Shades75 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 If yon diddy team ( best price 12-1) were to win the Scottish Cup, would they play in the Euro league qualifiers next season? and if not, why not? You raise a decent point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 It's unfortunate for creditors but it's the way company law works. Creditors also lose out when CVAs are agreed (and some clubs have been involved in CVAs more than once, just to put things in perspective). Anyone who genuinely doesn't like how company law works - as opposed to just wanting to have a go at Rangers - should complain to the government. Poor wee creditors, but tough I take it is the message. The issue is not with company law, but how Rangers tried to ride a coach and horses through it. Murray and his dodgy directors, Bain, King , running a business in such a manner that only Craig Whyte was the only potential buyer. Hence Strathclyde Fraud Squad, BDO as liquidators, and of course HMRC tramping all over the record of who did what and when. We will just have to wait for the outcomes. So rather than anyone moaning about company law, just get on the case through your MPs and MSPs and the police to ensure that where dodgy practises happened, people will be hauled up into court and judged by their peers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 We don't need the money. Another share issue in 2013 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 This has already been discussed and discredited Round 2 rules supercede round 3 rules and the rules for round 2 clearly state that all clubs currently playing in SFL3 must enter the cup in round 2, but yer typical tic blog will omit this fact of course Discredited by an impartial panel I assume? This is another example of SFA rules being flexible. One must be broken to suit the other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 You raise a decent point. No he doesn't as it's well documented that the new company could not produce three years audited account in order to obtain a licence to play in European competitons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 No he doesn't as it's well documented that the new company could not produce three years audited account in order to obtain a licence to play in European competitons. 100% correct. The dead club had dodged accounts and would not be eligible. The new club has not had an owner that has avoided a name change for 3 months nevermind 3 years of accounts Question.....if the remains of Rangers had been bought by a company that was say 5 years old and had perfect accounts would they be eligble? Nope. New club.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I believe their is an email kicking about that clearly shows explains the UEFA position Part of rule does also apply to brand new clubs, yes. It also covers alteration to legal form of existing clubs. So an existing club could be excluded on a change of legal form and the newco was considered a change to legal form by UEFA hence the 3 year exclusion So the club you grew up supporting is no longer the same in a legal sense? Ta .......... club died. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Discredited by the omission of round 2 rules No rules being broken Round 2 rules would clearly supersede round 3 rules, I am astonished you can not see this simple fact. Does it state anywhere in these rules that round 2 rules supersede round 3 rules? Or do the rules stand alone and independent of each other without stated exceptions? Show me where it states this, it's usually worded, "in the case of etc...." or the get out clause of, "in exceptional circumstances etc...." It may be there, I've not checked. If it does, I'll concede the argument. If it doesn't, it looks like rules which have been written without the scenario which took place in the summer being considered, which would be wholly understandable, for they were exceptional, have not been followed to the letter which is the sole purpose of my interjection. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 No he doesn't as it's well documented that the new company could not produce three years audited account in order to obtain a licence to play in European competitons. Does it say "company" or "club"? Genuine question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I believe their is an email kicking about that clearly shows explains the UEFA position Part of rule does also apply to brand new clubs, yes. It also covers alteration to legal form of existing clubs. So an existing club could be excluded on a change of legal form and the newco was considered a change to legal form by UEFA hence the 3 year exclusion Is there a press release from UEFA stating why the 3 year exclusion was implemented? Or statement etc.,,, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 newco = new company newclub = 3rd division. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Excuse me? I was quoting milk bottles sloppy grammar there. \O/ waves at Chris.......................... gonna see Bomber about those meetings Chris, you would be welcome 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 sloppy grammar 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) Derry City was liquidated, came back as a new club. Not elegible to play in Europe, despite playing in the same stadium, with the same fans and having the same strips http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17116759 Same as Rangers Edited December 28, 2012 by Enrico Annoni 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Elvis is dead. Would you pay money to watch a guy that looked like Elvis, sang his songs and had a gig in Memphis ..........(open goal Bennett ffs, sober up)...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Derry City was liquidated, came back as a new club. Not elegible to play in Europe http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/17116759 Same as Rangers Watch it Enrico, Chris thinks your avatar is what you look like.............................. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Round 2 has to be played before Round 3, therefore the rules for Round 2 would of course come into play before those for Round 3, to suggest anything else would be stupidity. You dont have to concede the argument, but try putting some logic behind the chain of events you are suggesting. The rules for Round 2 clearly states that all clubs currently playing in SFL3 must be in the draw for round 2. So Rangers had to play in round 2. They won that match which automatically put them in the draw for round 3. They had no choice but to play the round 3 match. There simply was no other course for this to take. I'm not arguing about what happened or suggesting any chain of events. I'm merely showing that something other than than stipulated in the SFA's rules, happened. I'm leaving it now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 no transfer of SPL membership between companies meant 3rd division Transfer of membership (old) meant same club, new clubs can only be GRANTED membership And prior to the Rangers situation there was no provision for any club (old or new) to be given a temporary membership. It didn't exist. SFA's rules prove nothing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 You're becoming a bore, Ted Them's the rules! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Those are the rules, if you cannot accept the rules then there is no point in debating I only repeat it as you use the SFA's rules as confirmation of the same club scenario. We've shown that the SFA are willing to break their rules to suit and invent new ones - in scenarios which it has suited Rangers to accept and others which didn't suit. You keep repeating that particular one as if the SFA can't break their rules and so it proves your point. Well they can and they have. 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.