Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Bendarroch]

This discussion is so boring, so pointless and so impossible for the opposing factions to agree on that even WKR has drifted away.

Whit?

The child prodigy/secret agent has fucked off? Is he writing up his next chapter of incredible events in the imaginary life of a fake Killie fan?

Soon come - his WKR years as a Rangers hating dolphin in the sectarian infested seas off Orange County in California.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Bendarroch

[The Troll]

Livingston Provide Proof That “The Rangers” Are A New Club

November 2, 2012 by Gordon Johnston

Tomorrow sees the third round of the Scottish Cup, or the William Hill Scottish Cup as I suppose I should call it to give the sponsors their due. Sixteen ties between Scotland’s smaller clubs will take place to see who makes it through to the fourth round draw, where they will be joined by Scotland’s top sixteen clubs from last season.

But the crucial question that should be asked by serious students of Scottish football is perhaps not an obvious one. It is “Who are Livingston playing in the third round?”

Why is this so important?

Well, have a look at last year’s First Division table. We see that Livingston finished the season in fifth place. Now let’s look at the regulations for this year’s Scottish Cup.

Round Three

The clubs which, in the previous season, were members of The Scottish Premier League and those clubs finishing in The Scottish Football League First Division league positions one to four, shall be exempt from playing in Round Three of the Competition.

So Livingston should be playing in the third round, right?

Well, no. They have a bye and will enter the competition in the fourth round. But why?

The answer is quite simple. One of the clubs that finished in the top sixteen last season no longer exists. The former Rangers Football Club is now in liquidation and is no longer a Scottish league club.

The spare place in the Scottish leagues was taken by new club “The Rangers” who joined in the bottom tier. And as a third division club they came into this year’s Scottish Cup in the second round. A narrow 1 – 0 win over non-league Forres Mechanics saw them progress and they now have a third round tie against higher league opponents in Alloa Athletic to look forward to.

Now if, as some erroneously claim, “The Rangers” is in fact the same football club as the former Rangers FC, would this be case? Well, no. If the two were indeed the same then, as the rules make clear, a bye to the fourth round would have been secured. And Livingston would have been in the draw for the third round rather than having a weekend off.

So there you are. Proof according to the SFA, which runs the Scottish Cup, that “The Rangers” are not the same football club as former SPL club Rangers FC.

QED as they say. Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Bendarroch]

It's another one we can strike off the list when it comes to confirming that Rangers are the same club though.

From a Hibs fan? Yadda yadda yada....

Here's the facts of the matter: I don't support the newco, as I didn't support the oldco - I support Rangers. No Rangers fan needs confirmation that our club continues. We know it as fact.

[Bendarroch]

by Gordon Johnston

We've had the runaway, the disgraced bungling lawyer and the IRA writer all shown to be worthless liars who once carried the hopes of diddies and plastics.

And as the search for the new emperor of the internauts goes on, we now arrive at big Gurd. He pyoor proves that...

[flyingrodent]

So, only books that you have read count as a reliable source?

Obviously, I can't pronounce on a book that I haven't read. Maybe he's right! But then again, maybe he isn't - I don't know, and you haven't given me any strong reason to believe that he is.

You are suggesting that all written historical records from a hundred years and beyond and therefore not reliable? ...I need to make sure its a source that you personally have read and the source has to have been written in modern times decades after the event? ...So the written word should be dismissed altogether then? We should just believe you instead?

Equally obviously, I'm not saying any of these things. You are, for reasons known only to yourself.

Look Cap'n, this is an internet forum - you don't actually have to prove an assertion beyond all reasonable doubt for it to be taken as a point worthy of discussion.

Nonetheless, even by the lowly standards of these forums, all you're doing is producing one book and one quote, dubiously sourced at that. The historical method, this is not.

http://en.wikipedia....storical_method

This isn't to say that you aren't right. Maybe you're 100% correct! You don't actually have to go through this forensically and demonstrate that your every point is spot on.

But you haven't provided any reason at all to think that they are, have you?

(See youse later, folks - off beyond internet usage for the weekend. Quailing in terror, obviously).

[Shades75]

From a Hibs fan? Yadda yadda yada....

Here's the facts of the matter: I don't support the newco, as I didn't support the oldco - I support Rangers. No Rangers fan needs confirmation that our club continues. We know it as fact.

Speak for yourself.

For what it's worth I respect your own stance more than I respect the ones who use other sources, quotes, and paragraph 6, section 5.1, line 6 etc .... of some governing bodies rules to prove that they are the same club.

[Shades75]

We've had the runaway, the disgraced bungling lawyer and the IRA writer all shown to be worthless liars who once carried the hopes of diddies and plastics.

And as the search for the new emperor of the internauts goes on, we now arrive at big Gurd. He pyoor proves that...

Regardless of the author, the information stands alone and up to scrutiny.

[The Troll]

We've had the runaway, the disgraced bungling lawyer and the IRA writer all shown to be worthless liars who once carried the hopes of diddies and plastics.

And as the search for the new emperor of the internauts goes on, we now arrive at big Gurd. He pyoor proves that...

Prove he's wrong

[kiddy]

Prove he's wrong

He must be, because they "arapeeeepulll".

[Forest_Fifer]

"The Glasgow giants were subsequently reformed as a new company..."

I think the important word in that quote is actually "reformed".

You know, formed again or anew.

Or maybe they actually meant

Reformed [rɪˈfɔːmd]

adj

1. (Christianity / Protestantism) of or designating a Protestant Church, esp the Calvinist as distinct from the Lutheran

Fits better I suppose.

And you had a 9 point lead on when the article was posted first thing on Boxing day.

[youngsy]

Hey Youngsy, any chance of a reply to the question about what a 'fair' treatment of Rangers would look like? You said you'd provide one if continuity was accepted. It seemed an odd stipulation, but I'm an accommodating chap and I provided just such an acceptance a few pages back.

Kincardine's provided a response, but you and Bennett (who brought up the idea of fairness) have not done so. Everyone instead seems to prefer this remarkably tedious argument about continuation, in which both sides can refer to precedents and quote people to support their preferred reading of matters.

Come on - play fair. How should football's governing bodies have handled Rangers' liquidation last summer?

This post has been edited by Monkey Tennis: Today, 06:20

In answer to your question as to how footballing governing bodies should have handled the liquidation of The Rangers Football Club PLC. In my opinion it was handled quite adequately with the imposition of the transfer embargo as a condition of SFA membership transference and the £160,000 fine that was the highest monetary fine allowed,(correct me if i'm wrong on that). Both were punishments imposed by the SFA,the rest were consequences of administration/liquidation which is accepted by many Rangers fans,although i'm aware that there are many who will not see it that way.

Yourself and no doubt many others may not agree with this but taking the consequences into account,no European football for three years,losing top players that didn't transfer employment from old company to new company and being placed in the fourth tier of Scottish football results in a massive drop in revenue,accepted as correct by many Rangers fans but nevertheless,consequences that have set the club back for years. And before anyone comes back with "what about the creditors",Craig Whyte acted under the clubs name,his actions alone sent the PLC into liquidation,no one else,so the club is where it is,nothing we can do about the creditors of the PLC.

[youngsy]

Prove he's wrong

I would think UEFA would more than likely put more relevance on an organisation such as the ECA findings and recommendation than some blogger wouldn't you,considering that the ECA are funded by UEFA. Or does this organsation just get ignored by yourself simply because they recognise the club continuity.

Edited December 28, 2012 by youngsy

[Monkey Tennis]

In answer to your question as to how footballing governing bodies should have handled the liquidation of The Rangers Football Club PLC. In my opinion it was handled quite adequately with the imposition of the transfer embargo as a condition of SFA membership transference and the £160,000 fine that was the highest monetary fine allowed,(correct me if i'm wrong on that). Both were punishments imposed by the SFA,the rest were consequences of administration/liquidation which is accepted by many Rangers fans,although i'm aware that there are many who will not see it that way.

Yourself and no doubt many others may not agree with this but taking the consequences into account,no European football for three years,losing top players that didn't transfer employment from old company to new company and being placed in the fourth tier of Scottish football results in a massive drop in revenue,accepted as correct by many Rangers fans but nevertheless,consequences that have set the club back for years. And before anyone comes back with "what about the creditors",Craig Whyte acted under the clubs name,his actions alone sent the PLC into liquidation,no one else,so the club is where it is,nothing we can do about the creditors of the PLC.

Fair enough - thanks for the answer.

Out of interest, what do you make of the bits in bold - the 'consequences' as opposed to the sanctions?

The SFL and the SPL (a little unwittingly in the latter's case), saw to it via their constituent members, that Rangers wound up in SFL3. Is this part of the 'adequate' handling of matters you refer to, or is it distinct?

Kincardine's already said that it's been satisfactorily resolved and I think you're heading towards similar conclusions.

For me, I'll only feel the same way if titles get stripped.

[kiddy]

And before anyone comes back with "what about the creditors",Craig Whyte acted under the clubs name,his actions alone sent the PLC into liquidation,no one else,so the club is where it is,nothing we can do about the creditors of the PLC.

Talk about rewriting history.

Whyte put them into admin before HMRC could. Just so he could appoint his own choice of admin's.

& what a stroke of luck that turned out to be.

As for the creditors, the "£22m" just raised, would give them around 50p/£ return on their loss. Never mind liquidating the physical assets to repay them.

[johncolegrady]

Catholosisim is the original Christian religion any other version of it has been extracted from it by definition regardless ,We are all from African extraction regardless of where you are or where you came from or whatever you consider yourself to be.All Protestants Anglican, Lutheran,Evangelacist ,Later Day, etc etc are all from Catholic extraction

I think you'll find that Catholicism started in the fourth century after a division in the Byzantine church which in itself evolved from the original Coptic church.

Are Rangers still dead?

You are all Coptics!

[youngsy]

Fair enough - thanks for the answer.

Out of interest, what do you make of the bits in bold - the 'consequences' as opposed to the sanctions?

The SFL and the SPL (a little unwittingly in the latter's case), saw to it via their constituent members, that Rangers wound up in SFL3. Is this part of the 'adequate' handling of matters you refer to, or is it distinct?

Kincardine's already said that it's been satisfactorily resolved and I think you're heading towards similar conclusions.

For me, I'll only feel the same way if titles get stripped.

The consequences are part of the rulings with both UEFA and the SFA so like every other club we have to abide by them,the sanctions,only the £160,000 fine was open to the SFA but we had to accept the embargo sanction to be honest for the club to move forward. No doubt rulings may be put in place that will negate any court action in future case scenarios. As to the title stripping,you state if titles get stripped,what will be your response if the result goes the clubs way?

[~~~]

And before anyone comes back with "what about the creditors",Craig Whyte acted under the clubs name,his actions alone sent the PLC into liquidation,no one else,so the club is where it is,nothing we can do about the creditors of the PLC.

Craig Whyte OWNED the club, he didn't just buy the company from David Murray as they are both the same thing.

[Monkey Tennis]

As to the title stripping,you state if titles get stripped,what will be your response if the result goes the clubs way?

I'll be hugely disappointed, not only because of my dislike for Rangers, but because the evidence that's been available to me points to Rangers' guilt. This has included the revelations about Sasa Papac's arrangements in Mark Daly's programme, Billy Dodds' radio comments and even the FTTT findings themselves. All strongly point to Rangers having not disclosed the necessary details to the governing bodies.

I certainly want Rangers to be guilty, but I also think they are.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Monkey Tennis

[youngsy]

Talk about rewriting history.

Whyte put them into admin before HMRC could. Just so he could appoint his own choice of admin's.

& what a stroke of luck that turned out to be.

As for the creditors, the "£22m" just raised, would give them around 50p/£ return on their loss. Never mind liquidating the physical assets to repay them.

Why is that rewriting history? Who's initial actions forced the PLC into liquidation? That was Whyte,without his actions the liquidation of the PLC would more than likely not have happened and the EBT result enforces that view. Of course Whyte wanted to appoint his choice of administrators,the appointment was challenged by HMRC but the appointment was upheld.

As for the creditors,which company were they creditors of,The Rangers Football Club PLC that's who,not The Rangers Football Club Limited. Harsh as it seems that's the way finance is in business. Do you honestly think that a company is going to pay off another compamies debt after purchasing the liquidated companies assets,of course their not,be it footbal or any other business.

[~~~]

As for the creditors,which company were they creditors of,The Rangers Football Club PLC that's who,not The Rangers Football Club Limited. Harsh as it seems that's the way finance is in business. Do you honestly think that a company is going to pay off another compamies debt after purchasing the liquidated companies assets,of course their not,be it footbal or any other business.

No shame at all

The only reason "the company" went into liquidation was due to the actions of the club!

Who owns all the players contracts? is it Rangers "the club" or is the "the company" How can Charles Green say he bought the trohpies and history before the transfer of membership between "Rangers PLC" & "The Rangers" and yet the oldco could still vote on issued like, allowing newco into the SPL!