vikingTON Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 The day that p***k has a 'win' is when methadol is free... Methadol sounds interesting. Like a mix between methadone and Panadol. Not sure you should be publicly touting illegal wares though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Spencie made the point that we should never forget. Despite all Rangers past crimes, until a few weeks ago everyone assumed that the newco would have a shoo in to the SPL. It then became clear that fans would not buy season tickets and the SPL chairmen succumbed to fan pressure and were forced to say no. Same will apply elsewhere, on both Off the Ball and then on Sportsound it was made clear the smaller clubs have a different culture. No big bucks, often held together with hard graft from individuals. Can't see these people bending over and doing the SPL /SFA 's dirty work for them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) I got very fed up with that tit Alexander - who was irritating enough to be an MP even if he wasn't. First sticking up for Cockwomble - Just a decent guy trying his best apparently! Then going on about Rangers punishment. FFS is it really that hard to get into their skulls? In simple sentences then (yet again I know); Rangers were punished by a ten point penalty for going into admin as per the rule book. Rangers then went bust and are in the process of being wound up, liquidated, extinguished, rubbed oot A new company is being formed. If that new company wants to have a football team to play at Ibrox, fine. If that company wants to have players in blue jerseys, fine. If that company wants to have the word Rangers in their title, annoying, but fine But that company needs to find a league to play in. They need to apply to the SFL (at the highest...even that application would involve expediency and hasty rewriting of rules) There is no rule in the SFL that allows for them to jump into SFL 1. None. Clyde have made that even clearer with their excellently worded release So they need to start again from the beginning, whatever they are called, whoever play for them, wherever they play That is not punishment, that is PROCESS. And to be fair, even Rangers fans seem to be overwhelmingly understanding this. Just fuckit journalists who cannot compute! Totally agree, with the exception of the highlighted bit. There is legislation which prevents a liquidated company trading as a name similar enough to their old name in such a way as consumers may confuse the two (unless the name has a geographical nature, which isn't the case here). It would have the added benefit of driving home the point through thick Orc skulls that rangers are DEAD. Whatever turns out in the league next year, at whatever level, will NOT be rangers. No debts, no punishment of behaviour before liquidation, no dealing with debts including football debts, and NO HISTORY. They cannot be allowed to have their cake and eat it. From businesslink.gov.uk: Reuse of a company name after liquidation Prohibited names and restrictions If a business uses a prohibited name, there are restrictions on who is allowed to be involved in the running of that business. A prohibited name is a name by which a liquidated company was known at any time in the 12 months immediately before its liquidation. This can be any of the following: the name registered at Companies House the company's trading name any name so similar to either of the above that it suggests an association with the liquidated company The restrictions apply personally to you if you were registered as a director - or acted as a director - during the 12 months leading up to the liquidation. What are the restrictions? You - and any other former directors - are banned from being a director of a limited company that's using a prohibited name for five years from the date of the original company's liquidation. The ban includes not being allowed to take part in the formation, promotion or management of such a company. The restrictions also extend to a business that is not a limited company - eg a partnership or sole trader - that's using a prohibited name. In such a case, any relevant former directors are banned from being concerned in or taking any part in carrying on such a business for five years. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note - the reference to "directors", when applied to a football club, was deemed in the SFA case to include "shadow directors" such as the team manager, who have input into business expenditure and strategy. So that's Sally out the door, then..... Edited June 30, 2012 by WhiteRoseKillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBairn Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) So what do have to look forward to next week? (always assuming the mythical nuclear revelation is`nt announced in one of the Sundays) Any chance of more good stuff over the next seven days? SFA announcing the amended punishment perhaps. Come to think of it, there was a sensationalist headline last week that said the SPL NO vote will result in expulsion and Sevco will be forced to re-apply to SFL3 by default course of action. Any confirmation or comments to the contrary on here would be welcome. Edited June 30, 2012 by GunnerBairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Remember when Rangers (remember them) used to sing no one likes us, we don't care? Want a bet they care now? Said it before in this thread and here it is again, karma is a bitch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Quiet it is true, but not a 'yes'...............even an abstension is a 'feck yez' For my own part, considering the 'fair play' and 'back the underdog' mentality from Celtics past (in all walks of life afore anybody starts), we should yave come out early and said 'bury them, for the good of the 'game' and Scotland, bury them'' Aye, that's what they should have done, but there's not another team in Scotland that would enter into any kind of business arrangement with your mob. Enjoy your slow decline, and the focus on your "minority" that can't be deflected across the city. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Methadol sounds interesting. Like a mix between methadone and Panadol. Not sure you should be publicly touting illegal wares though. Twat. If you are gonna have a pop about getting a name wrong.............look it up first Methadol A narcotic analgesic with a long onset and duration of action. It is used mainly in the treatment of narcotic dependence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Leighton Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Reuse of a company name after liquidation Prohibited names and restrictions If a business uses a prohibited name, there are restrictions on who is allowed to be involved in the running of that business. A prohibited name is a name by which a liquidated company was known at any time in the 12 months immediately before its liquidation. This can be any of the following: the name registered at Companies House the company's trading name any name so similar to either of the above that it suggests an association with the liquidated company Is it not the case they could call themselves Sevco 5088 Ltd Trading as The Rangers FC and get around any restriction? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Aye, that's what they should have done, but there's not another team in Scotland that would enter into any kind of business arrangement with your mob. Enjoy your slow decline, and the focus on your "minority" that can't be deflected across the city. The Ess Pee Ell is a business arangement which includes Killie? Or please tell me I am wrong? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpaddyx Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Alex Thomson AGAIN! The best bit is the following, From my source, utter incredulity that the old Rangers FC could even attempt to transfer its share – its official league status, if you like – from the old company to the new during a period of insolvency. My source was quite adamant that this is simply not possible for the SFA to accept. Clearly the SFA thinks there is some way this can be done but SFA Article 14.1 was quoted to me carefully and in detail. Since checked again, it does appear unambiguous on this issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambos Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Totally agree, with the exception of the highlighted bit. There is legislation which prevents a liquidated company trading as a name similar enough to their old name in such a way as consumers may confuse the two (unless the name has a geographical nature, which isn't the case here). It would have the added benefit of driving home the point through thick Orc skulls that rangers are DEAD. Whatever turns out in the league next year, at whatever level, will NOT be rangers. No debts, no punishment of behaviour before liquidation, no dealing with debts including football debts, and NO HISTORY. They cannot be allowed to have their cake and eat it. From businesslink.gov.uk: Reuse of a company name after liquidation Prohibited names and restrictions If a business uses a prohibited name, there are restrictions on who is allowed to be involved in the running of that business. A prohibited name is a name by which a liquidated company was known at any time in the 12 months immediately before its liquidation. This can be any of the following: the name registered at Companies House the company's trading name any name so similar to either of the above that it suggests an association with the liquidated company The restrictions apply personally to you if you were registered as a director - or acted as a director - during the 12 months leading up to the liquidation. What are the restrictions? You - and any other former directors - are banned from being a director of a limited company that's using a prohibited name for five years from the date of the original company's liquidation. The ban includes not being allowed to take part in the formation, promotion or management of such a company. The restrictions also extend to a business that is not a limited company - eg a partnership or sole trader - that's using a prohibited name. In such a case, any relevant former directors are banned from being concerned in or taking any part in carrying on such a business for five years. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note - the reference to "directors", when applied to a football club, was deemed in the SFA case to include "shadow directors" such as the team manager, who have input into business expenditure and strategy. So that's Sally out the door, then..... Its my understanding that the name issue is up to the discretion of BDO, who could actually approve it, but are highly unlikely to? Something they will get to in the future. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Is it not the case they could call themselves Sevco 5088 Ltd Trading as The Rangers FC and get around any restriction? Coont of a song tho........... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Roth Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Looks like Britney's realised which way the wind's blowing these days. Graham Spiers @GrahamSpiersMy Sunday Herald column tomorrow: a sudden flowering of fan-power, not the SPL or SFA, is determining Rangers’ fate. And it is refreshing. Expand Reply Retweet Favorite 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montague Withnail Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Surely Cafe Gandolfi's a tarrier's restaurant? Traynor must have told Bomber it was his 'hoose'.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Looks like Britney's realised which way the wind's blowing these days. Graham Spiers @GrahamSpiers My Sunday Herald column tomorrow: a sudden flowering of fan-power, not the SPL or SFA, is determining Rangers' fate. And it is refreshing. Expand Reply Retweet Favorite Bollox, on ss he was all ''they should still call them Rangers 'cos thats what they are''...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Surely Cafe Gandolfi's a tarrier's restaurant? Traynor must have told Bomber it was his 'hoose'.... Café Taliban for a 'bomber' I would've thought....... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted June 30, 2012 Author Share Posted June 30, 2012 Looks like Britney's realised which way the wind's blowing these days. Graham Spiers @GrahamSpiersMy Sunday Herald column tomorrow: a sudden flowering of fan-power, not the SPL or SFA, is determining Rangers’ fate. And it is refreshing. Expand Reply Retweet Favorite He's wrong though. We are not determining Rangers / Sevco's fate at all. All we are doing is to vocally fight against attempts by the grey suits running our game to bend the rules simply because this is Rangers / Sevco. Different thing altogether Britney. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustyarabnuts Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Tony McKelvie @TonyMcKelvie@GrahamSpiers Relatedly, take a peek at this:http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=9693&cpage=1#comment-1479329 Hide conversation Reply Retweet Favorite Yes I know its a Celtic blog but if Thomo's correct with his tweets then this could drag on and on 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Roth Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Bollox, on ss he was all ''they should still call them Rangers 'cos thats what they are''...... Aye but RTC put him right on that and he eventually admitted defeat. He also made the egregious error of stating it was only Celtic fans who were insisting on using Sevco as a veiled dig. Looks like he's been influenced by laptop bampottery and no doubt will bang the drum for fan-power tomorrow. Oh the times, they are a changin'... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Tony McKelvie @TonyMcKelvie @GrahamSpiers Relatedly, take a peek at this:http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/ ?p=9693&cpage=1#comment-1479329 Hide conversation Reply Retweet Favorite Yes I know its a Celtic blog but if Thomo's correct with his tweets then this could drag on and on Nothing new to (dedicated) readers of this thread.............................. 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.