Romeo Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 So, Rangers fans ripping off their own club and each other. Money being used to keep the club afloat. Quite astonishing stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Thank f**k they died in 2012. Absolute Vermin FC 1873 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 18 hours ago, THE KING said: And Wow! Using Lee Rigbys name to sell fake tops. The whole hijacking of that poor guy's memory and dreadful experience is distinctly distasteful and it has been from the outset. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 1 hour ago, Romeo said: So, Rangers fans ripping off their own club and each other. Money being used to keep the club afloat. Quite astonishing stuff. are they doing it with 'Dignity'? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 1 hour ago, Romeo said: So, Rangers fans ripping off their own club and each other. Money being used to keep the club afloat. Quite astonishing stuff. are they doing it with 'Dignity'? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 On 05/07/2016 at 2:20 PM, Monkey Tennis said: See if this gets rid of this quote. Not liking this upgrade at all -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Come on then Bennett...... seeing as you went to the trouble of giving my post a reddy, any pithy wee comments on this latest bit of internal bear-fighting? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Use em or lose em Kenneth. Tbh I'm not to sure what to think of all this kerfuffle. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 2 hours ago, bennett said: See if this gets rid of this quote. Not liking this upgrade at all Challenge what I say if you object to it Bennett, rather than seek simply to silence me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 On 05/07/2016 at 0:28 PM, RedAdair said: If our The Rangers fans claim its the same club, then can you answer these simple questions please? If you take the same club line, then at the end of the 2012 season, why did you not play in Europe the next season, regardless of the fact you were in Div 3, the "same club" should have been able to play in Europe by why didn't you? If you claim to be the same club, then how could two clubs exist at the same time in the summer of of 2012 I think we all know the answer??? because we were banned for not having three years accounts because we were a new company, uefa recognise us as the same club on their website. there was never two clubs existing at the same time, there was two companies, the club was transferred between companies with the sale of the club along with other assets on june 14th 2012, both companies involved in the sale bdo and duff and phelps have stated that the club was sold at that point On 05/07/2016 at 1:18 PM, THE KING said: Why didn't they enter the Scottish Cup at the 3rd round stage that season, considering they finished 2nd in the league ? The inconvenient truth . There were two conflicting rules for the Scottish cup which both applied to Rangers. Clubs in the previous year’s premier league entered in the 4th round and the current years third division clubs entered the cup in the 2nd round. Obviously Rangers could not enter the Scottish cup twice so the SFA clarified the situation in a statement on the 17th July 2012. Q- “What round will Rangers Newco join the William Hill Scottish Cup? A- Under the Scottish FA’s Cup Competition Rules, Rangers FC as a third division club will join the William Hill Scottish Cup at the second round. No mention anywhere in that statement about it being because Rangers are a new club, just a conflict in the rules due to the unique situation of Rangers being in the third division the year after being in the premier league, a situation that could not happen normally. The SFA who make the cup rules have made it very clear that Rangers are the same club in various statements. So once again, an argument without any proof backing it up which the available evidence contradicts. The league cup was the same with Rangers as a division three club entering at round 1. On 05/07/2016 at 1:45 PM, Ken Fitlike said: why did all their reasonable players just walk away to sign for new clubs without any transfer fees etc? because the tupe regulations were in force which apply to new companies, the players had the choice to continue with the new company or leave, absolutely nothing to do with the club, which remained the same On 05/07/2016 at 1:58 PM, energyzone said: Why did you play in Division 3 in season 2012-13? Because we were kicked out of the spl due to our company failing to agree a cva, we were then voted in division three, we were treated as a exsisting club during this process and didnt not have to meet the requirements of a new club entering the league, every scottish footballing organisation is 100% clear we are the same club spl - " it is an existing club, even if it is a new company”. sfa - " Different corporate entity but same Rangers, same history, same honours accrued over 140 years.” sfl - " after 140 years the club is once again a member of the organisation it helped found in 1890 " spfl - http://spfl.co.uk/clubs/rangers/ -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 15 hours ago, Romeo said: So, Rangers fans ripping off their own club and each other. Money being used to keep the club afloat. Quite astonishing stuff. 13 hours ago, Clonmel Bhoy said: Forever_Bites will be along soon claiming it is big bad Celtic fans behind it. The Lying brand. heres the statement from the guy who does the help for heroes stuff, and yes it was celtic fans behind it specifically james "lying court reporter" doleman, stan gordon regarding lionbrand "To put the record straight ,i don't own lionbrand ,i am not a member of rangers trust, i am not a member of sons of struth . the only connection i have with lionbrand is that i buy the rangers legends tops from them when i have any charity games , i have done this only twice ,the fernando ricksen charity game in elgin and the help for heroes and lee rigby game at portsmouth,the fernando game in elgin, lionbrand donated the tops free of charge ,and the game in portsmouth they sold them to me at cost price. The polo shirts that we sold for the lee rigby and help for heroes had nothing to do with lionbrand all they did was help us advertise on there website, all the money we raised from the t shirts was given to lee rigby family and help for heroes,my self and lionbrand had no input in donating the money,if you go on to glasgow rangers legends v portsmouth legends facebook you can see where all the money raised was donated to. i am on holiday at the moment as soon as i get home i will be taking legal advice regarding the rubbish that's been spoken from so called rangers fans , If anyone knows the names of these people can you pm me please. as far as i have been told some guy who has a vandetta against lionbrand contacted help for heroes and asked them how much money they received from lionbrand ,when they said nothing they put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5, lion brand only allowed us to use there website ,the fundraisers donated all the money from the game ,the t shirts and everything else to help for heroes and the lee rigby family," -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 The LyingBrand set up by junkies and racists to fleece their own support -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 'If anybody knows the names of these people can they pm me please' Sounds a bit ominous..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 I 3 hours ago, nacho said: heres the statement from the guy who does the help for heroes stuff, and yes it was celtic fans behind it specifically james "lying court reporter" doleman, stan gordon regarding lionbrand "To put the record straight ,i don't own lionbrand ,i am not a member of rangers trust, i am not a member of sons of struth . the only connection i have with lionbrand is that i buy the rangers legends tops from them when i have any charity games , i have done this only twice ,the fernando ricksen charity game in elgin and the help for heroes and lee rigby game at portsmouth,the fernando game in elgin, lionbrand donated the tops free of charge ,and the game in portsmouth they sold them to me at cost price. The polo shirts that we sold for the lee rigby and help for heroes had nothing to do with lionbrand all they did was help us advertise on there website, all the money we raised from the t shirts was given to lee rigby family and help for heroes,my self and lionbrand had no input in donating the money,if you go on to glasgow rangers legends v portsmouth legends facebook you can see where all the money raised was donated to. i am on holiday at the moment as soon as i get home i will be taking legal advice regarding the rubbish that's been spoken from so called rangers fans , If anyone knows the names of these people can you pm me please. as far as i have been told some guy who has a vandetta against lionbrand contacted help for heroes and asked them how much money they received from lionbrand ,when they said nothing they put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5, lion brand only allowed us to use there website ,the fundraisers donated all the money from the game ,the t shirts and everything else to help for heroes and the lee rigby family," I like the sound of a 'vandetta'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 3 hours ago, nacho said: because we were banned for not having three years accounts because we were a new company, uefa recognise us as the same club on their website. there was never two clubs existing at the same time, there was two companies, the club was transferred between companies with the sale of the club along with other assets on june 14th 2012, both companies involved in the sale bdo and duff and phelps have stated that the club was sold at that point The SFA article I think you're referencing (at http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10204) just smacks of so much sophistry. According to their own rules, only a club can hold membership of the SFA but in this article we have the SFA trying to say that Sevco Scotland (a company) acquired RFC plc's SFA membership and at the same time are 'requesting the transfer' of that same membership between companies. Did they acquire it or didn't they? If they'd already acquired it, why did it need to be transferred? And, during this transfer, were RFC plc treated as a club (only a club can hold membership) or as a company? Talk about five-way smoke-screens? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, The DA said: The SFA article I think you're referencing (at http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10204) just smacks of so much sophistry. According to their own rules, only a club can hold membership of the SFA but in this article we have the SFA trying to say that Sevco Scotland (a company) acquired RFC plc's SFA membership and at the same time are 'requesting the transfer' of that same membership between companies. Did they acquire it or didn't they? If they'd already acquired it, why did it need to be transferred? And, during this transfer, were RFC plc treated as a club (only a club can hold membership) or as a company? Talk about five-way smoke-screens? Such a deliberate guddle. Still, it helps nacho in his desperate 'same club' fantasies edit to add - as previously I am perfectly willing to accept the current version of Rangers as a 'similar' club. Edited July 7, 2016 by Ken Fitlike 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njord Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 4 hours ago, nacho said: because we were banned for not having three years accounts because we were a new company, Haud it right there my boy. So,,,,,,if a company with 3 years accounts had bought the carcass, 'Rangers' would've played in Europe? That's what you are saying? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 7 hours ago, nacho said: because we were banned for not having three years accounts because we were a new company, uefa recognise us as the same club on their website. there was never two clubs existing at the same time, there was two companies, the club was transferred between companies with the sale of the club along with other assets on june 14th 2012, both companies involved in the sale bdo and duff and phelps have stated that the club was sold at that point There were two conflicting rules for the Scottish cup which both applied to Rangers. Clubs in the previous year’s premier league entered in the 4th round and the current years third division clubs entered the cup in the 2nd round. Obviously Rangers could not enter the Scottish cup twice so the SFA clarified the situation in a statement on the 17th July 2012. Q- “What round will Rangers Newco join the William Hill Scottish Cup? A- Under the Scottish FA’s Cup Competition Rules, Rangers FC as a third division club will join the William Hill Scottish Cup at the second round. No mention anywhere in that statement about it being because Rangers are a new club, just a conflict in the rules due to the unique situation of Rangers being in the third division the year after being in the premier league, a situation that could not happen normally. The SFA who make the cup rules have made it very clear that Rangers are the same club in various statements. So once again, an argument without any proof backing it up which the available evidence contradicts. The league cup was the same with Rangers as a division three club entering at round 1. because the tupe regulations were in force which apply to new companies, the players had the choice to continue with the new company or leave, absolutely nothing to do with the club, which remained the same Because we were kicked out of the spl due to our company failing to agree a cva, we were then voted in division three, we were treated as a exsisting club during this process and didnt not have to meet the requirements of a new club entering the league, every scottish footballing organisation is 100% clear we are the same club spl - " it is an existing club, even if it is a new company”. sfa - " Different corporate entity but same Rangers, same history, same honours accrued over 140 years.” sfl - " after 140 years the club is once again a member of the organisation it helped found in 1890 " spfl - http://spfl.co.uk/clubs/rangers/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 3 hours ago, Ken Fitlike said: Such a deliberate guddle. Still, it helps nacho in his desperate 'same club' fantasies edit to add - as previously I am perfectly willing to accept the current version of Rangers as a 'similar' club. No c**t really cares what you are willing to accept ken rangers fc - 54 and counting we welcome the chase 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 the previous version of the club didn't welcome being chased by creditors. you can't add to the 54.( about 4 or 5 should actually be deducted clock wound back to zero. 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.