WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 bored.jpg it might come as a surprise to some on here but i don't believe the sfa membership held by rangers during the summer of 2012 is proof of continuity and of course if its the company that are the licence and membership holders then there was a break in membership once the assets were transferred over to charles green as the membership had to be re approved by the sfa. the continuity came with the club that were transferred as assets from the administrators to charles green's company.(1) now here's the challenge, how can it be proved otherwise that the club itself is not a continuation? ive seen no evidence otherwise and a lot of confusion on here and other forums between club and company trying to distinguish between the two. Now it is well known that with uefa/eca they understand the difference since rangers kept the history but had their membership downgraded which was the same as what happened with the sfa.(2) now in reference to the article 12 on uefa membership it confirms rangers loss of the ordinary membership due to a break in the accounts and loss of top flight status, re application and downgrading of rangers status. there is no evidence of a break in continuity with the club only a break in uefa membership.(3) sorry guys just catching up, started writing a similar post last night but the power went 1. Simply find some sort of document where "the club" is listed as an asset purchased by whichever Sevco Charlie Boy was using at the time - shouldn't be hard. 2. The only reason there has been confusion over the club/company thing is that Sevco and other vested interests had to peddle the "same club" line in order to keep those Giros and Crisis Loans flowing in. The confusion has deepened because every time they say "this unequivocally proves...", there is a counter-argument which says "have a look at this precedent". Some of the contortions have been fucking laughable, especially as everyone knows that. prior to liquidation (and all those red cards), the club was the company - same as every other club in the country. 3. Feel free to post the UEFA statement which cites the "break in accounts", or the "loss of top flight status". As for seamless continuation - there was a period when Scottish Football had 43 senior teams. There are now 42. Guess which one isn't there any more? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 The one at 2:14am has to be my favourite, good to see the lad going to bed in a happy mood. The 2.14 post is a belter. I near-choked on my sauasage baguette when I read, "You claim to be a clever person and will engage in anything that is of grown up level, but here you are acting like a girl posting the same post all the time". The Plastics do neither irony nor self depracation, do they? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Morning all. Quite an exchange I missed on here late last night. To be honest, Ted emerged with more credit. There are contradictions in what he's saying, but he wasn't behind any of the tag team abuse that has outsiders claiming the beloved BRALT should close. FWIW, I reckon the various links point towards my mealy mouthed, fence sitting view being about right: Rangers do still exist - "allows for continuity of sporting record" ;but it's not been seamless - "must be member for 3 consecutive years". Between the wildly polarised sides, I think we've got there. You just won't allow yourselves to see it, or certainly admit it. I'm more or less of the same mindset as yourself, MT. There is no doubt that there is a convincing enough "club" at ibrox to attract the same fans as pre-liquidation rangers. For their fans, rangers are rangers. The transition certainly hasn't been seamless - there have been some areas where a timeline has been broken, others where there is an overlap, and the entrance (or not) of the new club into various cup competitions certainly shows that the SFA's revision team hadn't had time to get totally on board. For me? No, they're not the same. The original club lies on the liquidators' slab. Had this situation occured with a Double-glazing firm, or a car dealership, or indeed any other operation, The current operators of the new club would be prosecuted for running a "phoenix" company. The club at ibrox now ticks every box in the government guidelines. I accept that many rangers fans need to believe that they still follow the same club. Which is where they're different from the likes of you and me. And Vive la Difference... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) appear that hbqc has had another utter nightmare and meltdown. it seems just the sight of tedi sends him into a fit of rage and anger Edited April 17, 2014 by forever_blue 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Dearie me ... from the master of language (as he would have us believe) .. You might want to start eating bacon rolls. That's not the only howler either. Still asleep? Am I being whooooshed? He was quoting Hellbhoy, you twit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) Awesome debating skills. That'll be me telt, then. ETA: refers (obviously) to the post from our resident crayon-muncher, who will no doubt graduate at some point to expressing the case for continuation through the medium of modern dance. Edited April 17, 2014 by WhiteRoseKillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Am I being whooooshed? He was quoting Hellbhoy, you twit. Not on "sausage" or "deprecation", he wasn't. Poor old T_K - hoist by his own petard yet again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 I'm more or less of the same mindset as yourself, MT. There is no doubt that there is a convincing enough "club" at ibrox to attract the same fans as pre-liquidation rangers. For their fans, rangers are rangers. The transition certainly hasn't been seamless - there have been some areas where a timeline has been broken, others where there is an overlap, and the entrance (or not) of the new club into various cup competitions certainly shows that the SFA's revision team hadn't had time to get totally on board. For me? No, they're not the same. The original club lies on the liquidators' slab. Had this situation occured with a Double-glazing firm, or a car dealership, or indeed any other operation, The current operators of the new club would be prosecuted for running a "phoenix" company. The club at ibrox now ticks every box in the government guidelines. I accept that many rangers fans need to believe that they still follow the same club. Which is where they're different from the likes of you and me. And Vive la Difference... This is actually quite important. The SFA, as the governing body, have ameneded their rules to provide a way for clubs' companies (pay attention to the grammar there) to actually avoid being prosecuted for precisely this offence. It has taken the most extravagant implosion of one of their main marketing tools (RFC) to make them realise this. As such they deemed it necessary to provide this fudged method of continuity to allow them (the SFA) to be able to market the bigot twins as an historical continuance if and when they get back together. They will say, and in fact do, anything to perpetuate the hate-fest as they see it as their preferred marketing product. Can they convince the rest of Scottish Football that this is so....? Can they f**k...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Diamond Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 I didn't realise that Hate has nice tits. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John..You're Immortal Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 I didn't realise that Hate has nice tits. you should see the bangers on 'lust' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Not on "sausage" or "deprecation", he wasn't. Poor old T_K - hoist by his own petard yet again. No, but the bit he'd put in bold and was clearly mocking, was the work of Hellbhoy, not dear old Kincardine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) it might come as a surprise to some on here but i don't believe the sfa membership held by rangers during the summer of 2012 is proof of continuity and of course if its the company that are the licence and membership holders then there was a break in membership once the assets were transferred over to charles green as the membership had to be re approved by the sfa. the continuity came with the club that were transferred as assets from the administrators to charles green's company. now here's the challenge, how can it be proved otherwise that the club itself is not a continuation? ive seen no evidence otherwise and a lot of confusion on here and other forums between club and company trying to distinguish between the two. Now it is well known that with uefa/eca they understand the difference since rangers kept the history but had their membership downgraded which was the same as what happened with the sfa. now in reference to the article 12 on uefa membership it confirms rangers loss of the ordinary membership due to a break in the accounts and loss of top flight status, re application and downgrading of rangers status. there is no evidence of a break in continuity with the club only a break in uefa membership. sorry guys just catching up, started writing a similar post last night but the power went What is it with you lot? Nowhere in Article 12 is there mention of 'break in the accounts' or 'loss of top flight status' (club's outwith their association's top flight regularly compete in UEFA comp btw). The part of Article 12 that is pertinent to the situation of The Rangers, is the part that says ''A club may only be eligible to apply for UEFA licence once it has been a member of a member association for a period of 3 consecutive years''. All this ''no accounts'' pish relates to the one season that old Rangers (under Craig Whyte) failed to lodge accounts by UEFA licencing deadline and the place went to Motherwell for that season. This is an entirely different scenario, involving a different club. Edited April 17, 2014 by Apache Don 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 No, but the bit he'd put in bold and was clearly mocking, was the work of Hellbhoy, not dear old Kincardine. Go figure out who put the bit in bold and then figure out who the twit is. Then comeback and apologise. If it's too difficult ask WRK. Link to clue for the twit Twit. Play nicely, chaps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John..You're Immortal Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) you agree with one of my posts yesterday then?. its all well trodden and so so done to death and i'd rather look forward than behind, like in the film herby goes to monte carlo, as the driver pulled of his rear view mirror and threw it away and said to his companion ''first rule of italian driving, what's behind me is not important''. like this forthcoming http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27059824 i just don't think enough has been done and there needs to be a serious restructure on how the club is run and a severe reduction in costs. Wallace needs to get tough and show what he is worth, he is not employed to be popular and one sticking point has been the wages of players where a 15% cut was rejected. In my experience if employees are aware of their companies financial situation and still refuse a wage cut regardless of how they are advised by unions or in the players case their agents but still continue at the company as before, they are risking redundancy and on that it seems redundancy for these employees don't seem to bother them much, draw your own conclusions there. then there's ally's wage where a 50% cut was offered and accepted, has this happened yet? there is also the wages that the board of directors are on, its all very well asking for players to take cuts but they need to do likewise and that doesn't mean topping it back up in bonuses. there are other questions need answering and what's being done to cut the club's operating loss, and no amount of rhetoric and spin will pacify the concerned and angry. It's the epitome of the immovable object and unstoppable item. Short of Platini or Blatter visiting the homes of every bear and every tim and clarifying it in words of less than one syllable, we seemed doomed to watch the endless 'Deid ~ Alive' evidence regurgitated ad infinitum. From my own simplistic perpectiive it reminds me of Trig and his broom: the handle's been replaced and so has the brush but seemingly it's still the same broom. But then again, the same mono-browed, intellectually challenged, slack jawed roasters are turning up at Red Brick Towers every week and the East End still has it's victim obsessed jolly craicsters who think that seeing 'The Quiet Man' twice gives them Irish Citizenship. So all in all the status quo remains, we still have the same village idiots of Scottish football. Edited April 17, 2014 by John..You're Immortal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John..You're Immortal Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 i think rory mcallister would be an ideal replacement for jon daly and for half the wages and more goals. surprised no one has come in for him all these years he was banging in the goals at peterhead I think you would be better off getting Rory Bremner in for Ally McCoist. I bet he would do a better imitation of a competant manager. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 The funniest bit is Densboy and Apache... egging him on, then sitting back and laughing at him.... Oh look Tedi must have ran out of green dots. BTW I had 3 good belly laugh moments last night and guess what? They were all at your stubbornly stupid dotting partner pal. Morning all. Quite an exchange I missed on here late last night. To be honest, Ted emerged with more credit. There are contradictions in what he's saying, but he wasn't behind any of the tag team abuse that has outsiders claiming the beloved BRALT should close. FWIW, I reckon the various links point towards my mealy mouthed, fence sitting view being about right: Rangers do still exist - "allows for continuity of sporting record" ;but it's not been seamless - "must be member for 3 consecutive years". Between the wildly polarised sides, I think we've got there. You just won't allow yourselves to see it, or certainly admit it. Only as his particular 'Tag team' had had an early night. I've witnessed many a 'gang bang' started by Tedi and where the abuse has been both personal and offensive and in most of these occasions, HB & Dhenbhoy are not involved. There are instances of ''tag team abuse'' from both sides of The BRALT argument. On your ''mealy mouthed, fence sitting view'', I still disagree of course. The only time UEFA have commented quoting directly from their own rule-book, has shown favour to the 'New Club' side. Their ''allows for continuity of sporting record'' comment does not refer to any stated rule and I've yet to come across one. It has been stated by UEFA previously, ''That in most instances of club licencing, UEFA will take direction from the member association''. Now we all know that with The SFA, their unfounded fear of 'Armageddon for Scottish Football' has shaped their view of the matter. IMO the truth of the matter is that legally and I include laws of football, it is a new club but due to certain fears and pressure, it has been deemed by it's member association (SFA) to be prudent and ''in the best interests of Scottish football'' to allow the perception of continuity to prevail. Luckily, some of us are not willing to sit back and allow that to go unchallenged. The fact that this is and always will be, a cause of squirming embarrassment to our great leaders and also the cause of continuing seethe among the new club's support (who are in the main the same shameful and shameless nuggets that followed the old one), just gives us a far higher degree of satisfaction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) IMO the truth of the matter is that legally and I include laws of football, it is a new club but due to certain fears and pressure, it has been deemed by it's member association (SFA) to be prudent and ''in the best interests of Scottish football'' to allow the perception of continuity to prevail. Luckily, some of us are not willing to sit back and allow that to go unchallenged. The fact that this is and always will be, a cause of squirming embarrassment to our great leaders and also the cause of continuing seethe among the new club's support (who are in the main the same shameful and shameless nuggets that followed the old one), just gives us a far higher degree of satisfaction. It should be mandatory for all away fans visiting The Deathstar to belt out "You're Not R*****s Any More" a la Dundeh Yinitit. Edited April 17, 2014 by Florentine_Pogen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 No, but the bit he'd put in bold and was clearly mocking, was the work of Hellbhoy, not dear old Kincardine. I think you will find that it was Kincardine himself that put the bold in. Dhenbhoy did not highlight any particular part of the post. What's wrong with everyone today? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Nobody bats an eyelid in England because the clubs involved do not have 54 titles alongside a whole host of other trophies. And neither do Sevco Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 It should be mandatory for all away fans visiting The Deathstar to belt out "You're Not R*****s Any More" a la Dundeh Yinitit. Agreed. 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.