Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst accepting the point, I have difficulty with anything which closes with "this is clear and accepts no arguments". It's an eloquent way of writing FACT.

Which is different from this?

The club lost possession of the SPL share, not the company. The club lost it because of the actions of the company, granted, but there is a legal distinction between the club and the company, whether we want to accept it or not. That's not up for debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a bad prediction from the first few pages Poz :P

Aye, but an easy one to make. It was a certainty that any new 'Rangers' starting in Div 3 would see a TV company sniffing around. I have said the same about the red top Rangers boaby-sookers. They might be shiteing it that they can't fill column inches by fabricating foreign signing target stories any more - but if they have even an ounce of journalistic talent, they could fill pages with the Sevco story...Living the Dream, Gretna style. Without the llamas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, we're getting bogged down in whether or not the history continues.

For me, whether the entity that won loads over the last decade by cheating still exists right now or not, is close to irrelevant.

What matters is that those honours are removed. I don't care whether that's done posthumously or not, so long as it happens.

We know that Rangers fans will claim a continuation while the sentient will suggest otherwise. What should be incontestible is how many they won legitimately and that must be enshrined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, we're getting bogged down in whether or not the history continues.

For me, whether the entity that won loads over the last decade by cheating still exists right now or not, is close to irrelevant.

What matters is that those honours are removed. I don't care whether that's done posthumously or not, so long as it happens.

We know that Rangers fans will claim a continuation while the sentient will suggest otherwise. What should be incontestible is how many they won legitimately and that must be enshrined.

FACT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've found "The Big House must stay open" guy.

He's let his hair grow but he's not as vociferous as his fellow supporters at his new Club.

From Falkirk's main page -

Nah.

That guy's minding his own business while watching his team. He doesn't deserve mockery, whereas 'Big Hoose' guy does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've found "The Big House must stay open" guy.

He's let his hair grow but he's not as vociferous as his fellow supporters at his new Club.

From Falkirk's main page -

AdultST.jpg

That's the bottom line.

Excellent. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, we're getting bogged down in whether or not the history continues.

For me, whether the entity that won loads over the last decade by cheating still exists right now or not, is close to irrelevant.

What matters is that those honours are removed. I don't care whether that's done posthumously or not, so long as it happens.

We know that Rangers fans will claim a continuation while the sentient will suggest otherwise. What should be incontestible is how many they won legitimately and that must be enshrined.

Sally's comments are yet more hot air and bluster from someone who should simply be ignored. There is nothing for the SFA to negotiate on. The soon-to-be defunct club are either guilty or not guilty - no inbetween - no negotiation is required. If found guilty, then natural progression is the removal of all tainted titles/trophies. There is no need to check whether anyone agrees or not. Given that McCoist's cheating b*****ds have broken so many rules, it seems blatantly obvious what the outcome will be, but we must give the panel time to consider all evidence before declaring the result.

Edited by Itwiznaeme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sally's comments are yet more hot air and bluster from someone who should simply be ignored. There is nothing for the SFA to negotiate on. The soon-to-be defunct club are either guilty or not guilty - no inbetween - no negotiation is required. If found guilty, then natural progression is the removal of all tainted titles/trophies. There is no need to check whether anyone agrees or not. Given that McCoist's cheating b*****ds have broken so many rules, it seems blatantly obvious what the outcome will be, but we must give the panel time to consider all evidence before declaring the result.

Indeed, but for me now that's the remaining major issue.

Musings of the last couple of pages matter much less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, but for me now that's the remaining major issue.

Musings of the last couple of pages matter much less.

No worries MT, you will get what you want! McCoist and his followers are onto plums if they think that anyone other than themselves give a monkeys what they think or how they feel! wink.gif

Edited by Itwiznaeme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries MT, you will get what you want! McCoist and his followers are onto plums if they think that anyone other than themselves give a monkeys what they think or how they feel! wink.gif

I hope you're right.

I just worry that it's somehow become part of some bargaining process rather than a simple and absolute case of right and wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst accepting the point, I have difficulty with anything which closes with "this is clear and accepts no arguments". It's an eloquent way of writing FACT.

Whilst accepting your point, I have no difficulty in allowing Gregory Ioannidis an ego big enough sign off his opinion in such a way, given his place amongst the top 20 sports lawyers in the world. Whether he is correct or not is another matter and not one for me to judge upon, I do believe however that there is scope for debate and that debate will only be settled by persons with a far greater knowledge of the subject than you or I. Could you provide me with any links to back up your claim that "there is a legal distinction between the club and the company" so that I can consider the position for myself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I correct in remembering that fat Sal's wage for the former Rangers was £20k a week? (which will have TUPE'd) How does 3rd Div Cevco afford a mill a year for a disaster with little management skill?

... and Durranty, and Kenny Mac, and keeper coach Jim Stewart, and...

Is tomorrow 'redundancy Monday', with Charlie boy making the tough decisions that the dynamic administration duo didn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I correct in remembering that fat Sal's wage for the former Rangers was £20k a week? (which will have TUPE'd) How does 3rd Div Cevco afford a mill a year for a disaster with little management skill?

I'm sure when there were rumblings of sally jumping ship there was a wee bit about him taking a wage cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good news! Leggo has written extensively about this Paul Stretford chap: http://leggoland2.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/rangers-paul-stretford-and-gangsters.html Google leggoland stretford for other gems.

I liked the Wikipedia page about Stretford - apparently his mob was involved in the deal that brought Capucho to Rangers. Hopefully his involvement mean Rangers fans can look forward to seeing similar stars at Ibrox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...