williemillersmoustache Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) Pages and pages of stamping their feet and holding their breath just to avoid the incontrovertible truth that when their club needed them most they were absent. No rallying round, no "Save the bears" just some idle and some not so idle threats to persons and property and a curious spike in the number of inquiries into getting a season ticket at Parkhead.Vermin. Edited March 25, 2016 by williemillersmoustache 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Of course, I was safe in the knowledge that the establishment would see us right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 The implication is crystal clear there, that liquidation would not enable the club's 140 year legacy to be preserved. The revision since is understandable, but it's not been entirely successful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 If it's the same club did Charles green but the club during administration ? If so did he get a cva agreed? If not then when did he buy the club please say it wasn't when the company controlling the club was in liquidation.? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 It's fantastic isn't it? Truly all over the place now. Can you imagine Celtic putting up a 'Pacific Shelf 595' sign above Parkhead? The claim here is that Rangers have done pretty much that at Ibrox, putting up the name of the holding company rather than 'the club'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Of course, I was safe in the knowledge that the establishment would see us right. Sums it up. Practically everyone thought liquidation = no more history, it was only when this became inevitable that everyone associated with Rangers changed their tune. But I've yet to find a single Bear who will admit this. Note wee Nacho will still dismiss this evidence because it's 4 years old. Pretty sure Chucky Green also said they needed a CVA "to preserve the history". Not that I'd take his word for anything as he's a lying toad. But again it was an almost universal assumption at the time (except for Tedi of course - he knew all along). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Sums it up. Practically everyone thought liquidation = no more history, it was only when this became inevitable that everyone associated with Rangers changed their tune. But I've yet to find a single Bear who will admit this. Note wee Nacho will still dismiss this evidence because it's 4 years old. Pretty sure Chucky Green also said they needed a CVA "to preserve the history". Not that I'd take his word for anything as he's a lying toad. But again it was an almost universal assumption at the time (except for Tedi of course - he knew all along). Tedi knew Fúck all - he didn't show up on here until the Tribute Act got clearance to play Brechin. Nobody really noticed him, mind, until he decided to educate us all about the significance of shirt decorations... -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 It's fantastic isn't it? Truly all over the place now. It doesn't reflect that at all. What the reference to the gates achieves though, is the highlighting of yet more - often overlooked - evidence that club and company have always been regarded as synonymous in terms of football. Is there anything in what I've said that you'd dispute? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 You just have to be a wearer of corduroy. No mate, leave aside the slightly bizarre attempts at insults. Instead address what I said about the message conveyed by the writing on the gates. You see, your failure to do so, just makes it look as if you've nothing to counter me with. It pretty much confirms that I'm right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 If a company which owns and operates a football club decides to sell the club to another company, are the players free to walk away or was this specifically a rangers thing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyWellFan Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 No mate, leave aside the slightly bizarre attempts at insults. Instead address what I said about the message conveyed by the writing on the gates. You see, your failure to do so, just makes it look as if you've nothing to counter me with. It pretty much confirms that I'm right. He's easily the worst Rangers poster on here which actually takes some doing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 No mate, leave aside the slightly bizarre attempts at insults. Instead address what I said about the message conveyed by the writing on the gates. You see, your failure to do so, just makes it look as if you've nothing to counter me with. It pretty much confirms that I'm right. After four years the best they can come up with is the gates lol, best bit is that they're being serious. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 After four years the best they can come up with is the gates lol, best bit is that they're being serious. It's not all we can come up with though. It's one more fragment to establish that the picture is murky and that this idea of the complete divorce between club and company is something of a nonsense. It's telling that no Rangers fan on here is actually tackling the strength of that symbol, preferring instead simply to ridicule anyone who highlights it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 It's not all we can come up with though. It's one more fragment to establish that the picture is murky and that this idea of the complete divorce between club and company is something of a nonsense. It's telling that no Rangers fan on here is actually tackling the strength of that symbol, preferring instead simply to ridicule anyone who highlights it. They can't defend the gates - they're too busy defending the walls. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 It's not all we can come up with though. It's one more fragment to establish that the picture is murky and that this idea of the complete divorce between club and company is something of a nonsense. It's telling that no Rangers fan on here is actually tackling the strength of that symbol, preferring instead simply to ridicule anyone who highlights it. A blogger tweeted about it, the hordes started howling about the gates almost immediately. It's funny as fcuk and even funnier than the local newspaper new club proof. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 A blogger tweeted about it, the hordes started howling about the gates almost immediately. It's funny as fcuk and even funnier than the local newspaper new club proof. Ok, but what about what the gates say? Don't they point to (not prove) the difficulty of insisting that club and company are not the same thing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 A blogger tweeted about it, the hordes started howling about the gates almost immediately. It's funny as fcuk and even funnier than the local newspaper new club proof. Which blogger was that, bennett? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 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: nope all the business side is run by the company including debentures, the club consists of the footballing side, history , records, games, achievements, trophies etc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Likewise when they used to publish their financials or held their general meetings. Not once in the good old days would they dream of suggesting the story they now tell. yawn, its not a story when every credible source agrees with it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 That for me, is where the idea of seamless continuity breaks down. It requires a ludicrous separation of club and company that insults the intelligence. does it? oldco ran the club until it was bought by newco, there wasnt one second where the club didnt have a company to run it - seamless. if it is so ludicrous, why cant you provide one credible source stating so? 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.