Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Thumper]

Wimbledon won the FA Cup, yes. They were then called Wimbledon FC and are now called AFC Wimbledon. Same club, in every meaningful respect - history, tradition, continuity of support, whatever else. Only the legal entity has changed.

Shiiiiiite. They emphatically don't claim their old history (their memorabilia was eventually donated to the borough of Merton after being prised from Winkleman's hands) and they're not even back in Wimbledon yet. There is a continuation of sorts, but literally everyone knows there's also a big disconnect.

Leeds United are still Leeds United too, despite having their assets transferred to a newco just the other year. I've hardly heard anybody who seriously thinks otherwise.

Leeds are a special case on accounts of nobody really being able to explain how exactly Papa Smurf pulled it off. They successfully exited administration but in the process abandoned their debts.

If playing in similar colours and in a roughly similar geographic location as some old team is all it takes to be the same team, then FC United of Manchester are, in fact, Manchester United.

Franchise football is roundly rejected by most British football fans.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Thumper

[strichener]

In other words, the League may negotiate with broadcasters for the benefit of its Members (significantly excluding the phrase "and Associate Members"), and any arrangements that a club may make on its own behalf must not conflict with that arrangement.

Yes, you are talking bollocks and you appear to have somehow missed off the most important word on the rule - that would be the first word "members". Rule 70 only refers to members and therefore the restriction on marketing is only on Members and not associate members and any text within the rule including reference to rule 71 is only for Members.

I don't think that this is what was intended by the rule in the same manner as I don't believe your interpretation of 69 is accurate.

I can see that you are cherry-picking the terms that suit you but I must point out that the full text of 71.1 and 71.2 are

71.1 The Board may negotiate and conclude contracts on behalf of the League

and its Members with commercial sponsors, broadcasters, publishers and

others for the benefit of Members and of League football.

71.2 Without prejudice to the generality of Rule 71.1, the Board may and shall

be entitled to conclude and execute contracts and agreements on behalf

of the League and all or some of its Members and Associate Members with:

71.2.1 all or any of the football clubs forming the Premier Division of the League at

the commencement of Season 1997/98 (in this Rule 71 "the Clubs");

71.2.2 any company or person controlled by all or any of the Clubs; and/or

71.2.3 any other related football body (including The Scottish Football Association

Limited) relating to the departure (by whatever means) of the Clubs from

the League, the cessation of all of the Clubs' membership of the League

and the financial and other arrangements agreed by or on behalf of the

Clubs and the Board (as successors to the then Management Committee

of the League) in relation thereto

So the league can make contract with any party defined in 71.2.1, 71.2.2 and 71.2.3. Now explain to me how a television company fits into any of the above three categories.

As I stated you cannot have it both ways. Either the use of the word members can where wanted include associate members or it doesn't.

To make it even simpler for you, Rule 71.2 is more specific than rule 71.1 (by definition) and therefore means that rule 71.1 is more generic even though it only uses the term Members.

And am I to assume that you believe that Newco will not be required to adhere to 71.4 since they are only an associate member.

Edited July 24, 2012 by strichener

[The Old Northerner]

Well, it might matter to you, yeah. That's sort of self-fulfilling.

It seems to matter to others as well. There's a reason why Gretna, Airdrieonians, Third Lanark, Aldershot have disappeared off the face of the Earth whereas Leeds, Middlesborough, Livingston and Dundee are regarded as continuations. That distinction exists despite your 'the fans are the club' theory- which is pretty much by definition more 'self-fulfilling' (or self-deceptive) than any debate over company law

Edited July 24, 2012 by The Old Northerner

[Wings Over Scotland]

By the same token, it doesn't matter to me that it's not the same company, all the people I know who supported Airdrie before support them now, everything about them that made them work as a viable football club as just as it was before, just under a different legal entity.

Good for you. The cold hard fact of the matter, though, is that they're NOT the same club in any legal sense, so you shouldn't say they are.

[xbl]

This has got to have been the most boring, nerdy w*nkfest couple of days in the history of this thread. If a team wearing blue, playing home games in Ibrox, with the same fans, continues playing football, they will be known as Rangers. Their history won't somehow disappear in a collective mind melt. Even if some trophies and titles get taken away, all that will do is prove there is still a club called Rangers to take them from. Reciting arcane bits of company law and accountancy practice (usually out of context) won't change that.

Shame, but there we go..

I agree with this. Rangers will always be Rangers. And I'm sick of this whole thing. Its time for the season to start. Rangers are in division 3, and that in my view should be the end of it. Time for us all to move on.

[Yoss]

Shiiiiiite. They emphatically don't claim their old history (their memorabilia was eventually donated to the borough of Merton after being prised from Winkleman's hands) and they're not even back in Wimbledon yet. There is a continuation of sorts, but literally everyone knows there's also a big disconnect.

Really? The Wimbledon fans I know all consider themselves to support the club that dates back to the nineteenth century.

(Here's the honours list from the AFCW website - http://www.afcwimble...tion_id=7 )

The supporters of AFC Wimbledon believe that our club is a continuation of the spirit which formed Wimbledon Old Centrals in 1889 and kept Wimbledon Football Club alive until May 2002. We consider that a football club is not simply the legal entity which controls it, but that it is the community formed by the fans and players working towards a common goal. We therefore reproduce the honours won by what we believe was, and will always be, 'our' club, in our community.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Yoss

[Sam Leitch Loyal]

WTF is Snale oil???

It's the stuff they rub on their bellies to make them go faster. (It's hard work carrying yoor hoose about.)

You must have seen the trails or did you think a woman with no legs had passed by?

[Itwiznaeme]

Nope. People won't forget. They won't forget because your club cheated, willfully witheld tax, and once found out and cornered, bleated like fcuk about being punished - seemingly on the grounds that a big boy did it and ran away, the big house must stay open, and you are the people.

It doesn't wash. I don't give much of a fcuk about the paperwork and legal shenanigans. I am none the wiser after reading page upon page of inter-forumster argument about 'club v company' on here.

Rangers are cheats and tax evaders. They died. In shame. In 2012.

A newco will likely be portrayed in the red tops, on the telly, and by oldco supporters as being Rangers - and I fully understand that will happen. If the Newco gets going - Sky TV will talk about Brechin City v Rangers. The red tops will print the result as Brechin City v Rangers. The newco to the outside world will be Rangers.

We know differently. Diddy team fans know it, and while they won't admit it, deep down, oldco fans know it. Rangers were cheats, tax evaders, and in embryo newco guise are still arrogant triumphalist whinging bawbags...

FACT.

[welshbairn]

A Marathon bar is, and always will be, a Marathon bar. None of that Sevco (Snickers) nonsense.

[Wings Over Scotland]

Yes, you are talking bollocks and you appear to have somehow missed off the most important word on the rule - that would be the first word "members". Rule 70 only refers to members and therefore the restriction on marketing is only on Members and not associate members and any text within the rule including reference to rule 71 is only for Members.

What you're suggesting there, then, is that Associate Members aren't entitled to enter into commercial arrangements independent of the League at all. The result of which is exactly the same as I noted earlier. I gladly concede your technical point, and note that it makes no difference whatsoever to anything.

[Yoss]

Good for you. The cold hard fact of the matter, though, is that they're NOT the same club in any legal sense, so you shouldn't say they are.

Not in the legal sense, no. I don't think there was ever any dispute on that bit.

(Edited to add: not if you're drawing no distinction between 'club' and 'company' anyway, which evidently you aren't.)

Edited July 24, 2012 by Yoss

[MEADOWXI]

And in the ongoing BBC denial of the facts;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/scottish-league-cup/fixtures

Looks like a fixture missing The Dwellers of Ibrox v East Fife is not listed as a league cup fixture, Have the Fifers been given a bye ???

[H_B]

I agree with this. Rangers will always be Rangers. And I'm sick of this whole thing. Its time for the season to start. Rangers are in division 3, and that in my view should be the end of it. Time for us all to move on.

Your second sentence rules out the possibility of the last one.

There are still punishments to be dished out, quite correctly. The only reason I was at all comfortable with the SFL vote to put Sevco into Div three, was on the basis that they would still be heavily punished in that division. Otherwise, if they were a completely new entity, they should have applied as such.

[Granny Danger]

I agree with this. Rangers will always be Rangers. And I'm sick of this whole thing. Its time for the season to start. Rangers are in division 3, and that in my view should be the end of it. Time for us all to move on.

Agree with this. Opposition fans, being opposition fans, will remind them in song about what has happened, but I couldn't care less if they call themselves Rangers, wear blue tops and adopt the badge. The only outstanding issue for me is the EBT investigation that should be carried out to its natural conclusion as it would be for any other club.

[Wings Over Scotland]

And am I to assume that you believe that Newco will not be required to adhere to 71.4 since they are only an associate member.

Hngh. See Rule 71.7.

The Board may require any Member or Associate Member to provide

services and facilities pursuant to any contract relating to sponsorship or

commercial involvement in the League Championship.

[Colin M]

My club is defined, for me, by the people who support it and the people who make it what it is, and have done so over the past hundred and more years. That's what matters to me about the club, not its registration at Companies House.

I think that's something most of us would relate to.

The problem is that you can't really apply rules and regulations to completely abstract concepts.

As problematic as defining "the club" by a transfer of SFA membership is, I'm prepared to run with it - in essence, what Sevco wants to be really is still "Rangers". But a reluctant acceptance of this should come on the unshakeable condition that there is some closure achieved by the correct procedures over what has occurred with Rangers over the last ten years or so.

[Sam Leitch Loyal]

Another snigger courtesy of The Herald:

A YOUNG woman being chatted up in Glasgow's west end later described the chap to her pals as a "Rangers". When they asked for clarification, she explained: "Not in my league."

[cyderspaceman]

For the record, I have put Wings and Strings on ignore until further notice.

They could have pm'd each other with this and then told us who won when it was all over.

[Happy Buddie]

And in the ongoing BBC denial of the facts;

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ue-cup/fixtures

Looks like a fixture missing The Dwellers of Ibrox v East Fife is not listed as a league cup fixture, Have the Fifers been given a bye ???

Or have Sevco been given a "Bye, bye"?

[HibeeJibee]

And in the ongoing BBC denial of the facts;

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ue-cup/fixtures

Looks like a fixture missing The Dwellers of Ibrox v East Fife is not listed as a league cup fixture, Have the Fifers been given a bye ???

It hasn't got a confirmed date yet, neither has Queen's Park v Airdrie United (Hampden being shut), hence why they don't appear in the calendar.