glensburgh Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 St Mirren have a teapot, St Johnstone have a teapot, Celtic have a teapot... everyone has a teapot, including Rangers. The difference is that everyone else bought their tea bags, while for over a decade, Rangers stole them out of Tesco without paying. Now, if I went into Tesco and stole tea bags for ten years - here's what would happen. Tesco would ban me from their stores - they would not simply re-admit me if all I did was change my name from pozbaird to pozbaird fae' Paisley 2013. Secondly, they'd say 'you owe us ten year's worth of teabag money, ya' thievin' gypsy'. They would not shake my hand and accept my offer of 10p in the packet. They'd take away my Tesco Clubcard membership - and if I tried to transfer it to Asda for three years, before popping back up in my local Tesco, I'd be chased. Simples. Now, if I'm missing something, I apologise. Two sugars and milk please. have a greenie, even tho' I hate tea 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 It better be a Tesco Value teapot or the creditors will be rightfully infuriated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'm not sure which issue is more pressing, the shambles at Ibrox or the fact that someone still uses Bebo? I'm going for the latter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipster Dufus Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 St Mirren have a teapot, St Johnstone have a teapot, Celtic have a teapot... everyone has a teapot, including Rangers. The difference is that everyone else bought their tea bags, while for over a decade, Rangers stole them out of Tesco without paying. Now, if I went into Tesco and stole tea bags for ten years - here's what would happen. Tesco would ban me from their stores - they would not simply re-admit me if all I did was change my name from pozbaird to pozbaird fae' Paisley 2013. Secondly, they'd say 'you owe us ten year's worth of teabag money, ya' thievin' gypsy'. They would not shake my hand and accept my offer of 10p in the packet. They'd take away my Tesco Clubcard membership - and if I tried to transfer it to Asda for three years, before popping back up in my local Tesco, I'd be chased. Simples. Now, if I'm missing something, I apologise. Two sugars and milk please. Your defence should be "But we are the people" and "my wife's teapot must remain full". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I think that's a very loose definition and despite the "precedent" of Leeds United, I don't think it is accurate. It might be accurate in terms of perception, the football club as a concept, but in strictly legal terms I think that the football club IS the business/organization and if that business is liquidated, the football club ceases to exist. I think the idea of being defined by membership, particularly in this scenario, is merely there to avoid the reality of the situation and to circumvent what "should" happen. What happened with Leeds United was wrong. That it happened should not, in my opinion, mean that it can and should be applied in other scenarios. This part though.... is this widely true in terms of brand new companies taking on the mantle of old? Restructuring a club/company/organization is not the same as starting a new company and taking on the mantle of one that went under. I don't think it is accurate to bracket this scenario with "restructuring" a club - they are different things entirely IMO. Either we're defining it or we're not. If we are defining it, then (and this is I'm sure what the administrators mean) the liquidation of Rangers does not mean the end of 'the football club' if the assets that make 'a football club'... and not a refridgerator manufacturer, a purveyor of boutique furnishing, or a dance troupe... are continued undisturbed. Whether it's right or wrong is another debate. When Celtic were bought-out by McCann in 1994, am I not right in saying such assets were transferred to a different company, leading to the loss of the "Athletic" part of the title? I don't see people of a view that Celtic were founded in 1994, or that the Celtic founded in 1888 ceased in 1994 (if my preceding part's correct). Clachnacuddin FC is one of the most historic clubs in the Highland League, but their memberships etc. are held by Clachnacuddin 1990 Ltd. Do we conclude Clachnacuddin are 21 years old? Again, whether such transfers are right or wrong is another debate, but the literal facts are fairly indisputable. Neither Celtic nor Clachnacuddin were new clubs in football's eyes. Their full membership continued unaffected. What made them new clubs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 It better be a Tesco Value teapot or the creditors will be rightfully infuriated. It's looking more like a chocolate teapot currently, tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betting competition Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) Bebo is Chris Maguire, seriously the user name on afc-chat was bebo and i was giving him credit Edited March 5, 2012 by betting competition 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The ghost of Jim Morton Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 So is it another day of sweet fuckall then??? Can someone update me on where we are party wise. Is the fun going to be reduced by 75%, will it be defered or is it about rock n roll time?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRubberFist Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Scottish football needs a strong teapot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Either we're defining it or we're not. If we are defining it, then (and this is I'm sure what the administrators mean) the liquidation of Rangers does not mean the end of 'the football club' if the assets that make 'a football club'... and not a refridgerator manufacturer, a purveyor of boutique furnishing, or a dance troupe... are continued undisturbed. Whether it's right or wrong is another debate. When Celtic were bought-out by McCann in 1994, am I not right in saying such assets were transferred to a different company, leading to the loss of the "Athletic" part of the title? I don't see people of a view that Celtic were founded in 1994, or that the Celtic founded in 1888 ceased in 1994 (if my preceding part's correct). Clachnacuddin FC is one of the most historic clubs in the Highland League, but their memberships etc. are held by Clachnacuddin 1990 Ltd. Do we conclude Clachnacuddin are 21 years old? Again, whether such transfers are right or wrong is another debate, but the literal facts are fairly indisputable. Neither Celtic nor Clachnacuddin were new clubs in football's eyes. Their full membership continued unaffected. What made them new clubs? Celtic's status had to change as McCann bought a private limited company from the old board, did his bits and pieces and created a PLC to offer shares to the fans. As far as I know he followed all rules and requirements of both football and business regulators in doing so. Different scenario from Rangers folding old club owning company at liquidation to avoid debts and transferring to a lifeboat prepack company and claiming they're same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Celtic's status had to change as McCann bought a private limited company from the old board, did his bits and pieces and created a PLC to offer shares to the fans. As far as I know he followed all rules and requirements of both football and business regulators in doing so. Different scenario from Rangers folding old club owning company at liquidation to avoid debts and transferring to a lifeboat prepack company and claiming they're same. Of course, world's apart morally. But in a technical sense, transferring membership from Company A to Company B is exactly that. What Clachnacuddin did (IIRC) in the late 1980s, was form a new company to protect an old indebted one from the threat of winding-up. If Rangers go down the transfer route, we'll all have our own views on whether they're a new club or not. But the administrator's quote is 100% correct in an official sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) Either we're defining it or we're not. If we are defining it, then (and this is I'm sure what the administrators mean) the liquidation of Rangers does not mean the end of 'the football club' if the assets that make 'a football club'... and not a refridgerator manufacturer, a purveyor of boutique furnishing, or a dance troupe... are continued undisturbed. Whether it's right or wrong is another debate. When Celtic were bought-out by McCann in 1994, am I not right in saying such assets were transferred to a different company, leading to the loss of the "Athletic" part of the title? I don't see people of a view that Celtic were founded in 1994, or that the Celtic founded in 1888 ceased in 1994 (if my preceding part's correct). Clachnacuddin FC is one of the most historic clubs in the Highland League, but their memberships etc. are held by Clachnacuddin 1990 Ltd. Do we conclude Clachnacuddin are 21 years old? Again, whether such transfers are right or wrong is another debate, but the literal facts are fairly indisputable. Neither Celtic nor Clachnacuddin were new clubs in football's eyes. Their full membership continued unaffected. What made them new clubs? It has been demonstrated (rather smugly!) in the last few weeks that Celtic are still trading under the original company number - what happened to them was standard practice - the company was restructured to be a PLC. The assets weren't transferred. There are numerous ways to define an entity, a concept, an idea.... I appreciate that there have been different scenarios in football. The case of Airdrie United is perfect - in everyone's eyes they are a continuation of Airdrieonians. In reality though, they are not. What I was challenging was your assertion that "most" clubs had gone through changes that could be comparable to what is being suggested with Rangers - ie that one company is run out of business and another entirely separate one comes along and takes (buys) the assets and carries on "as" the old one. I think it is very dangerous not only to assert that this is somehow "normal" but to compare it to other changes to existing clubs be that a change of badge, a stadium move or changing to a PLC, is not correct and I think that is important in addressing this potential issue. I'm not saying it isn't possible, or that "there is no precedent". I am saying that the notion that this is a normal change for a football club to go through is to my knowledge innaccurate and most certainly would be unfair IMO. Actual restructuring is not unfair. Edited March 5, 2012 by Colin M 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Apparently Sky saying SPL are investigating extra payments to players THIS season.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Nomad Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 SPL now officially investigating players payments, saying that contracts may have been hidden from them. This dates back as far as 1998, yet they only act on it now, what a fucking shambles. STV link 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ankles Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Oh why are we waiting,why are waitng? sing up 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 SPL now officially investigating players payments, saying that contracts may have been hidden from them. This dates back as far as 1998, yet they only act on it now, what a fucking shambles. STV link 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Taxman Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Apparently Sky saying SPL are investigating extra payments to players THIS season.. surely not 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Nah, I took it as the fact that they could only investigate as far back as July 1998, given that is when the SPL was instituted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny van Axeldongen Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Rangers should be docked 70 points for bringing the game into disrepute. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 @bbcsportsound BBC Sportsound SPL board instructs investigation into alleged non-disclosure to SPL of payments made by, or on behalf of, Rangers to players since 01/07/98 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.