely no interpretation required on any of the sources below , all state rangers are the same club, you dont have one single credible source that says we are a new club SFL - after 140 years the club is once again a member of the organisation it helped found in 1890 sfa - The SFA’s response was unambiguous. Different corporate entity but same Rangers, same history, same honours accrued over 140 years.†spl - “it is an existing club, even if it is a new companyâ€. SPFL - http://spfl.co.uk/clubs/rangers/ eca - The organisation considers the club’s history to be continuous regardless of the change of company.†uefa - We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the ‘sporting continuity’ of a club’s match record, even if that club’s corporate structure had changed,†fifa- “The tour passes through the simple, almost rustic cloakroom with two portraits of Queen Elizabeth and leads into the trophy room, where Rangers house the silverware gleaned over the club’s 142-year existence: cups, gifts and historical documents.†bdo - The joint administrators intend to complete a transfer of the business and assets to a new company in the coming days, putting the future of the club on more secure footing.†duff and phelps - However, we should make it clear that Rangers Football Club will continue within a new company structure and the Club survives and will continue playing football at Ibrox.†the stock market - Rangers International Football Club plc following admission will own and operate The Rangers Football Club Limited. Rangers Football Club, based in Scotland, has become one of the world's most successful clubs, having won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners' Cup in 1972. hmrc - “the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.†lord glennie - "This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). lord nimmo - "In legal terms, it (a club) appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold." "On the 14thof June 2012 a newly incorporated company, Sevco Scotland Ltd., purchased substantially all the business and assets of Oldco, INCLUDING RANGERS FC" asa - We considered that consumer would understand that the claim in question related to the football club rather than to its owner and operator and therefore concluded that it was not misleading for the ad to make reference to RFC’s history, which was separate to that of Newco leeds, luton, hearts - went through the same process and remained the same club just like rangers - precedent

nope - the conditional membership is the same membership we have now, but with the conditions removed and this is the same membership we have always had according to the sfa who have also stated we are the same club which destroys any of these wee micro arguments involving your interpretation of things anyway

yep and now they are not, rangers are still listed , uefa have stated we are the same team, recognise other clubs who have been in worse positions as the same club etc. your argument is based on ignoring uefa saying rangers are the same team, taking snippets of rules out of context and putting your own spin on them, claiming various rules exclude actual evidence regarding uefas stance on the status of clubs without providing any proof of this (ffp+ fiorentina), you have nothing

it is the same membership, if you cant understand what that says then you shouldnt be taking part in this conversation,

we have been gaining country coefficent points for the last 4 years the season before that we gained more than that because we drew with malmo, this is included on our coefficent ranking even though you claim we were a different club at that point, continuation is clearly shown by that so in other words you are talking bollocks

we didnt hold a temporary membership, it was a conditional one (see the source at the bottom of this post) - the same membership we have always had with conditions attached, one again you are deviating from the available facts as it doesnt suit your argument youre the one making up your own interpretations of uefa rules and ignoring the fact that uefa have said we are the same club and their rules indicate we are the same club the membership wasnt interrupted , it was deemed to be interrupted (a subtle distinction which seems too complex for you to grasp) which uefa rules show doesnt stop the club being considered the same club "club can apply again" "A conditional membership will be issued to Sevco Scotland Ltd today, allowing Sunday’s Ramsdens Cup tie against Brechin City to go ahead. Following the completion of all legal documentation, the Scottish Premier League will conduct the formal transfer of the league share between RFC (IA) and Dundee FC on no later than Friday 3rd August 2012. At this point, the transfer of Scottish FA membership will be complete.â€

differently to rangers are, as uefa have stated we are the same club and continue giving us coefficient points while timsoara are not getting them, they bought over a different club - acs recas which seems to explain why the are treated differently to fiorentina and rangers

rangers have the same membership of the sfa we have always had and uefa have stated we are the same club which blows your claims out the water newco did not inherit oldcos rights to arbitration because they are a different company which is all the article proves, your interpretation that this means new club is not backed up by anything in the article what the uefa rules state is that the license applicant is the company not the club, they are the legal persona of the club. Uefa have already shown by various statements/ precendent that they consider us to be the same club either their rules contraict each other or your interpretation of them is wrong, i know which one my money is on

no they havent , theyve ignored the points raised

weve covered this nonsense before it proves nothing of the sort - our old legal entity (oldco) is in liquidation, our new legal entity (newco) is not, the same rules you quote from state that its the same club it has always been, the club that changes legal entity is also not excluded from membership the actual words are "deemed to be an interruption " to membership, ie under uefa rules its considered to be an interruption rather than an actual interruption. after three years are up a "club can apply again" for a uefa licence, so the club remains the same club. added to that you have the various other information below thats shows that uefa recognise us as the same club 1. “We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the ‘sporting continuity’ of a club’s match record, even if that club’s corporate structure had changed,†2. “Clubs are not allowed to change their legal form or structure in order to obtain a licence, simply by ‘cleaning up’ their balance sheet while offloading debts – thus harming creditors (including employees and social/tax authorities) as well as threatening the integrity of sporting competition. Any such alteration of a club’s legal form or structure is deemed to be an interruption to its membership of a UEFA member association and consequently three years must pass before a club can apply again for a UEFA licence. 3. Fiorentina is considered the same club with the same history and honours by UEFA despite going completely bust, starting a completely new club and buying back the Fiorentina name, shirt design and badge years later. 4. Rangers currently sit at number 269 on the UEFA club rankings and have been accumulating coefficient points for the past 5 seasons , one season more than you claim the club has been around for

yawn dont recall the rangers supporters trust issuing any statement regarding the resolution 12 nonsense, so thats utter bollocks from the start, there were some posts on rangers media regarding it and the points raised in them still stand and dismantle the whole nonsensical premise of it. its not even a story as it has already been dismissed as utter nonsense by the sfa and celtic so its going nowhere, serial rangers hating troll speirs writing a few lines on it in his column today is not going to change that, he has lied about rangers so many times in the past that he has zero credibility

jeesus, no this pish again, club 12 was used in place of a number of clubs, rangers, dundee and another if my memory serves, who could have taken that place in the league,depending on how the vote went, once again not evidence of new club

great, thanks for providing a link to that, i cant see anything in that contradicts the sfas position that we are the same club though, the newco was refused permission to carry on a process started by oldco, thats all the article says, no contradiction with the sfa statement whatsoever

lns and lord glennies understanding of the law is that club and company are seperate, thats the facts of the matter, the likes of hmrc, bdo, duff and phelps and the stock market have the same viewpoint and there are statements from them showing this. this stuff is entirely seperate from the footballing assocation support of the same club and presents a variety of independent (from each other) non-linked evidence that comes to the conclusion that we are the same club i would agree with you that the sfa, spl, sfl, spfl and asa support is all interlinked , possibly also the eca, but the uefa stuff is seperate and they have in the past recognised clubs like fiorentina who did actually start again from scratch unlike rangers as the same club, Added to that there is plenty of precedent with clubs who have went through the same process as rangers in the past and remained the same club in the uk, which gives credence to the scottish footballing authorities position, you can claim vested interests all you want but the facts remain that officially we are the same club according to the footballing governing bodies. I'm just not convinced by your "its murky" argument at all, the problem i have with it, is that its based on the same stuff that the new club stuff is based on, no smoking gun, you have nothing (barring non expert opinion in the form of newspaper headlines and player opinions) that says we are a new club. your argument is based on interpretation of sources (i.e original thought) rather than anything credible, which the 10+ rangers are the same club sources i can draw upon dismantles easily

wildly innacurate nonsense and jumping to conclusions makes up almost the entirety of that post, I note once again that there are zero sources for that stuff because if you provided sources it would be easy to pick apart your arguments, every footballing organisation has officially stated we are the same club with the exception of fifa who have made no comment on the issue, however as stated numerous times , various articles on the site have stated we are the same club 5 times compared to one saying we are a new club

Im quite happy to consider any evidence put in front of me regarding the issue, the difference between our positions is that i can provide stuff that says rangers are the same club, while the stuff you provide is all of the "this means rangers are a new club" variety. All the stuff you provide is open to interpretation and 95% of the stuff you claim is proof of new club is contradicted or disproved by the better quality evidence available.

yep you are talking pish on every single point, all of them say we are the same club, each one individually is better than any bit of evidence you have been able to provide for your new club pish and officially we are the same club, your post is a mixture of lies, smears and nonsense, i would love to be able to attck your evidence but as the last 4 years have proved you dont have any "UEFA FFP rules state that a club cannot change legal form in the case of insolvency, these rules came into force in 2011 any clubs with recognised continuation after an insolvency prior to that cannot be used as evidence." no they dont, what they actually state is “Clubs are not allowed to change their legal form or structure in order to obtain a licence, simply by ‘cleaning up’ their balance sheet while offloading debts – thus harming creditors (including employees and social/tax authorities) as well as threatening the integrity of sporting competition. Any such alteration of a club’s legal form or structure is deemed to be an interruption to its membership of a UEFA member association and consequently three years must pass before a club can apply again for a UEFA licence. " - note the apply again bit - same club FIFA, as stated allowed transfers from the old club without fees being paid to the new club. fifa allowed transfers from the old company without fees being paid to the new company, its your interpretation that this was the club not the company but you dont have any evidence to support it, the fifa website site has stated we are the same club numerous times - same club There has been no ruling under Scots law, any law lord who has ruled have ruled based on SPL rules. two law experts have stated according to the law club and company are seperate entites, neither ruling was based on spl rules (lord glennies ruling was in a court) - you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that club and company are the same thing Duff and Phelps are implicated in a fraud trial involving old Rangers and the creation of new Rangers. they are experts in the area of admin and liquidation and state the club survived The stock market, HMRC and BDO have said no such thing. qhere three quotes from them saying we are the same club and proving you are talking pish HMRC - “the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.†“Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start." the stock market - “Rangers International Football Club plc following admission will own and operate The Rangers Football Club Limited. Rangers Football Club, based in Scotland, has become one of the world's most successful clubs, having won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners' Cup in 1972. Playing at the 50,987 seater Ibrox Stadium, Scotland, and benefitting from the world class 37 acre Murray Park training facility, the club has been a dominant force in Scottish football for decades.†bdo - "The joint administrators intend to complete a transfer of the business and assets to a new company in the coming days, putting the future of the club on more secure footing.†"It's important to understand that the appointment of liquidators will not mean the end of football at Ibrox - only the end of the company that ran the club," The ECA are the equivalent of a union for clubs and as such only interested in the fees garnered from members. and they have stated that accoridng to its members including hearts, celtic and aberdeen, rangers are the same club “Rangers are permitted to hold associate membership, which holds no voting rights, as they are one of the founder members of the ECA. The organisation considers the club’s history to be continuous regardless of the change of company.†The SFL, SPFL and SPL are hardly impartial given the "armageddon" that they foresaw. they are impartial and all have stated rangers are the same club spfl - "Yes, it's the same club, absolutely. The member club is the entity that participates in our league and we have 42 member clubs. "Those clubs may be owned by a company, sometimes it's a Private Limited Company, sometimes it's a PLC, but ultimately, the company is a legal entity in its own right, which owns a member club that participates in the league." sfa, sfl and spl “joint statement on behalf of The Scottish FA, The Scottish Premier League, The Scottish Football League and Sevco Scotland Ltd. -“We are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club.â€

weve covered this numerous times before, i was there , i held up the red card, i knew however that liquidation wouldnt mena the end of the club as we had numerous interested buyers at that point, i wanted to avoid liquidation due to the many other negative consequences that it involved, possible demotion, loss of players due to tupe etc

Not according to Scottish law as Lord glennie and Nimmo established, not according to the sfa, spl, spfl, uefa, the Eca and the sfl as they all officially recognise us as the same club, not according to hmrc, bdo, duff and phelps and the stock market who all say the club has survived, ditto the asa, not according to the 20 other teams who have gone through the same process as Rangers and have remained the same club, the fallacy is that club and company cannot be separated, as for your source send me a link and I will have a look at it

No problem

I'd imagine thats because a quick search of the twitter timeline of that website shows its infested by the celtic twatteratti and the guy running it says that it was celtic fans that gave him the information

thanks for corresponding but we will ignore most of what you say as it doesnt suit us , is more the gist of it, i cant imagine anyone is really surprised with that as the ususal suspects like ill phil etc are behind it, the latest attempt to kid on that its an impartial viewpoint when we all know its celtic fans behind it - like the scottish football monitor, rangers tax case etc