stonedsailor Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, sugna said: Yes, I know and agree. I was branching out from the Coral case to describe what I think are the important aspects of the continuity question, from the perspective of Rangers fans (in whichever sense) and other fans. I think that the black-and-white logical argument for club continuity doesn't hold - for the club as a synonym for or "aspect of" the legal entity (the company); but I think it holds in the sense of what the club (or the old-and-new pair of clubs) means to Scottish football supporters. I think that a lot of disagreement on here and elsewhere comes from conflating these two senses. Rangers fans have a point when they say, "If we're a 5-year-old club, how come everyone (still) hates us?"; and other fans have a point when they say "Rangers ended in 2012 when they went into liquidation". I don't think that it's legitimate to project from one sense in order to win a debate or score points relating to the other sense. But both sides continually do this. It's really just bickering, because the two sides are generally arguing about different domains of applicability. Always worth a laugh, though. The "Rangers fans' view" argument mixes up supporters clubs with a football club IMO. I am a Caley (RIP) fan but supporter of ICT, commonly known as Caley, to add some perspective. Edited January 12, 2017 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugna Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, stonedsailor said: The "Rangers fans' view" argument mixes up supporters clubs with a football club IMO. Yes, it does. The opposing view ascribes, IMHO, too little weight to what it means to be a club in one sense: not the legal sense, or any sense that relates to the structure of organized sport; but in the sense that many of us belong to or are affiliated with clubs, because we feel we are part of them or they are part of us. Like many words, "club" is overloaded to have these different meanings. There's little doubt that both senses meant the same thing in January 2012 within Scottish football, because there hadn't been a case where a huge number of Scottish football fans wanted to "continue", but their club couldn't, so there had been no real need to distinguish the "clubs" meanings: everyone meant both the playing (club) and the fans that supported it. You still see that in match threads, where people talk about "we" in relation to a team on the park. That fan base size should have no effect on how the club (in the company-like sense) is treated, and it was ham-fisted for the SFA and SPL to try to take into account club/fan base size as part of the mechanism for handling the administration events. It also reeked of treating a big club differently. I think that the treatment of the event should have been much more black-and-white: no 5-way agreement; no attempted parachuting; new club treated like any other when applying for a place in what became the SPFL. Then separately, the economic aspects could have been addressed, to allow other clubs to decide on how they wanted to structure any changes to take into account an "orphaned" large support. But it should have been done on that basis, as a sober consideration of practical considerations such as club income, not as a fuzzy sort of shoe-horning. It will be interesting and amusing, and may even be instructive to see how the Coral case plays out. But I'm not expecting too many epiphanies either way Might give one "side" some bragging rights, and I would expect this thread to be in the bragging vanguard when the verdict emerges. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, sugna said: Yes, it does. The opposing view ascribes, IMHO, too little weight to what it means to be a club in one sense: not the legal sense, or any sense that relates to the structure of organized sport; but in the sense that many of us belong to or are affiliated with clubs, because we feel we are part of them or they are part of us. Like many words, "club" is overloaded to have these different meanings. There's little doubt that both senses meant the same thing in January 2012 within Scottish football, because there hadn't been a case where a huge number of Scottish football fans wanted to "continue", but their club couldn't, so there had been no real need to distinguish the "clubs" meanings: everyone meant both the playing (club) and the fans that supported it. You still see that in match threads, where people talk about "we" in relation to a team on the park. That fan base size should have no effect on how the club (in the company-like sense) is treated, and it was ham-fisted for the SFA and SPL to try to take into account club/fan base size as part of the mechanism for handling the administration events. It also reeked of treating a big club differently. I think that the treatment of the event should have been much more black-and-white: no 5-way agreement; no attempted parachuting; new club treated like any other when applying for a place in what became the SPFL. Then separately, the economic aspects could have been addressed, to allow other clubs to decide on how they wanted to structure any changes to take into account an "orphaned" large support. But it should have been done on that basis, as a sober consideration of practical considerations such as club income, not as a fuzzy sort of shoe-horning. It will be interesting and amusing, and may even be instructive to see how the Coral case plays out. But I'm not expecting too many epiphanies either way Might give one "side" some bragging rights, and I would expect this thread to be in the bragging vanguard when the verdict emerges. @The Tedi bookmark this. If Coral are forced to pay out on the bet then I will agree that Rangers Football Club are the same club as they were prior to a bunch of assets being reformed into a club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I'm not sure that would do it, as it's quite close to the same club being moved (it keeps Rangers constant over time). I think that Coral's might have to argue, instead of "...[Rangers] went out of business and started as a new club in the bottom tier", simply that "...[Rangers] went out of business". Because if "Rangers" were the subject of both the first verb and the second, one might reasonably presume that they were around in the intervening time. Especially when they "started as a new club" rather than "starting a new club" - identifying the company with the (new) club. But with all of these debates, and whichever side one is on, it always comes back to a nicety that didn't exist prior to 2012: the distinction between the club and the company. Everything else follows from that. I don't think that people are going to agree on that point so here's my tuppenceworth, which I trust is just as arbitrary as anyone else's. I think that there was never an intent for a club and company to be treated as separate concepts, before it became a big stakes game in 2012; and in that sense, Rangers "finished" in 2012. But I also think that almost everything that is important about a club is vested not in the club itself nor in the associated company (that I reckon is just about a synonym for the club); but instead is owned by the fan base. In that sense, there is still (or if you prefer, there is again) a Rangers within Scottish football that represents the fans of Rangers from before 2012. I think that's legitimate and is how everyone behaves (whether you're a lover or a hater). So I'm sympathetic to the link-through-the-fans aspect. But I think that it's just vested-interest marketing to claim that the club is actually the same club because of some abstruse metaphysical considerations that relate to the club-company conundrum - which reminds me of wave-particle duality, in that you get a different answer depending on how you go about evaluating it. My aim in writing this post is not to unite through compromise, but instead to infuriate both sides by describing a middle ground. I'm quietly confident I'll manage that. It's a good post, well thought out and with merit. However, no fan base that completely abandons their club in its time of need gets to own anything. They have not earned the right, they were tested and they failed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever_blueco Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) People near enough hitting a stauner over a court case over an unpaid bet catch of grip of yourselves lads Edited January 12, 2017 by Forever_blueco -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Forever_blueco said: People near enough hitting a stauner over a court case over an unpaid debt catch of grip of yourselves lads Have you not been follow following? This debate has raged for years and one way or another we will get an answer. I am ready to eat humble pie, are you? No excuses, no arguments, if the case goes against Coral and the court decrees that Rangers were relegated I will concede defeat and admit I was wrong on the continuation issue. Will you do the same if the case goes the other way? Remember what the definition of relegate is, there is even a specific entry for British football. If Rangers are a continuation then they were relegated to a lower division. That is fact. Edited January 12, 2017 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 2 hours ago, Bearwithme said: Coral have a good case imo. Rangers left the SPL following a vote - and votes merely reflect opinion. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever_blueco Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 17 minutes ago, stonedsailor said: Have you not been follow following? This debate has raged for years and one way or another we will get an answer. I am ready to eat humble pie, are you? No excuses, no arguments, if the case goes against Coral and the court decrees that Rangers were relegated I will concede defeat and admit I was wrong on the continuation issue. Will you do the same if the case goes the other way? Remember what the definition of relegate is, there is even a specific entry for British football. If Rangers are a continuation then they were relegated to a lower division. That is fact. Get a life ffs i am am a rangers fan and I couldn't even give two fucks about this -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhaleOilBeefHucked Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 23 minutes ago, Forever_blueco said: People near enough hitting a stauner over a court case over an unpaid bet catch of grip of yourselves lads 17 minutes ago, stonedsailor said: Have you not been follow following? This debate has raged for years and one way or another we will get an answer. I am ready to eat humble pie, are you? No excuses, no arguments, if the case goes against Coral and the court decrees that Rangers were relegated I will concede defeat and admit I was wrong on the continuation issue. Will you do the same if the case goes the other way? Remember what the definition of relegate is, there is even a specific entry for British football. If Rangers are a continuation then they were relegated to a lower division. That is fact. If you could also point out the rule where you can be relegated after finishing in second place I am also happy to admit I was wrong and "Rangers" currently playing home games at Ibrox are the same club as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, munro76 said: If you could also point out the rule where you can be relegated after finishing in second place I am also happy to admit I was wrong and "Rangers" currently playing home games at Ibrox are the same club as well. It does not state in the definition how relegation should take place, whether it be by sporting merit; sporting integrity; a vote by members or just for shits and giggles all it says is 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 15 minutes ago, Forever_blueco said: Get a life ffs i am am a rangers fan and I couldn't even give two fucks about this So if the courts prove you wrong then you will still be as defiant? Fair play for your loyalty but it does show up your stubborn denial of facts and pigheadedness and negates any point in discussing any subject with you. Or are you nervous about the decision and putting on a brave face? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, stonedsailor said: So if the courts prove you wrong then you will still be as defiant? Fair play for your loyalty but it does show up your stubborn denial of facts and pigheadedness and negates any point in discussing any subject with you. Or are you nervous about the decision and putting on a brave face? No he stated that he was a Rangers fan . They don't give a f**k about anything other than being better than Celtic. They proved that when they let their club die. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dindeleux Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I'm sure this has been gone over umpteen times. The football club had a new "owner and operator" (as defined by the football authorities) i.e. a new operating company. The vote was about whether that new owner and operator could take on the holding of the SPL share (in line with SPL rules). Like I say, votes are just opinions. Lol. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Bearwithme said: I'm sure this has been gone over umpteen times. The football club had a new "owner and operator" (as defined by the football authorities) i.e. a new operating company. The vote was about whether that new owner and operator could take on the holding of the SPL share (in line with SPL rules). Like I say, votes are just opinions. Haha 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I'm sure this has been gone over umpteen times. The football club had a new "owner and operator" (as defined by the football authorities) i.e. a new operating company. The vote was about whether that new owner and operator could take on the holding of the SPL share (in line with SPL rules). Like I say, votes are just opinions. But what about hearts when we got a new owner and operator. ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Just now, scottxs said: But what about hearts when we got a new owner and operator. ? You didn't. The "owner and operator" (as defined by the football authorities) is the company which operates the football club. (Other companies can be involved as well of course as, for example, Murray International once was with us.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever_blueco Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 1 hour ago, theoriginalhedge said: No he stated that he was a Rangers fan . They don't give a f**k about anything other than being better than Celtic. They proved that when they let their club die. Yes that is exactly what I meant 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever_blueco Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, stonedsailor said: So if the courts prove you wrong then you will still be as defiant? Fair play for your loyalty but it does show up your stubborn denial of facts and pigheadedness and negates any point in discussing any subject with you. Or are you nervous about the decision and putting on a brave face? Nervous about heehaw , the result could go in our favour and I could not give a flying f**k . Which part of this are you failing to understand ? No matter the outcome this thread will continue with the same debates day after day , month after month and year after year Edited January 12, 2017 by Forever_blueco -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Nervous about heehaw , the result could go in our favour and I could not give a flying f**k . Which part of this are you failing to understand ? No matter the outcome this thread will continue with the same debates day after day , month after month and year after year Until you die again and then a new thread will start. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 10 minutes ago, Bearwithme said: You didn't. The "owner and operator" (as defined by the football authorities) is the company which operates the football club. (Other companies can be involved as well of course as, for example, Murray International once was with us.) Do you honestly actually believe that pish? 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.