bennett Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 On P&B and on twitter, c Dave battles on regardless trying to prove that sevco is a new club. Will he ever get anywhere? Will I ever stop laughing at him..... -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 You do realise the new club old club stuff doesn't bother me. As I said new club or old club, my team will have more history than you come 4.45pm Saturday. Now that's fucking hilarious. Good grief. Lets see, now how is your club going to grow an extra 18+ years of history at 4.45 on Saturday? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 On P&B and on twitter, c Dave battles on regardless trying to prove that sevco is a new club. Will he ever get anywhere? Will I ever stop laughing at him..... Nope, its a meaningless circular debate now, but its still useful to see if it pushes the right buttons. You have your own tactics. I don't have a twitter or facebook account. I post on P&B mostly and occasionally three other football forums. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 So UEFA did not release any official statement. Thanks for clearing that up. Perhaps you will now stop claiming that UEFA has stated that you are the same club. they stated to the asa that we are the same club, of course i imagine the **** at he asa are lying about it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Tell us about Leeds nacho. again? they didnt get a cva before you start that pish, i assume thats where you are going? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 a wee update on the resolution 12 guff from the lawman on rangersmedia, after posted the stuff he had accumulated on the scottish football monitor and totally destorying their argument, he was blocked, heres a wee update on how uefa looks at resolution 12 breaches CRITICAL UPDATE just posted on their site and of course still blocked at this point in time. I appreciate that it now appears that I am blocked from replying however, I hope that you find the following to be of real interest to the posters on here and allow them sight of it in an open and transparent manner as it will serve to prove that failing one of the 4 indicators is not a barrier to a licence.I now have documented evidence directly from UEFA which proves that for the season 2011/2012, of the 225 clubs who PLAYED in European competition that season, 125 (56%) fell foul of one of the 4 indicators in Article 62. Of the 125, 13 clubs breached 3 of the 4 indicators yet were still granted a licence by their FA and allowed to compete by UEFA Of the 125, 31 were deemed to have triggered indicator 4 (the one Rangers triggered) and as a result, they had to provide additional information to the panel in relation to the amount outstanding. Of the 31 checked and audited by UEFA, Malaga were found to have fell foul of Article 66 as in addition to a disclosed 9.4m EUR overdue payables, they had NOT disclosed a further 8.4m EUR which was due. The NON disclosure was what triggered the breach and subsequent ban, NOT the initial disclosed amount. Of the 13 clubs who breached multiple indicators, Athletico Madrid were awarded their licence by the Spanish FA and approved to play by UEFA despite having £423 million of debt which included £141m due to the Spanish Tax Authorities. The penalty interest on their tax debt was £6m per annum, which was more than double that of Rangers overdue payable, yet they still received a licence. Interestingly enough, Athletico knocked Celtic out of Europe that same season and went on to win the Europa League. I hope that, if nothing else, the above proves, beyond all doubt that as long as the £2.8m overdue payable was disclosed, then the UEFA licence was an absolute given in the case of Rangers and that any notion, which is still lurking, that the mere existence of the debt means no licence has well and truly been put to bed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 A further development. The source who sent me the relevant document has now confirmed that my understanding of the rules/regulations is spot on. That my submission timelines from the Club and football associations is spot on. And that my understanding of the subsequent UEFA audit process is also spot on. They did indicate that the rules have changed slightly since 2011 however my definitions were based on the relevant rules in place for 31/3/11, 30/6/11 and 30/9/11 They confirmed that under no circumstances would they discuss an individual club or member association with me, or anyone else for that matter, as to do so would break very important confidentiality clauses with their member associations. And who can argue with that to be honest. The contents of the document still remain hidden on TSFM from people who pay to be on the forum looking for the truth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Sorry nacho, but if a club* in administration can't get a CVA approved, then that club is then liquidated. (*It was always the 'club' being administered - did Craig White announce he was placing the company in administration? Can anyone identify the precise moment the 'company' narrative began?) Any assets acquired, distributed or purchased have SFA to do with any imagined continuation. The current version of 'Rangers' are nearing the end of the fourth season in their history. At least Hibs will get an open top bus parade if they prove victorious in Saturday's match... Imagine being such a toxic brand that you can't even celebrate in the same way as 99.99% of sports clubs worldwide. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 You do realise the new club old club stuff doesn't bother me. As I said new club or old club, my team will have more history than you come 4.45pm Saturday. Now that's fucking hilarious. It bothers the f**k out of you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Sorry nacho, but if a club* in administration can't get a CVA approved, then that club is then liquidated. (Can anyone identify the precise moment the 'company' narrative began?) Immediately after the club died. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Jings it's just like the Rangers fitba monitor on here today, dull ken fighting the not so good fight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tory Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 It bothers the f**k out of you. It really doesn't. I do find it hilarious how much you all hate a four year old football team though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Jings it's just like the Rangers fitba monitor on here today, dull ken fighting the not so good fight. So which points of my dull post do you disagree with, and why? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 It really doesn't. I do find it hilarious how much you all hate a four year old football team though. Something familiar about your posting style? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Something familiar about your posting style? Same with yours, must be one of those things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) Sorry nacho, but if a club* in administration can't get a CVA approved, then that club is then liquidated. (*It was always the 'club' being administered - did Craig White announce he was placing the company in administration? Can anyone identify the precise moment the 'company' narrative began?) Any assets acquired, distributed or purchased have SFA to do with any imagined continuation. The current version of 'Rangers' are nearing the end of the fourth season in their history. At least Hibs will get an open top bus parade if they prove victorious in Saturday's match... Imagine being such a toxic brand that you can't even celebrate in the same way as 99.99% of sports clubs worldwide. not according to all of the credible evidence available, which you choose to ignore, all the expert sources who have commented on it back the fact that we are the same club the company / club split was around long before we didn't get a cva as pointed out numerous times, lord glennie said club and company were separate before this, an stv article from 2011 said club and company could be separated and the club would survive and there is a long history of clubs winding up oldco and running the same club with a newco going back to hearts in 1905, the new club narrative started around 2012 and it involves ignoring 100 years of footballing history , its yet another of your nonsensical wee lies that you tell yourself to keep your new club pish alive Edited May 17, 2016 by nacho 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 So which points of my dull post do you disagree with, and why? all of it , because its utter pish which ignores all the eivdence as usual, full of lies and nonsense as usual 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 all of it , because its utter pish which ignores all the eivdence as usual, full of lies and nonsense as usual So you disagree that Old Dead Rangers entered administration but failed to exit administration as a going concern. Credible sources available on request. Nice white knighting Vicky, btw. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the 67 Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Same with yours, must be one of those things. "You seem to have an issue and I've a fair idea as to what it is" © of vicky the viking on the boat thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 they stated to the asa that we are the same club, of course i imagine the **** at he asa are lying about it Did they now? I hope that the ASA released this in full, we wouldn't want parts of it taken out of context or anything now. Would we? Please post the full UEFA statement to the ASA on here for me to read. I had the following statement passed to me by someone at UEFA RANGERS are not a new club, no ifs no buts. If they don't like it then thay can f**k off back to England. <Pointed out that we were speaking about different teams> Oops sorry, I thought that you were referring to the big Rangers that plays in Scotland. Of course the Rangers from Glasgow are a new team, the old one was placed in liquidation. 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.