nacho Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 He already did and you ignored it. nothing i read from him indicated a grey area, point out the specific parts and i will address them -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 What's the collective noun for a thicket of spittle-flecked diddies? A saliva? What happened a couple of years back to turn you so angry at the world? Is the alcohol stopping parts of your body functioning like they used to? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 When Rangers fans imagine the part where club and company were separated, do you picture it like a kind of mystical ceremony? or more like Frankenstein's lab? nope as its a simple assets transfer from oldco to newco, the club was an asset and it was sold - the only ones finding it complicated are you lot 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 nothing i read from him indicated a grey area, point out the specific parts and i will address them Sorry for the red dot - that was an accident. He mentioned the TUPE situation. He mentioned the fact that one Rangers club got to vote on the fate of the other. There's also the fact that Rangers had to apply for admission to leagues. And that UEFA identifies an interruption to membership. There's also the common sense that says 'new for debt', but 'old for trophies' doesn't wash. I'm not insisting that these things scream 'New club' indisputably, but they do dent your own screeching. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Lol page after page of the usual suspects shouting it's a new club and stamping their feet because no one takes them seriously. Maybe another advert would do the trick..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Lol page after page of the usual suspects shouting it's a new club and stamping their feet because no one takes them seriously. And yet, that's not what's happening at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Sorry for the red dot - that was an accident. I gave him a green to even it up, at least he's debating the issues. Even if he doesn't use capitals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 And yet, that's not what's happening at all. Yes it clearly is and I've had good wee chuckle at you sevcoers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Wee Nacho getting The Diddies all in a lather. What's the collective noun for a thicket of spittle-flecked diddies? A saliva? What happened a couple of years back to turn you so angry at the world? The post that you quoted is clearly the expression of neither an angry nor a drunk bloke but was intended to add some levity. Did I miss the mark? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Yes it clearly is and I've had good wee chuckle at you sevcoers. Nope. I don't use the term 'Sevco' myself. You're a terribly lazy poster Bennett. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) I gave him a green to even it up, at least he's debating the issues. Even if he doesn't use capitals.Yes, he is. He's a bit repetitive, but aren't we all?There's a certain irony in that the guy who apparently craves genuine debate, is instead heckling idiotically from the side. Edited March 24, 2016 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Yes it clearly is and I've had good wee chuckle at you sevcoers. Hmmm who to believe - Bennett (IQ 82 with an addiction to telling porkies), or Monkey Tennis? It's a tough one for sure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 yep, a company not a club entered liquidation according to uefa, the eca, bdo, duff and phelps, hmrc, the stock market, the sfa, spfl, sfl, the sfa, lord nimmo, lord glennie, the asa etc the club was sold and continues on - all credible sources - feel free to provide one credible source showing the company was not sold - good luck with that June 12 - HMRC announce they will reject the CVA offer and force the club into liquidation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 pathetic - not paying the full amount = dropping the debt - hope that helps your understanding going forward Deary me! Why would anyone choose to display their ignorance like that? Is there a part of that statement you actually believe to be true? I hope not. Yours aDONis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
energyzone Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 "Rangers Football Club Ltd." Why on earth would a club adorn the gates of their stadium with the trading name of the holding company, unless they were one and the same? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 It's the RFFF contributers I feel sorry for. Duped by good rangers men into giving to a cause that didn't exist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 "Rangers Football Club Ltd." Why on earth would a club adorn the gates of their stadium with the trading name of the holding company, unless they were one and the same? Because until this fiasco started they were one and the same. Then the government bodies changed their rules to protect rangers and allow continuation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 "Rangers Football Club Ltd." Why on earth would a club adorn the gates of their stadium with the trading name of the holding company, unless they were one and the same? That's a simple and powerful point. Cast iron evidence that club was always regarded as utterly synonymous with company. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 they play for the club , their contracts are with the company - as explained numerous times before So the club doesn't control the players, the stadium, the money, the tickets. Exactly what is the club? You also missed replying to this one: Did the club supporters that bought a 35 year right to a specific season tickets (in the form of a debenture) to watch the club play in the club's stadium keep this right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Cast iron evidence that club was always regarded as utterly synonymous with company. Except it isn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.