Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bennett said:

Your post mentioned nothing aboot you being elsewhere, so take your own advice Cletus.

It totally did.

You even quoted the bit about grabbing some sunshine in response to Kincardine's inquiry about whether I'd been on holiday.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Bellend is Dhenbhoy, he did indeed have the highest post count on here (all made from a beach hut in Goa), until one day he did venture out onto the big forum and duly lost his head on an Aberdeen thread and was banned.  


He's a crackpot, no doubt about it. Who's Moshini btw?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It totally did.

You even quoted the bit about grabbing some sunshine in response to Kincardine's inquiry about whether I'd been on holiday.

 

It totally never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Why do you do this?

to irritate and exasperate, with a view to discouraging people from visiting the thread, reducing the ridicule and scrutiny that the embarrasing clusterfuck that his clubs/companies actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

No, I don't think it's especially significant.

It's amusing because it again challenges Nacho's drivel about "all credible evidence", but all it really does is confirm that we can each find sources to support our preferred reading.  

I'm content with the idea that it was a guddle.  Rangers is not a completely new entity, but what happened in 2012 is not an irrelevance either, meaning that no continuity can sensibly be considered seamless or uninterrupted.  I'm happy enough that the measures taken four years ago reflect that.

If it really does matter a great deal to a group of adults to be able to say that the team they like best, has won loads of trophies in the past, then who am I to intrude on such need?  I think it's perhaps kindest if we just let them.

For me, the real issue concerns title stripping.  That's where injustice remains and it has nothing to do with continuity.

Pretty much my take on it but I just can't help myself when it comes to shooting down those bears who define their whole existence by what 'their' team has done - years before they were born or ever attended a match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, The DA said:

Pretty much my take on it but I just can't help myself when it comes to shooting down those bears who define their whole existence by what 'their' team has done - years before they were born or ever attended a match.

there is a fair percentage of their support who have NEVER attended a match.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MoshiniBellend said:

Dave does like his court cases' legal bills and jetting in on Sevco's dime.

there can't be many dimes left from the season ticket money.

Fancy a sweeper for the date of the first loan to keep the lights on.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MoshiniBellend said:

Define your use of entity?

As a legal entity or the entity as defined within UEFA rules they certainly are a new "club/company" (entity)

noun: entity; plural noun: entities

  1. a thing with distinct and independent existence.
    "Church and empire were fused in a single entity"

I'd say given the normal definition and in the real world of footballing regulations, law and commerce thay are new.

Anyone can believe in a make believe version.

I was not using the term in any legal sense.  Nor was I pretending to.

I was using it to mean "thing", a use that your dictionary definition chimes with happily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Tedi said:

 

Bellend is Dhenbhoy, he did indeed have the highest post count on here (all made from a beach hut in Goa), until one day he did venture out onto the big forum and duly lost his head on an Aberdeen thread and was banned.  

Who has the highest post count on the Big Thread now Tedi? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bennett said:

 

Oh no! Surely not....

You aren't a Rangers supporter of any kind at all are you Benny?, methinks you are a Timposter to make stupid Rangers fans even more stupid than they already are. Good work by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MoshiniBellend said:

So what is this thing you are referring to then? The fairy tale version of a club? A thing, an ethearal entity, a metaphysical concept and not anything a Scottish Court would recognise as an entity?

The dictionary uses "thing" to refer to an inanimate object which has a distinct and independent existence.

Explain how your "entity/thing" fits into this, given that the legal entity has already has been established as having its own existence in the real world of law and football regulation for clubs.

It's MT's belief that it is a Rangers FC that is a continuance of the last Rangers FC that went tits up, but not exactly the same. I get what he means and believes and it is his right to do so. Having a hobby is a thing we do but it isn't an inanimate object MB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, THE KING said:

And highest alias count.

Sad cnut that he is. :lol:

Goads other posters about things the daft twat does himself, he doesn't do irony. He takes the forum way way too seriously at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MoshiniBellend said:

So what is this thing you are referring to then? The fairy tale version of a club? A thing, an ethearal entity, a metaphysical concept and not anything a Scottish Court would recognise as an entity?

The dictionary uses "thing" to refer to an inanimate object which has a distinct and independent existence.

Explain how your "entity/thing" fits into this, given that the legal entity has already has been established as having its own existence in the real world of law and football regulation for clubs.

You see, I'm genuinely fine with the "ethereal" idea - I honestly am and I see it as having a certain value.

I don't wish to see football generally, or its clubs defined as mere businesses.  I'm generally supportive of the idea for instance, that AFC Wimbledon is a spiritual successor of the outfit that won the FA Cup in 1988, even though its relationship with the original is really quite distant.  I do actually think that a club is about its fans and sense of identity, to quite a significant extent.  

The difference though is that I have the luxury of saying this, whereas Rangers fans daren't admit to a belief in anything as flimsy and easily scoffed at.

Football clubs are of course companies and the notion of completely divorcing the two is self serving nuts.  At the same time though, there's a bit more to them than that and I've no problem with the "bit more" surviving if we can be adult enough to recognise what actually happened and what it means.

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...