shull Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 2 Titles 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Why did the company sevco change its name to The Rangers International Football Club when infact there was no need to, in regards to being separate from the "club" ? It didn't. Sevco Scotland, or Sevco 5088 (depending how this case goes) are the new club. They changed their name to The Rangers Football Club. Rangers International are also a new company, and they are Rangers' holding company. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 It didn't. Sevco Scotland, or Sevco 5088 (depending how this case goes) are the new club. They changed their name to The Rangers Football Club. Rangers International are also a new company, and they are Rangers' holding company. Yup. Charles Green could have purchased the assets using the name Val Doonican's Favourite Turnip F.C.if he had so wished. All aspects of the previous Rangers had perished. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Has Phillip been blogging again? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Has Phillip been blogging again? ^^^^^ Obsessed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Has Phillip been blogging again?Dunno, never read a word of his bar what was c+p on here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 It didn't. Sevco Scotland, or Sevco 5088 (depending how this case goes) are the new club. They changed their name to The Rangers Football Club. Rangers International are also a new company, and they are Rangers' holding company. wait... the club is a company 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Yes it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradHorse Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Quick questions If the "company" holds or owns the membership, the registration, the players, staff and employees contracts, the infrastructure, assets, the debts, all commercial activities etc..., and shares are bought and sold not for the club but for the company Then what exactly does the club hold? If you wanted to buy the "club" without the "company" what exactly would you be owning? I never really debate this pish on here as it's a game of roundabouts (don't know why you do, to be honest) but this question has resonated with a documentary I've seen recently. Have you ever seen 'The Cooperation'? It deals with big business and how it basically transcends its name and becomes its own entity - ie. Apple can sue Samsung and they can both stand up in court, but really there is no Apple or Samsung that you can tangibly notice; they are basically two entities that have been given legal right and all their employees and endevours etc are really a side story to the fact that these two 'brands' have been given the same legal rights as human beings, and can stand up in court as such. Don't really know if there's a true correlation here but it certainly casts a light on the club vs. company thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I never really debate this pish on here as it's a game of roundabouts (don't know why you do, to be honest) but this question has resonated with a documentary I've seen recently. Have you ever seen 'The Cooperation'? It deals with big business and how it basically transcends its name and becomes its own entity - ie. Apple can sue Samsung and they can both stand up in court, but really there is no Apple or Samsung that you can tangibly notice; they are basically two entities that have been given legal right and all their employees and endevours etc are really a side story to the fact that these two 'brands' have been given the same legal rights as human beings, and can stand up in court as such. Don't really know if there's a true correlation here but it certainly casts a light on the club vs. company thing. It was the companies that went to court, not the brand. Apple Inc v Samsung Electronics Co. Companies have legal personality (for very good reason). It is the company that enters into contracts, buy assets etc, not the brand. I hope this helps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I never really debate this pish on here as it's a game of roundabouts (don't know why you do, to be honest) but this question has resonated with a documentary I've seen recently. Have you ever seen 'The Cooperation'? It deals with big business and how it basically transcends its name and becomes its own entity - ie. Apple can sue Samsung and they can both stand up in court, but really there is no Apple or Samsung that you can tangibly notice; they are basically two entities that have been given legal right and all their employees and endevours etc are really a side story to the fact that these two 'brands' have been given the same legal rights as human beings, and can stand up in court as such. Don't really know if there's a true correlation here but it certainly casts a light on the club vs. company thing. I love these wee glimpses into the mind of a Rangers fan. :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Don't really know if there's a true correlation here but it certainly casts a light on the club vs. company thing. There's not.... No, it doesn't. HTH. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Rangers are going to get all their assets back from the fraudulent Sevco then Rangers will be Rangers again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) It didn't. Sevco Scotland, or Sevco 5088 (depending how this case goes) are the new club. They changed their name to The Rangers Football Club. Rangers International are also a new company, and they are Rangers' holding company. How they were allowed to compete in the Ramdens Cup in 2012 I don't fully understand and also why Sevco Scotland had to compete in the first place in this competition when they could have sat it out and focused on more important issues and the league they were placed in?. Even the people who were running Sevco Scotland either were unsure or lied about continuity because if they were absolutely sure the club Rangers would have been called Rangers and not The Rangers. Why did they not go straight ahead and use the name Rangers in the first place.? Also one of the worst way to lie is to tell the lie to as many people as its possible backed with fallacious stacked evidence tell it as many times as possible over and over again and eventually people will believe it, many because they want to believe it. For example for centuries the church who had control of everything to do with science made people believe that swallows hibernated in the mud over winter and the people who believed they migrated were mad, simply because the church had so much power in peoples minds and why would they be misleading, its the church, they are right because...... Edited September 9, 2015 by CityDave 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythstoliveby Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) How they were allowed to compete in the Ramdens Cup in 2012 I don't fully understand and also why Sevco Scotland had to compete in the first place in this competition when they could have sat it out and focused on more important issues and the league they were placed in?. Even the people who were running Sevco Scotland either were unsure or lied about continuity because if they were absolutely sure the club Rangers would have been called Rangers and not The Rangers. Why did they not go straight ahead and use the name Rangers in the first place.? Also one of the worst way to lie is to tell the lie to as many people as its possible backed with fallacious stacked evidence tell it as many times as possible over and over again and eventually people will believe it, many because they want to believe it. For example for centuries the church who had control of everything to do with science made people believe that swallows hibernated in the mud over winter and the people who believed they migrated were mad, simply because the church had so much power in peoples minds and why would they be misleading, its the church, they are right because...... Great post citydave. I'd like to hear bennet's response to this (but not forever_blue's broken record response...) The use of 'The' is fundamental to highlighting the difference. Another sneaky point was at the start of their first season back in 2012 they weren't confident enough to display 5 stars on the front of the shirts so they HID it down the side. Then, after a good bout of them lieing like a broken record then they put them on the front of the shirts the following season (when they started thinking they'd got away with the Great Swindle...) - they really have no dignity. Edited September 9, 2015 by mythstoliveby 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythstoliveby Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Come on bennet, you must manage better than Tedi here??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Because the rules allowed it and because we are the establishment club. Bidco / pacific shelf? it is common practice to buy an off the shelf company and change the name. Really? ffs Wait a goddam minute, ........I thought Rangers were the club and not the company, do Rangers Sevco Scotland fans now think they are the same?. That would be some slip up if someone like Paul Murray came out with that. More :lol: If Rangers were the company then they did not survive liquidation where as anyone can buy assets from them and call themselves what they want, even Rangers for that matter, not that I would change my own name by deed poll to that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Tedi deliberately hilariously misapprehending the whole thing as per. To clarify: Bidco bought Hearts Pacific Shelf bought Celtic Sevco are Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I'll ask again, if I pitches up at ibrox next week and make an offer solely for the club without "the company" What exactly would I be buying? As I said, the playing and non playing contract are held with "the company" as are the assets I.e Ibrox and still not renamed Murray Park along with the SFA/SPFL registration and memberships. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Who did Leeds United 2007 Ltd buy? Your deflection is irrelevant, and consequently is being ignored. Glad you do not disagree with my assertions. 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.