jtt Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Fair enough. As you know, there's lots of analysis of sources when they get cited on here. It's fair enough, but it's influenced much of the reponse to failed lawyers, IRA writers, Leggo etc. What I was saying was that ECA would, in my view be expected to see things the way Rangers would wish. Rangers were a founding member and I'd maintain that the body is dedicated to the interests of the powerful. As for continuation, I conceded a version of it a while back. It was in response to your very own claim that you'd answer on what might be considered fair, if fans would accept continuation. As I said then - and since - I don't think it's seamless and I think it must be recognised that liquidation is what led to SFL3. However, clubs are defined by their fans, and the Rangers ones, for good or very ill - appear to still be in place. I can therefore accept a significant degree of continuation. Bollocks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 The way Tedi and Kincardine have hijacked Bendarroch's use of the word "plastics" makes me cringe. Like a b*****d. Same guy Guys, I think you're talking to a brick wall when it comes to Tedi The Liar and Blinkered Bennett. I've just discovered that I am Tedi. Ask me a question and see if I, "Ignore, deflect or bring up a meaningless or discredited source." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtt Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Guys, I think you're talking to a brick wall when it comes to Tedi The Liar and Blinkered Bennett. I understand you're trying to explain basic business laws, and I know football authorites broke their own rules to accomodate their zombified club. However, time and time when faced with the indefensible or undeniable. They and the others will simply ignore, deflect or bring up a meaningless or discredited source to back up their argument. Hear,Hear 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Guys, I think you're talking to a brick wall when it comes to Tedi The Liar and Blinkered Bennett. I understand you're trying to explain basic business laws, and I know football authorites broke their own rules to accomodate their zombified club. However, time and time when faced with the indefensible or undeniable. They and the others will simply ignore, deflect or bring up a meaningless or discredited source to back up their argument. I agree with everything here. The only credible source they could provide is the statement from any of the governing bodies (SPL SFA SFL UEFA FIFA) agreeing that they are the same club. Not one of these bodies nor any legal source has made any such statement. Only the SFL has ignored their new club status (to an extent) whereas all other bodies have treated them ad though they were a brand new club. So no governing or legal source has agreed continuation since liquidation. Not one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I've just discovered that I am Tedi. Ask me a question and see if I, "Ignore, deflect or bring up a meaningless or discredited source." Who said if Rangers were liquidated that would mean the end of the 'History' ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) See if you good people believe Rangers are a continuation, and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, why do you try ever so hard to convince everyone else? Returning the love to those who try so hard to convince themselves that the opposite is true. Ultimately, a club exists because of its support and the culture that surrounds it. It has no reason or need to exist otherwise. I don't give a f**k what the suits say with their fancy dan clauses, sub clauses, articles of association and all the rest of that shite. As I've said before - I don't support the newco just as I didn't support the oldco - I support Rangers. Nothing has changed for me - except a new found desire to see some other clubs suffer exactly as we did. And how the f**k I'll laugh when it inevitably happens. Oh, there has been one other shift in my outlook of late, I do now hope they reconstruct the leagues to fast-track us back. Even if only because it should see the integrity warriors refuse to support their own clubs and help speed them to a sweet state of total fuckedupedness. Edited January 4, 2013 by Bendarroch 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Ask me a question and see if I, "Ignore, deflect or bring up a meaningless or discredited source." Name one legal or governing source or body which has stated that the old club continues despite liquidation 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Guys, I think you're talking to a brick wall when it comes to Tedi The Liar and Blinkered Bennett. I understand you're trying to explain basic business laws, and I know football authorites broke their own rules to accomodate their zombified club. However, time and time again when faced with the indefensible or undeniable. They and the others will simply ignore, deflect, bring up a meaningless or discredited source to back up their argument. Much more likely - there's no value in your pish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Returning the love to those who try so hard to convince themselves that the opposite is true. Ultimately, a club exists because of its support and the culture that surrounds it. It has no reason or need to exist otherwise. I don't give a f**k what the suits say with their fancy dan clauses, sub clauses, articles of association and all the rest of that shite. As I've said before - I don't support the newco just as I didn't support the oldco - I support Rangers. Nothing has changed for me - except a new found desire to see some other clubs suffer exactly as we did. And how the f**k I'll laugh when it inevitably happens. Oh, there has been one other shift in my outlook of late, I do now hope they reconstruct the leagues to fast-track us back. Even if only because it should see the integrity warriors refuse to support their own clubs and help speed them to a sweet state of total fuckedupedness. As already stated. Everyone in the football world outside of the orc support believe that this is a completely new club with no history or titles. If the orcs genuinely dont care then why come on here attempting to convince everyone else that legality doesnt apply to you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Name one legal or governing source or body which has stated that the old club continues despite liquidation The SFL. OK next? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Who said if Rangers were liquidated that would mean the end of the 'History' ? You. OK next? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) Name one legal or governing source or body which has stated that the old club continues despite liquidation Name one footballing authority that has definitively stated that there is no club continuity,by that i mean a full statement alluding to Rangers and Rangers alone. And while you're here kindly explain why Rangers will be insolvent by the end of this year as you stated on another thread. Got to come back to this to add;Lord Glennie is a legal source that determined the club was one and the same,Lord Nimmo Smith was another.. Edited January 4, 2013 by youngsy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 The SFL. OK next? Really? The SFL have stated that since liquidation the club continues unbroken? Three questions raised here. 1, where is this statement 2, why did the SFL not seed rangers in the League Cup based on their previous league position 3, why did they not accept rangers as though they had been relegated from the SPL ad opposed to treating them as new entrants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 As already stated. Everyone in the football world outside of the orc support believe that this is a completely new club with no history or titles. If the orcs genuinely dont care then why come on here attempting to convince everyone else that legality doesnt apply to you. Karl-Heinz Rumminige recognises the continuity on behalf of the ECA. Now unless Rumminege is a Rangers fan i would say that he's quite a high profile figure in European football who is well outside the Rangers community,wouldn't you? Amongst others of the ECA of course who give their recommendations to UEFA 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Karl-Heinz Rumminige recognises the continuity on behalf of the ECA. Now unless Rumminege is a Rangers fan i would say that he's quite a high profile figure in European football who is well outside the Rangers community,wouldn't you? Amongst others of the ECA of course who give their recommendations to UEFA The ECA are neither a legal nor a governing source. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Everyone in the football world outside of the orc support believe that this is a completely new club with no history or titles. A handful of plastics and a tiny, dwindling band of diddies isn't 'everyone in the football world'. Sorry to burst your very diddy bubble - but you're talking complete shite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Mr Longmuir runs the SFL. Mr Longmuir is the voicebox of the clubs. He runs nothing. His personal opinion is not a statement of SFL policy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 A handful of plastics and a tiny, dwindling band of diddies isn't 'everyone in the football world'. So you genuinely do care. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Lord Glennie is a legal source that determined the club was one and the same,Lord Nimmo Smith was another.. Glennie made his statement prior to liquidation so its an invalid source Nimmo smith also stated that rangers are not and never have been members of the SPL. Sounds pretty conclusive to me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 you asked for an SFL source, I asked for a statement and you provide a personal opinion. Expected orc response and utter bollox 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.