stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Canny say I have ever pretended to know anything about employment law Stoney, think I will just pass if its ok with you. SFA say we are the same club, everything feels the same when I park my arse on my padded seat at Ibrox, we will win our 116th recognised trophy in the next few weeks, the records books will reflect this, that's does it for me. Good luck with yer search though. Fair enough Tedi mate. Could you show me where the SFA have said they are the same club? The only thing I can find even close to an official view is the player arbitration thing where the SFA asked an indenendent panel to rule if the arbitration could be transferred under SFA rules and that panel decided that under SFA rules there was no transferance. Not doubting you, I just must be a bit of a n00btard with google. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I think you can actually but you'd have to go through the proper legal process of changing the company back into a club. Did this happen? Did oldco change back into a club and then get bought by newco and incorporated into their company? confused.com It's impossible, the whole idea only came about a year ago when the media the sfa and everyone connected with rangers decidesd to spout the same party line. I don't doubt continuation because the sfa have allowed it. They are a new club though.all the evidence points to this. This whole club company is the worst thing that's came out of it. It's a total myth. A club can't turn into a business then revert back to being a club again. It can go out the game and clubs assets sold 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 You're not suggesting that the club/company separation argument has more holes than a sieve are you stonedsailor you rascal? Not at all, I am quite happy to accept LNS's judgement on the matter. I am just a curious sort and really want to know how this works. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Jack D Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I accept LNS assertion that the club continues but there are some Anomalies I can't understand either. The main one at present is that the company that owned Rangers went into Admin and the club were deducted 10 points, why haven't Hearts been given the same punishment? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Not at all, I am quite happy to accept LNS's judgement on the matter. I am just a curious sort and really want to know how this works. It doesn't, u will never find out how it works 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I accept LNS assertion that the club continues but there are some Anomalies I can't understand either. The main one at present is that the company that owned Rangers went into Admin and the club were deducted 10 points, why haven't Hearts been given the same punishment? That's easy too, it's the same reason that Rangers are now controlled by a company holding the company holding the club. If RIFC lld or plc or whatever goes into admin and Sevco Scotland does not then Rangers will not be deducted points either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 SFA statement 27th July 2012 We are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club. That's just the membership though. The angling association at home has a limited number of members and I got my father's old membership transferred to me so that I could jump the queue. I know you think we are all inbred up here but I can hardly claim to be my own father can I? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I did not bold the part pertaining to the membership. You see, my problem with that is that the terminology is all screwed in that statement. Rangers FC (in administration) should have been The Rangers Football Club PLC [or Ltd] whatever the company name was. Rangers are listed as Rangers FC on the SFA website, the SFL website, the UEFA website. So what did they mean? Was it Rangers FC who died, as the SFA declared in that statement? I also remember back around that date Charles Green claimed he could rename Sevco Scotland as The Rangers Football Club due to the fact that he added the word "The" to the name. Does the fact that an independent panel examining the SFA's own rules found no continuation supercede a statement made made by the SFA around the same time as they were found to not understand their own rules over punishments available to them for the disrepute charges which Rangers were found guilty on? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) I think the wording is pretty clear. The new owners of Rangers Football club. Lord Glennie also made the following statement. -"This is a petition for judicial review by The Rangers Football club plc, a company presently in administration, That COMPANY presently OPERATES Rangers Football CLUB (to whom i shall refer to as "rangers"). Rangers ARE members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA") So that is 2 law lords, the SFA, the SPL, the SFL, FIFA and the ECA and my arse on that lovely blue padded seat at Ibrox, for me the argument is kinda done, others may continue to piss into the wind if they wish. Who's arguing? I told you I am just trying to understand this clusterfuck. So far we have the SFA, who have been proved wrong twice, once by Rangers in the CoS and once by an independent panel set up by themselves and a spurious statement released in a hurry so as not to disrupt the start of the season. The SFL and SPL I agree do show continuation and have said I am happy to accept that for the sake of their own competitions there is continuation. You will have to show me the FIFA statement as I have only found stuff from them saying that players registered to Rangers were not registered to Rangers (sevco)* and were free to join new clubs, as reported on the official Besiktas website. The ECA are just a union for clubs but I do accept they view Rangers as the same members with continuation. The Lord Glennie ruling is moot, the membership of the SFA is not with the club it is with the legal entity running the club according to the articles of association. The wording is clear, but what is not clear is what the author of that statement is referring to when he/she refers to "The Rangers Football Club" as stated Charles Green claimed he could use the name because he added "The". *term sevco used to distinguish Edited March 19, 2013 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob_Aggery Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Rangers (IL) were full members of the SFA. The current Rangers are not. Why is that? Why did they need a 'conditional membership' to fulfil the Ramsdens Cup fixture with Brechin? If they were the same club then surely they wouldn't have needed that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 In other news in a move that everyone should welcome. The police are officially investigating the leaks from HMRC with regards to Rangers tax documents. If laws have been broken then the perpetrators should be punished. Personally, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if the leaks came from people who were close to the Rangers side of things rather than HMRC. HMRC had nothing to gain from the leaks, if anything they could have cost them the case. Several people on the other side had plenty to gain though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 new owners of The Rangers Football Club. I think the wording is pretty clear. The new owners of Rangers Football club. It obviously isn't clear because in 25 minutes you've managed to lose a word. Normally a very pedantic point but probably not in this case since those against continuation will point out the deliberate insertion of 'The' as a change in name while those for it will say it doesn't matter. The whole thing is a horrible can of worms with each side hanging on the every word of someone who agrees with them and dismissing anybody who doesn't. Been handled very badly IMO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Rangers (IL) were full members of the SFA. The current Rangers are not. Why is that? Why did they need a 'conditional membership' to fulfil the Ramsdens Cup fixture with Brechin? If they were the same club then surely they wouldn't have needed that? You are wrong it is the SFL which they are associate members of. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 In other news in a move that everyone should welcome. The police are officially investigating the leaks from HMRC with regards to Rangers tax documents. If laws have been broken then the perpetrators should be punished. I totally agree with this and when the EBT judgement was made I had a PM discussion with No8 saying that HMRC pulled the plug too quickly and that Rangers should not have been put into the position they were ie forced into liquidation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookies71 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 In other news in a move that everyone should welcome. The police are officially investigating the leaks from HMRC with regards to Rangers tax documents. If laws have been broken then the perpetrators should be punished. You might spout a lot of pish on here Tedi but on this I must agree with you. I always thought it a bit "off" how this was leaked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 "A ned cabal of IRA supporters right at the very heart of your clubs support." That's a belter of a line. Nice to know the **** are concerned about our support. Maybe they aren't all knuckle dragging monkeys after all. Everyone should be concerned about the semtex cancer that needs surgically removed from the plastics. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Capsule Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Anyone posted this yet? Can't find it anywhere myself - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21838122 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Would be a problem if it was true, but you got this wrong. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19120224 The bbc call yous the new rangers. Wonder if that article was before the whole club company notion was dreamt up. And before hordes of rangers fans started complaining to all and sundry for calling them THE rangers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 FIFA Statement. This was due to United's opposition to keeping Ally McCoist's side in the SPL last summer when the club was transferred to a new company - a decision that ultimately led to Rangers starting this season in the Third Division. I never said you were arguing, I said others can piss into the wind if they wish, I think you accept continuation, its fairly clear what the SFA`s position is and nobody else matters, just like in previous instances in other countries UEFA look to the governing body for guidance, Middlesborough, Fiorentina both FA`s recognise continuation of the club when they transferred the membership, they both attached a condition to this transfer and that was the paying of debt, the SFA also did this. Is that an official statement or from a piece of news on the FIFA website? The FIFA website's news area has been dismissed by you as a reference point before, when they declared Rangers to be dead. Again, I am not arguing but if I am to consider that quote, when trying to understand this, I would have to show balance and consider the other article. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Again I am not accusing you of arguing, twice I have had to make this point Stoney. I have also made it clear that the only opinion that matters is the SFA, the other sources just show the wider acceptance of the SFA`s position. But all I can see from the SFA is that spurious statement issued before their rules were tested on the matter by an independent panel. 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.