Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

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

 

This doesn't say that the BBC agree with you, just that they can't be bothered differentiating between old and new clubs in every news item.  They're saying that, for all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't say that the BBC agree with you, just that they can't be bothered differentiating between old and new clubs in every news item.  They're saying that, for all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter to them.

I still come back to the question of "what if"

What if Mike Ashley had purchased Rangers instead of Green. If he decided to change the team's colours to Black and White and call the team Glasgow United.

Would it still be the same club?

At what point does the club cease to exist? Is it when the name disappears, Ibrox stops being used or when they are no longer in receipt of membership of the SFA?

Edited by strichener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still come back to the question of "what if"

What if Mike Ashley had purchased Rangers instead of Green. If he decided to change the team's colours to Black and White and call the team Glasgow United.

Would it still be the same club?

At what point does the club cease to exist? Is it when the name disappears, Ibrox stops being used or when they are no longer in receipt of membership of the SFA?

 

And it's that very ethereality, that difficulty in pinning down exactly what a 'club' is, that makes me think there is an element of continuity between old and new entities.  Not seamless and not perfect but it;s the same fans, the same stadium, the same boorish stench.

 

I just wonder if they've put enough layers of holding company in place to protect them when it all goes pear-shaped again.  Joey Barton, indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at

the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any

alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example,

changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings

between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on

sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a

competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual

relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.

Yes, interrupted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. default_00000042.gif

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.

"have fell foul...".

Literacy levels concern me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it's that very ethereality, that difficulty in pinning down exactly what a 'club' is, that makes me think there is an element of continuity between old and new entities.  Not seamless and not perfect but it;s the same fans, the same stadium.

That's it.

Nacho, for all his admirable industry, shies away from the question of what a club is, preferring to simply say that it's a thing that can be separated from the company.

It's actually a view I've plenty of sympathy for. A club isn't merely a business - it is to do with history, to do with location, to do with colours and to do, massively with fans. Seeing it solely as business is the preserve, ironically, of b*****ds like David Murray.

There really is something ethereal about clubs. I'm fine with that. I see AFC Wimbledon as spiritually the same as the crazy gang mob, although the rupture there was clearly massive.

The difficulty is though that most Rangers fans can't admit that the "club" bit that survived is this ethereal thing, because that's so easily attacked.

Instead we get them quoting other bodies who have essentially recognised this ethereal quality, as if their judgements are absolute and based on something very much firmer.

The ethereal idea works fine, but it is indeed imperfect and it brings us back to a continuation that's a bit murky and indistinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard about the road being blocked, when I was at a meeting in the afternoon. All gone by the time I drove up the Annan Road later on though.

I don't appear to be the person called upon in such times of crisis.

Any luck yet by the way, in unearthing those stats that reveal that in terms of things like educational attainment, life expectancy and violent crime, I'm the one who comes from a backward, primitive part of Scotland?

  

That is so bad it's good Bennett.

Anyway, what about those stats?

I can't recall ever saying that you come backward and primitive part of Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's it.

Nacho, for all his admirable industry, shies away from the question of what a club is, preferring to simply say that it's a thing that can be separated from the company.

It's actually a view I've plenty of sympathy for. A club isn't merely a business - it is to do with history, to do with location, to do with colours and to do, massively with fans. Seeing it solely as business is the preserve, ironically, of b*****ds like David Murray.

There really is something ethereal about clubs. I'm fine with that. I see AFC Wimbledon as spiritually the same as the crazy gang mob, although the rupture there was clearly massive.

The difficulty is though that most Rangers fans can't admit that the "club" bit that survived is this ethereal thing, because that's so easily attacked.

Instead we get them quoting other bodies who have essentially recognised this ethereal quality, as if their judgements are absolute and based on something very much firmer.

The ethereal idea works fine, but it is indeed imperfect and it brings us back to a continuation that's a bit murky and indistinct.

Haw Roald Dahl, no one asked for a story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you must surely recall often implying it?

I can't recall ever implying that Dumfries folk are backward and primitive.

Is that really who first comes to mind when you try to think of a novelist Bennett?

It was your posts level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...