nacho Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 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. FIFA, as stated allowed transfers from the old club without fees being paid to the new club. There has been no ruling under Scots law, any law lord who has ruled have ruled based on SPL rules. Duff and Phelps are implicated in a fraud trial involving old Rangers and the creation of new Rangers. The stock market, HMRC and BDO have said no such thing. The ECA are the equivalent of a union for clubs and as such only interested in the fees garnered from members. The SFL, SPFL and SPL are hardly impartial given the "armageddon" that they foresaw. As for the link just google "FIFA transfer regulations or look back in the thread. 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.†0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 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.†Note the bit about interuption to membership. Means the membership of the SFA stopped. To be a club under UEFA rules you must be a member of an FA ie Rangers stopped being a club then became a new club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 let me get this straight..... nacho actually believes all this 'still the same club' stuff and is not just posturing in order to maintain the WATP wet dream? goodness me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Note the bit about interuption to membership. Means the membership of the SFA stopped. To be a club under UEFA rules you must be a member of an FA ie Rangers stopped being a club then became a new club. Well done nacho for finally laying this to rest with evidence both sides seem happy with. Sevcorangers are a new club - case closed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 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 What did you say to the 48k bears that were holding up a red card because they thought that liquidation meant the club dying? I mean, to have such powerful knowledge. The ability to immediately ease some of the pain your fellow bears were going through. You said something, right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley could be forced to rip up his controversial commercial contracts with Rangers as a result of Newcastle United's relegation from the top flight of English football as the Football League is to investigate the full extent of his shareholding at the Ibrox club to discover if he is in breach of a raft of their strict regulations over association and dual interests. (Daily Record) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Whether you agree with him or not, you have to give credit to nacho for providing supporting documentation for his argument. And like it or not he has all the major footballing bodies on his side. Yes he is blinkered to anything other than his preferred reading, but it's his team and we all get biased to our own teams. And I'd much rather have him debating on here than "blogs lol" or "you missed an apostrophe you brain dead diddy moron" type input from certain other Bears. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley could be forced to rip up his controversial commercial contracts with Rangers as a result of Newcastle United's relegation from the top flight of English football as the Football League is to investigate the full extent of his shareholding at the Ibrox club to discover if he is in breach of a raft of their strict regulations over association and dual interests. (Daily Record) "raft". Journalists do speak a different language. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Whether you agree with him or not, you have to give credit to nacho for providing supporting documentation for his argument. And like it or not he has all the major footballing bodies on his side. Yes he is blinkered to anything other than his preferred reading, but it's his team and we all get biased to our own teams. And I'd much rather have him debating on here than "blogs lol" or "you missed an apostrophe you brain dead diddy moron" type input from certain other Bears. Agreed. It's a valiant and commendable effort. Bollocks of course, but some really good trying on his part. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 And when it aw boils down to it... BLUE SECTARIAN DISGRACE OF BRITAIN FC 1873 ARE STONE FUCKING DEAD. And that makes me howl with laughter. Ha ha ha ha ha 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 (edited) Whether you agree with him or not, you have to give credit to nacho for providing supporting documentation for his argument. And like it or not he has all the major footballing bodies on his side. Yes he is blinkered to anything other than his preferred reading, but it's his team and we all get biased to our own teams. And I'd much rather have him debating on here than "blogs lol" or "you missed an apostrophe you brain dead diddy moron" type input from certain other Bears. Agreed, apart from the part where you say he has all the footballing bodies on his side. The arguments from both sides can be picked apart but the main points on the footballing bodies side are...The SFA employed an independent panel to adjudicate on the rules regarding the transfer of arbitration with regard to the TUPE players. The panel ruled that the arbitration process did not transfer to the new club. New Rangers attempted to reestablish the arbitration process with the SFA but later dropped their attempts. FIFA regulations on transfers state that players must be contracted to a club. FIFA allowed the international clearance of players who were contracted to Rangers. UEFA state that it is not allowed for clubs to change entity whilst in an insolvency event. If a club changes entity in that case then they are dismissed from their FA. A club must be a member of an FA to be considered a club by UEFA. The league bodies, SFL, SPL, and SPFL are the only ones who have given Rangers continuation any credence. All they are are companies who run/ran league competitions. It is/was in their interests to have one of their prime products kept alive. They are not authorities in the game. There are arguments on both sides but as far as I can see all the associations involved have rules which suggest new club. Edited May 13, 2016 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Whether you agree with him or not, you have to give credit to nacho for providing supporting documentation for his argument. And like it or not he has all the major footballing bodies on his side. Yes he is blinkered to anything other than his preferred reading, but it's his team and we all get biased to our own teams. And I'd much rather have him debating on here than "blogs lol" or "you missed an apostrophe you brain dead diddy moron" type input from certain other Bears. Yes, it's true. I actually quite like the apostrophe stuff, but yes, Nacho does at least strive to support his argument. Where he comes down I think though, is that he's as inflexible as his opponents. The likes of LNS have not offered a legal verdict on the new club debate because it's not a question that's been asked in that sphere and I can't see why it would be. Citing all the bodies as if they've each reached an independent view is also disingenuous as most were happy to take a lead from the domestic ones that have done nothing to hide their vested interests. I'll say it again. It's not entirely clear cut that Rangers are either brand new or almost a century and a half old. Those that insist on either position as being unequivocal, are being a bit daft. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanderlei Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Kerrydale Meltdown â€@KerryFail 3h3 hours agoIn correspondence with Celtic regarding Resolution 12, put forward the idea of retiring the number 12 jersey. Will keep the forum posted. Kerrydale Meltdown â€@KerryFail 4h4 hours agoALL CELTIC FANS, RETWEET! I think at 12 minutes in sunday all the fans should stand and support resolution 12, anti SFA CORRUPTION and oppose continuity myth..I'll get tweeting -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Oh look @CQN are organising Res 12 newspaper ads for @guardian Neue Lurcher Zeitung. Support https://t.co/gvXBqhrcDzPls R/T https://t.co/4yE2iNglf7 Lolzers.... -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 12th Alias 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 You can't beat a bit of irony on a Friday night. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 (edited) "you missed an apostrophe you brain dead diddy moron" These are usually two statements separated by an 'and you're' Edited May 13, 2016 by The_Kincardine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 These are usually two statements separated by an 'and you're' Try again. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Try again. And you're a brain-dead diddy? Right this time? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Oh look @CQN are organising Res 12 newspaper ads for @guardian Neue Lurcher Zeitung. Support https://t.co/gvXBqhrcDzPls R/T https://t.co/4yE2iNglf7 Lolzers.... Twitter says this Twitter says that lolz 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.