7-2 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 If an American lawyer came over and said you weren't allowed to use Johnstone in your club's name as his firm had global copyright , and you had to call yourselves Perth City, would you stop going to games, and celebrating past victories? Em, er...stick to the Druids. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 What is there to stop two different groups trying to set up a "newco" Rangers should they be voted out of the SPL? If no-one can afford to buy Ibrox etc so that there are no assets to distinguish a Newco as Rangers, and two different fan groups attempt to set up a "Newco" Rangers from scratch, which one will the supporters choose? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 What is there to stop two different groups trying to set up a "newco" Rangers should they be voted out of the SPL? If no-one can afford to buy Ibrox etc so that there are no assets to distinguish a Newco as Rangers, and two different fan groups attempt to set up a "Newco" Rangers from scratch, which one will the supporters choose? The one that doesn't have Mark Dingwall behind it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 What is there to stop two different groups trying to set up a "newco" Rangers should they be voted out of the SPL? If no-one can afford to buy Ibrox etc so that there are no assets to distinguish a Newco as Rangers, and two different fan groups attempt to set up a "Newco" Rangers from scratch, which one will the supporters choose? Bucks Fizz fans had the same dilemma. Stick with a BF with no original members or go to Bobby Gee's Bucks Fizz gigs. Decisions decisions. Maybe Coisty could set up Ally McCoist's Rangers if someone tries to use the Rangers name. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lithgierose Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) Right i get you now...Yep i have read that on other Forums. They would be the same long standing Rangers men that gave up on the club in the early 80s. I would say we have a hard core support of around 15,000ish that will still go to Ibrox regardless of what level we are playing at. How that would hold up under a sustained period of little or no success i have no idea. As i said i can only speak for myself and the people i know And the same ones who said they would never go watch rangers again when Mo Johnston signed. I was in france when that happened and rangers fans (looky looky men) were burning the shirts when they heard that. just read that back Edited April 9, 2012 by lithgierose 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomDom Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 If Rangers supporters went and watched them even for a few games in the third in their droves, they'd be making much more money than any other team and would easily have the resourses to power through the leagues. It's laughable that people would think the resourses to do that particular job wouldn't be there. It's when they get to the SPL and do f**k all year after year after year that the whole thing would become much more amusing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Nope but I,m sure it would be much the same. It was the Celtic fans are angels and grand ambassadors for the country that I take issue with. Clearly they are not 'tho not any worse than some others as you have pointed out. Nobody has said that. far too many people on here just make up or believe in things that have no fountation in it as an excuse to have a dig or let out some rage against all things OF. If anything Scotland fans are the " grand ambassadors for the country" and they have on many occasions been a disgrace, but we'll always get away with it in this country as the TA are portrait as some sort of lovable rogues who despite being smashed 24/7 are the "friendly" drunks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarification_Bot Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 I have no idea what they would be called and it matters little to me as i would see them as Rangers Football Club just under another name..They would still be my club and if it means we lose some of the baggage that went with the old club then so be it. But what would make it Rangers? I'm not arguing, I'm genuinely curious. If the company has so little to do with Rangers that it's able to form without falling foul of the law, what makes it Rangers? You guys have given some serious thought to Theseus' paradox, right? So is the newco going to be founded on a Madhyamaka Buddhist interpretation the principle of essence? Because I'm not sure how well Buddhism goes down in Ulster. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 A simple name change is a bit different to your club being liquidated and starting afresh to be fair. It is, but the name change seems to be the crucial thing to 7-2, where it doesn't seem that important to me. If Falkirk went bust and had to call itself something else, I'd be more concerned with who the new owners were than the name change, and I'd still be glorying in our record 4 Challenge Cup victories I 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattBairn Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 It is, but the name change seems to be the crucial thing to 7-2, where it doesn't seem that important to me. If Falkirk went bust and had to call itself something else, I'd be more concerned with who the new owners were than the name change, I can see where you're coming from, but not everyone looks at these things the same. A name change (as well as a newco) might be enough to put some people off (and thats without looking at the new owners, stadium etc. ) others wont bother as much. Everyone is different and the more changes that occur the more people will be put off supporting a new co/team. (I would imagine anyway) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 I can see where you're coming from, but not everyone looks at these things the same. A name change (as well as a newco) might be enough to put some people off (and thats without looking at the new owners, stadium etc. ) others wont bother as much. Everyone is different and the more changes that occur the more people will be put off supporting a new co/team. (I would imagine anyway) Bringing back the great name of Grangemouth Rovers would be cool, though I'd expect it to upset a few folk.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 And the same ones who said they would never go watch rangers again when Mo Johnston signed. I was in france when that happened and rangers fans were burning the shirts when they heard that. Even though that never happened and Rangers crowds went up year on year AFTER Mo Jo signed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted April 9, 2012 Author Share Posted April 9, 2012 And the same ones who said they would never go watch rangers again when Mo Johnston signed. I was in france when that happened and rangers fans were burning the shirts when they heard that. Impossible. Shite doesn't burn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenlantern Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 But what would make it Rangers? I'm not arguing, I'm genuinely curious. If the company has so little to do with Rangers that it's able to form without falling foul of the law, what makes it Rangers? You guys have given some serious thought to Theseus' paradox, right? So is the newco going to be founded on a Madhyamaka Buddhist interpretation the principle of essence? Because I'm not sure how well Buddhism goes down in Ulster. Hatred towards all things Celtic Fc would definitely go towards something remotely resembling the 'old rangers'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Hatred towards all things Celtic Fc would definitely go towards something remotely resembling the 'old rangers'. That just sounds like common sense and good taste to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lithgierose Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Even though that never happened and Rangers crowds went up year on year AFTER Mo Jo signed. what never happened ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenlantern Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 That just sounds like common sense and good taste to me. No objections from you then if the Newco was called WeHateCeltic Fc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Bucks Fizz fans had the same dilemma. Stick with a BF with no original members or go to Bobby Gee's Bucks Fizz gigs. Decisions decisions. Maybe Coisty could set up Ally McCoist's Rangers if someone tries to use the Rangers name. Maybe a little alteraion could even be used for newco...Buckfast Fizz FC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 No objections from you then if the Newco was called WeHateCeltic Fc Excellent idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 It is, but the name change seems to be the crucial thing to 7-2, where it doesn't seem that important to me. If Falkirk went bust and had to call itself something else, I'd be more concerned with who the new owners were than the name change, and I'd still be glorying in our record 4 Challenge Cup victories We aren't talking about our cuddly little diddy clubs though. The name change is important in my eyes as without it, it's just legal stuff that doesn't really matter to supporters, even though in the real world it is. The name Rangers means so much to these knuckledraggers. It stands for so much. It is far more than just the name of a football club. It's a lifestyle. Remove that and you show everyone the beast has been slain, or in this case, committed suicide. The bigots may transfer their allegiance and pretend who they are watching is Rangers but it won't be. Rangers will be dead. Removing the name would confirm it to all. 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.