Monkey Tennis Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I thinkso... That made me laugh, but seriously mate, nip back and do some deleting. You've written this book's worst chapter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrshireTon Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 1342856246[/url]' post='6452152']The liquidators are there to wind up the company and to investigate whether anyone involved in the previous regimes should be held personally liable for the debts and/or face criminal charges. Thanks - do those two have to happen in a specific order? Can't they just liquidate them now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Stramash Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Is this now 'The wisbit Thread'? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Where are you getting this "bought/sold as a going concern" cobblers you keep repeating from? That's exactly what DIDN'T happen. It's what WOULD have happened if the CVA was successful, but it wasn't. What Green bought was the assets of a failed company which is being wound up by liquidators, which he plans to use to create an entirely new business. Not the same thing at all. Sorry you're talking bollocks. The old company is dead but the business continues. That's why TUPE applied. Rangers (a football business, running from particular premises, carrying out a particular type work, with a particular brand and particular set of customers) are the undertaking. That business undertaking was sold by the administrators to Green to allow Green to continue that undertaking. Those exact circumstances are one of the exceptions to the prohibition on reusing company names/trading names. Rule 4.228 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 4.228.—(1) Where a company (“the successor company”) acquires the whole, or substantially the whole, of the business of an insolvent company, under arrangements made by an insolvency practitioner acting as its liquidator, administrator or administrative receiver, or as supervisor of a voluntary arrangement under Part I of the Act, the successor company may for the purposes of section 216 give notice under this Rule to the insolvent company's creditors.(2) To be effective, the notice must be given within 28 days from the completion of the arrangements, to all creditors of the insolvent company of whose addresses the successor company is aware in that period; and it must specify— (a)the name and registered number of the insolvent company and the circumstances in which its business has been acquired by the successor company, (b)the name which the successor company has assumed, or proposes to assume for the purpose of carrying on the business, if that name is or will be a prohibited name under section 216, and ©any change of name which it has made, or proposes to make, for that purpose under section 28 of the Companies Act. (3) The notice may name a person to whom section 216 may apply as having been a director or shadow director of the insolvent company, and give particulars as to the nature and duration of that directorship, with a view to his being a director of the successor company or being otherwise associated with its management. (4) If the successor company has effectively given notice under this Rule to the insolvent company's creditors, a person who is so named in the notice may act in relation to the successor company in any of the ways mentioned in section 216(3), notwithstanding that he has not the leave of the court under that section. I can break that down and explain it to you further if you're still struggling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Stramash Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 From The Sun: 'An independent Appellate Tribunal will now meet to rubber-stamp the transfer of membership.' Spot the deliberate mistake ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Thanks - do those two have to happen in a specific order? Can't they just liquidate them now? The old co will only be finally wound up after all outstanding financial issues have been resolved. That means waiting for the action against Collyer Bristow to be concluded, the Tax Tribunal and any other claims or liabilities. Then, if there's any money, that will be distributed amongst the creditors. That could take years. In the meantime the liquidators will be investigating how the company got where it ended up and whether anyone breached their duties as directors or committed any other offences. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Green getting nowt for Rangers' players. My link Well a little bit for Davis. It's a beautiful thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest_Fifer Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I really don't think is true. First, the name on the shirt and in the league table is a brand, not their name for legal purposes, and Green bought the brand. If, for the avoidance of doubt, Green had acquired the assets through OldRangersWereCheatingBigots Ltd. the team could still be called Rangers for footballing purposes and play in their current strip. Second, with regards to the legal name I'm pretty sure the rule is that NewCos can't use old names in circumstances where it might be deemed misleading to the public and creditors. It's hard to argue given the unique nature of football clubs and the publicity involved that anyone can seriously argue that people will be misled in commercial terms by the current company name. When Fiorentina was reformed Italian insolvency law prevented them from purchasing the IP and thus they had to play as the Viola with a different strip, but they reverted back as soon as they could buy the intellectual property. Here, the IP was explicitly part of the deal. Barring BDO challenging the terms of the sale, they are SevCo, but the team can play as Rangers. The fact we know they died doesn't change the fact they are allowed to use the name. It's kinda like when a band suffers a messy split and the lead singer tours with a new band and releases kinda crp albums under the old name. Everyone knows its not the same, but they're allowed to do it. **** n Roses? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Am I right in thinking I read last night that East Fife were the lowest of the seeds that Sevco could have drawn? Ie the (on paper) easiest tie possible for them? Or did I dream it Yup - in Scottish 2nd placing but we pumped oot Dumfi and Aberdeen in the competition last year, lost the quarter final @ Killie 0-2 after red card on 45 Minutes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Green getting nowt for Rangers' players. My link Well a little bit for Davis. It's a beautiful thing. Why would Southampton pay £800k for a player they could get for free? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) It's a story in the Daily Record. That says it all. Had a wee look on the Southampton website and it says that they came to an arrangement with SevCo so as to prevent dragging out the transfer. Although it doesnt say anything about £800k I would still be pissed off at my club spending money that it didn't need to if it only had to wait for a few more days and get Davis for nothing. Something just doesn't feel right about this. Edited July 21, 2012 by PeeTeeJag 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Gattuso will be pure raging now. Have they signed anyone else yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owsley Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I've been buying the Express lately, pish paper I know but their stance last week on the day of the vote was superb and they've been good since. Back page today though resembles the Record at it's worst, telling the mugs what they want to hear. Newco linked with Steve Jennings, Robbie Neilson, Scott Robertson, Ian Black again and in talks supposedly with Dene Shiels! Why on earth would any of those choose to play in the Third Division? Robertson has been linked with a Championship club and Brentford, Jennings I also recall linked to League 1. If the story is true, big if, is this more Rangers delusion? Personally I think they should go for Canning, Mensing and McAlister, all out of contract at Accies, as much more realistic targets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Gattuso will be pure raging now. Have they signed anyone else yet? Black was apparently seen near Glasgow Central having a chat with Sally - orogin RM! Please get behind EFFC - yer new wee team! 1st up @Orcland 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I've been buying the Express lately, pish paper I know but their stance last week on the day of the vote was superb and they've been good since. Back page today though resembles the Record at it's worst, telling the mugs what they want to hear. Newco linked with Steve Jennings, Robbie Neilson, Scott Robertson, Ian Black again and in talks supposedly with Dene Shiels! Why on earth would any of those choose to play in the Third Division? Robertson has been linked with a Championship club and Brentford, Jennings I also recall linked to League 1. If the story is true, big if, is this more Rangers delusion? Personally I think they should go for Canning, Mensing and McAlister, all out of contract at Accies, as much more realistic targets. Any player that goes to SevCo will be those with no ambition, or getting to the end of their careers and looking for a nice little pay day for a season or two. Where SevCo will get the money to pay players is anyones guess. I can't see guys like Robbie Neilson or Ian Black playing for a few hundred quid a week. I think whoever they get will be a mixture of older players and a few young lads. Sally struggled to manage a team of "better than average" players last season, I think he will really struggle if he has to mould young guys into footballers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Had a wee look on the Southampton website and it says that they came to an arrangement with SevCo so as to prevent dragging out the transfer. Although it doesnt say anything about £800k I would still be pissed off at my club spending money that it didn't need to if it only had to wait for a few more days and get Davis for nothing. Something just doesn't feel right about this. Totally agree- FIFA/UEFA (?) are aboots to say "What the feck are you doing SFA?" Sevco ain't got a leg to stand-on, FIFA gave them a week to replyaboots buggering-up the boys' registrations - that runs-oot on Monday when they'll surely say "Get this pish stopped RIGHT NOW" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Any player that goes to SevCo will be those with no ambition, or getting to the end of their careers and looking for a nice little pay day for a season or two. Where SevCo will get the money to pay players is anyones guess. I can't see guys like Robbie Neilson or Ian Black playing for a few hundred quid a week. I think whoever they get will be a mixture of older players and a few young lads. Sally struggled to manage a team of "better than average" players last season, I think he will really struggle if he has to mould young guys into footballers. Black has said he's on the dole so getting a job might be better - he'd actually suit our 2nd/3rd as he'd kick anyone better than him hard. This has been my naughty idea - a pianter sees "Big Jig" up against him week one - just break his leg then watch Sevco having to pay him ten grand a week to hobble to the stands for 6 months 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Black has said he's on the dole so getting a job might be better - he'd actually suit our 2nd/3rd as he'd kick anyone better than him hard. This has been my naughty idea - a pianter sees "Big Jig" up against him week one - just break his leg then watch Sevco having to pay him ten grand a week to hobble to the stands for 6 months The next Orc complaint will be............ "Aberdeen always try harder against us, FUCKERS!!!! And so do they b*****ds Montrose, Queens Park, Peterhead, East Stirling....................." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Hahaha I like how you can use the word FUCKERS but b*****ds isn't allowed!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Team Bible Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Forgive my ignorance here, but what's the story with number 12 shirt? I've seen references here to it being retired, but now required in a league that doesn't operate squad numbers. Why was it retired though? What's the significance, other than representing the year they died? It represents the 12p each and every fan sacrificed to support the club via RFFFFFFFFF. 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.