Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Ken Fitlike]

6 minutes ago, stonedsailor said:

 

 

The "club/company" can only refer to the entity which is Rangers.

The "SPL/SPFL" can refer to any of those suits belonging to the SPL or SPFL.

One is used in a singular sense, the other in a plural sense.

 

 

ah, got it. I'll use 'SFA & SPFL' from here on

[stonedsailor]

ah, got it. I'll use 'SFA & SPFL' from here on

I can see my trying to be smart by touching on your use of the virgule has gone over your head or we have crossed wires.

I was not addressing your point that the SFA and SPFL like to wriggle and deceive, merely that there is no wiggle room in the statement. The virgule could provide wiggle room had it been used in the way you did but UEFA's use in describing Rangers is clear.

Unless of course Kinky is willing to put me right?

[Ken Fitlike]

3 minutes ago, stonedsailor said:

 

I can see my trying to be smart by touching on your use of the virgule has gone over your head or we have crossed wires.

I was not addressing your point that the SFA and SPFL like to wriggle and deceive, merely that there is no wiggle room in the statement. The virgule could provide wiggle room had it been used in the way you did bit UEFA's use in describing Rangers is clear.

Unless of course Kinky is willing to put me right?

 

[stonedsailor]

Is there no response from the dark side on this matter even from Lord Haw Haw, I feel that they are weakening in their resolve. No continuation seems to be the currant assumption, without even so much as a whimper.

In fairness to Kinky he has replied, but only in a way which leaves his reply as ambiguous as he wishes that UEFA had.

His problem is that when you look at the UEFA wording there is no ambiguity whereas looking at the phrase without the context of the rest of the UEFA reply, as Kinky so eloquently misquotes it, ambiguity is plain to see.

I am of course open to correction from Kinky, if he would only tell me how else the UEFA statement could be read?

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Kinky's problem is that, as well as his being nowhere near as bright as he'd like us to think he is, very few of the non-peepul on here are anywhere near as thick as he continually parrots. He has, at least, joined bennett in attempting to put a brave face on his reaction to a major plank of his self-image being blown out of the water. Never mind Nacho - surely Tedi can't be that busy deleting posts to put in an appearance? I notice he's been around, dotting his normal chums, but strangely hasn't had the arse to join in the conversation on what one of his absolute favourite sources has to say about his two absolute favourite club/companies. 

Funny, isn't it - they bleat on and on about "ra Diddies" recycling the same old shyte but, when there's a genuine development, they're off like Jig's Mam's frillies...

[Highlandmagyar]

The big question in all of this is who brings the b*****ds of Scottish football authorities to account?

[Njord]

Lol, clear as mud from the fun lovin' criminal

 

 

 Monday, 11 July 2016, 14:30 by Dave King

RANGERS Chairman Dave King recently invited supporters to send in questions and below you can read the 14th part in the series as he addresses the topics raised by fans:

Replica Kit and other retail activities

As previously mentioned, there were a significant amount of questions devoted to the present status and the likely way forward for the Club’s retail operations – and in particular the replica kit.

It is beneficial for supporters to get an update on the current position in advance of the coming season and to dispel some of the incorrect assumptions and statements that have been voiced. First, all of Rangers trademarks and brands are owned by The Rangers Football Club Limited (TRFC). TRFC licenced the use of the trademarks and brands to Rangers Retail Limited (RRL) which is the joint venture company between TRFC and Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited that was specially formed to manage the Club’s retail activities. The various agreements related to this were put in place by the previous board.

Secondly, as a director and chairman of RRL, I owe duties to RRL that are independent of my duties and obligations as Chairman of the Club’s holding company. Since my appointment as a director of RRL, I have sought to understand the circumstances that led to it being formed, the way in which it carries out its business and the manner in which it is governed, both internally and in its dealings with the outside world. It is my duty as a director to understand such matters. There are a number of issues that, as my understanding increases, have caused me concern but they must necessarily be dealt with away from the public arena. What I can give assurances on is that I am using my best endeavours to resolve these issues.

It was certainly a unique experience for me to share a boardroom table with a man called before a Parliamentary Committee to explain his company’s business practices and how that company treats those who work in its business. It was not a long acquaintance as Mr Ashley suddenly resigned rather than work with me and the others on the Board to resolve the issues facing RRL. No explanation has been given for Mr Ashley’s resignation.

Paul Murray is with me on the Board of RRL and we will not abandon our duties to that company. These are now more challenging than ever as RRL has been advised by TRFC that TRFC has terminated the Agreement that permits RRL to distribute, market and supply Rangers products. As a director of RRL, I and my colleagues on the Board need to carefully analyse and review the circumstances that have led to TRFC terminating the retail arrangements. We also need to consider how RRL should respond to the termination. As you might imagine, most of this has to take place in confidence because of our duties to the Company and out of respect to our business partners and those who supply Rangers products.

This process is ongoing and hopefully TRFC will soon be in a position to communicate further with Rangers supporters on these issues. I am sorry that I am restricted from saying more at this time.

[stonedsailor]

Lol, clear as mud from the fun lovin' criminal

 

 

 Monday, 11 July 2016, 14:30 by Dave King

RANGERS Chairman Dave King recently invited supporters to send in questions and below you can read the 14th part in the series as he addresses the topics raised by fans:

Replica Kit and other retail activities

As previously mentioned, there were a significant amount of questions devoted to the present status and the likely way forward for the Club’s retail operations – and in particular the replica kit.

It is beneficial for supporters to get an update on the current position in advance of the coming season and to dispel some of the incorrect assumptions and statements that have been voiced. First, all of Rangers trademarks and brands are owned by The Rangers Football Club Limited (TRFC). TRFC licenced the use of the trademarks and brands to Rangers Retail Limited (RRL) which is the joint venture company between TRFC and Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited that was specially formed to manage the Club’s retail activities. The various agreements related to this were put in place by the previous board.

Secondly, as a director and chairman of RRL, I owe duties to RRL that are independent of my duties and obligations as Chairman of the Club’s holding company. Since my appointment as a director of RRL, I have sought to understand the circumstances that led to it being formed, the way in which it carries out its business and the manner in which it is governed, both internally and in its dealings with the outside world. It is my duty as a director to understand such matters. There are a number of issues that, as my understanding increases, have caused me concern but they must necessarily be dealt with away from the public arena. What I can give assurances on is that I am using my best endeavours to resolve these issues.

It was certainly a unique experience for me to share a boardroom table with a man called before a Parliamentary Committee to explain his company’s business practices and how that company treats those who work in its business. It was not a long acquaintance as Mr Ashley suddenly resigned rather than work with me and the others on the Board to resolve the issues facing RRL. No explanation has been given for Mr Ashley’s resignation.

Paul Murray is with me on the Board of RRL and we will not abandon our duties to that company. These are now more challenging than ever as RRL has been advised by TRFC that TRFC has terminated the Agreement that permits RRL to distribute, market and supply Rangers products. As a director of RRL, I and my colleagues on the Board need to carefully analyse and review the circumstances that have led to TRFC terminating the retail arrangements. We also need to consider how RRL should respond to the termination. As you might imagine, most of this has to take place in confidence because of our duties to the Company and out of respect to our business partners and those who supply Rangers products.

This process is ongoing and hopefully TRFC will soon be in a position to communicate further with Rangers supporters on these issues. I am sorry that I am restricted from saying more at this time.

Clear as mud? He could have condensed it to "oh shit, now we have a major conflict of interests issue going on. We'll keep you informed ".

[wulliamwallace]

 What a total clusterfck of a deid club 

How many tops have they sold ?

How many tops that are not official tops but are going to a charity that is not going to a charity but is going to a club which is not a club,  have they sold 

How many charity's have they ripped off ?

Have they got a safety cert for the crumbling asbestos filled stadium that has not been updated in 9 years for the start of this season ?

Have they paid the £250k fine yet ?

How much has King spent of his warchest ?

Have they paid Accrington Stanley yet ?

Whens the next court case ?

and the list goes on and on and on ............... 
 

 

 

 

They should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. 

 

[dave.j]

Quote

Paul Murray is with me on the Board of RRL and we will not abandon our duties to that company. These are now more challenging than ever as RRL has been advised by TRFC that TRFC has terminated the Agreement that permits RRL to distribute, market and supply Rangers products. As a director of RRL, I and my colleagues on the Board need to carefully analyse and review the circumstances that have led to TRFC terminating the retail arrangements. We also need to consider how RRL should respond to the termination.

I got an email from myself, and now i don't know how I should reply to myself.

 

[Ken Fitlike]

4 minutes ago, stonedsailor said:

It was certainly a unique experience for me to share a boardroom table with a man called before a Parliamentary Committee to explain his company’s business practices and how that company treats those who work in its business. It was not a long acquaintance as Mr Ashley suddenly resigned rather than work with me and the others on the Board to resolve the issues facing RRL. No explanation has been given for Mr Ashley’s resignation.

Take a hint, min... even a aggressive spiv like Ashley  feels a bit soiled being in the same room as you.....

[The_Kincardine]

3 hours ago, stonedsailor said:

In fairness to Kinky he has replied, but only in a way which leaves his reply as ambiguous as he wishes that UEFA had.

There is absolutely nothing ambiguous in my reply.  I fully accept that a "new club/company” was formed.  We've all accepted this for years and it's why we wouldn't have been granted a license to play in Europe from season 2012/13 onwards (qualification aside ).  The surprising thing is the efforts you diddies are going to to bludgeon a simple phrase into a shape that fits your myopic world view.

Disappointing that CQN haven't published the full text of the letter.  Was it sent to then in French maybe?

[Ken Fitlike]

New club then.

First game against Brechin in 2012.

what's next on the agenda?

[stonedsailor]

There is absolutely nothing ambiguous in my reply.  I fully accept that a "new club/company” was formed.  We've all accepted this for years and it's why we wouldn't have been granted a license to play in Europe from season 2012/13 onwards (qualification aside [emoji6] ).  The surprising thing is the efforts you diddies are going to to bludgeon a simple phrase into a shape that fits your myopic world view.

Disappointing that CQN haven't published the full text of the letter.  Was it sent to then in French maybe?

The actual reason that the new club were not allowed to play in European competition for three years is that the new club had not been members of the SFA for three years.

Never mind that shit though, just define what you think a club/company is as I have never heard of a club/company. How do you go about forming a club/company?

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, stonedsailor said:

 

The actual reason that the new club were not allowed to play in European competition for three years is that the new club had not been members of the SFA for three years.

 

My understanding was that the new company didn't have 3 years of accounts filed.  I'm open to being corrected, though.

We have the same SFA license we've always had.

Edited July 11, 2016 by The_Kincardine

[stonedsailor]

My understanding was that the new company didn't have 3 years of accounts filed.  I'm open to being corrected, though.

We have the same SFA license we've always had.

Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant

1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible

for a football team participating in national and international competitions which

either:

a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated

league (hereinafter: registered member); or

b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football

company).

2 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.

The 3 year rule is about membership of your home FA.

Rangers had not been members of their home FA for 3 years.

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, stonedsailor said:

The 3 year rule is about membership of your home FA.

Rangers have not been members of their home FA for 3 years.

I'm assuming that " Any alteration to ...company structure" is the relevant part then and 3 years of accounts is the evidence base for this.

Clearly, as we've the same SFA license, we do have membership going back more than 3 years.

[bennett]

Cqn and a / , plus the return of Norman  

 

Yay us.

 

 

[stonedsailor]

I'm assuming that " Any alteration to ...company structure" is the relevant part then and 3 years of accounts is the evidence base for this.

Clearly, as we've the same SFA license, we do have membership going back more than 3 years.

No. Your SFA licence is a "silver" licence this year. It was "entry" last year.

If you read the UEFA reply, as posted by CQN, it is quite clear that no action was taken against Rangers as they were a new club/company in comparison to the club/company which folded after administration.

Go and look into this. You are obviously misinformed if you were under the impression that accounts had anything to do with this.

The relevant part is that the club/company had to have had a contractual relationship or membership of the SFA for three years and the club/company that is Rangers were not a member, nor had they contractual relationships, with the SFA.

[The_Kincardine]

Just now, stonedsailor said:

 

 

No. Your SFA licence is a "silver" licence this year. It was "entry" last year.

I wasn't aware that there were different colours of domestic licenses.  We also both agree that our new company has the same license as the old one.  My assumption was the there needed to be 3 years of audited accounts but, as I said, I'm perfectly happy for our change of corporate structure to be the reason.

Again, noting to see here, really.  If you're trying to argue we've been SFA members for a short number of years then you've a lot of work to do to make a case.