Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Granny Danger]

It's the stuff they rub on their bellies to make them go faster. (It's hard work carrying yoor hoose about.)

You must have seen the trails or did you think a woman with no legs had passed by?

When my grandfather was dying he made us rub snail oil on his back.

He went downhill fast after that.

[Savage Henry]

Not in the legal sense, no. I don't think there was ever any dispute on that bit.

(Edited to add: not if you're drawing no distinction between 'club' and 'company' anyway, which evidently you aren't.)

And there the last twenty odd pages comes round to its third full circle. I agree with you and the prevailing sentiment; Rangers didn't die as a club, but if they are to start anew in the third division, they should do so as an associate member of the league, be entitled to the same financial fallback as everyone else - despite what Wings infers - and as such should pay whatever punishment is due to the Rangers FC that lost its SPL membership.

[Yoss]

I think that's something most of us would relate to.

The problem is that you can't really apply rules and regulations to completely abstract concepts.

As problematic as defining "the club" by a transfer of SFA membership is, I'm prepared to run with it - in essence, what Sevco wants to be really is still "Rangers". But a reluctant acceptance of this should come on the unshakeable condition that there is some closure achieved by the correct procedures over what has occurred with Rangers over the last ten years or so.

No, sure, I see that. And I entirely understand why it's right and proper that the rules are applied to the legal entity. No problem there.

Nonetheless, if a fresh entity exists that calls itself Rangers, and is still considered to be Rangers by everyone who made up that looser definition of the 'club' as it existed before then, as far as I'm concerned, it'll still be Rangers.

[Wings Over Scotland]

For the record, I have put Wings and Strings on ignore until further notice.

For the record, I don't give a bee's bawhair.

[Itwiznaeme]

LIQUIDATION: http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=LIQUIDATION+DEF&oq=LIQUIDATION+DEF&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.5095.5722.2.6376.4.4.0.0.0.1.467.824.0j3j4-1.4.0...0.0...1c.ndhqWa2RA_Q&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=afb4bbfc0d034261&biw=1426&bih=778

ADMINISTRATION: http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=ADMINISTRATION+DEF&oq=ADMINISTRATION+DEF&gs_l=serp.12..0l4.45769.45769.0.47002.1.1.0.0.0.0.664.664.5-1.1.0...0.0...1c.eCBUfKPHpNQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=afb4bbfc0d034261&biw=1426&bih=778

[Pull My Strings]

For the record, I have put Wings and Strings on ignore until further notice.

They could have pm'd each other with this and then told us who won when it was all over.

No fair. I've been on my best behaviour this morning.

Edit: You're not going to be able to read this since I'm on ignore.

In which case, your maw.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Pull My Strings

[hudster1969]

Wimbledon won the FA Cup, yes. They were then called Wimbledon FC and are now called AFC Wimbledon. Same club, in every meaningful respect - history, tradition, continuity of support, whatever else. Only the legal entity has changed.

I think you'll find that is bollocks. Wimbledon FC became MK Dons after the owner decided to relocate them to Milton Keynes. AFC Wimbledon was set up by the fans in protest to this move and is a totally separate entity to Wimbledon FC. Bit like FC United of Manchester after the Glaziers took over Manchester United.

[Wings Over Scotland]

And there the last twenty odd pages comes round to its third full circle. I agree with you and the prevailing sentiment; Rangers didn't die as a club, but if they are to start anew in the third division, they should do so as an associate member of the league, be entitled to the same financial fallback as everyone else

Um, they'll be entitled to the same "financial fallback" as any other Associate Member, whatever that turns out to be. Whether it means they get a share of TV revenue or they don't (and you'll be pleased to know I've contacted the SFL to clear Rule 68 up, awaiting response), there's currently no evidence to suggest they'll be made a special case.

[Savage Henry]

I agree with this. Rangers will always be Rangers. And I'm sick of this whole thing. Its time for the season to start. Rangers are in division 3, and that in my view should be the end of it. Time for us all to move on.

This.

Your second sentence rules out the possibility of the last one.

There are still punishments to be dished out, quite correctly. The only reason I was at all comfortable with the SFL vote to put Sevco into Div three, was on the basis that they would still be heavily punished in that division. Otherwise, if they were a completely new entity, they should have applied as such.

Plus this.

Agree with this. Opposition fans, being opposition fans, will remind them in song about what has happened, but I couldn't care less if they call themselves Rangers, wear blue tops and adopt the badge. The only outstanding issue for me is the EBT investigation that should be carried out to its natural conclusion as it would be for any other club.

Combined with this.

I think that's something most of us would relate to.

The problem is that you can't really apply rules and regulations to completely abstract concepts.

As problematic as defining "the club" by a transfer of SFA membership is, I'm prepared to run with it - in essence, what Sevco wants to be really is still "Rangers". But a reluctant acceptance of this should come on the unshakeable condition that there is some closure achieved by the correct procedures over what has occurred with Rangers over the last ten years or so.

And it's all over and done with. Surely?

[H_B]

And there the last twenty odd pages comes round to its third full circle. I agree with you and the prevailing sentiment; Rangers didn't die as a club, but if they are to start anew in the third division, they should do so as an associate member of the league, be entitled to the same financial fallback as everyone else - despite what Wings infers - and as such should pay whatever punishment is due to the Rangers FC that lost its SPL membership.

Exactly right.

[Yoss]

MK Dons (like Livingston) are a new club using the legal registration of a previously existing club. Wimbledon are the original club, now under a new registration.

I think I'm done with this bit of the thread now, I'll keep checking back to see whether there's any actual news.

[pozbaird]

Are they no' deid' yet?

(In either club or company form, pending further clarification of associate membership rule 71.2 subsection (a): Limited liability of ownership structure in event of excessive forum bawbaggery).

[cyderspaceman]

And in the ongoing BBC denial of the facts;

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ue-cup/fixtures

Looks like a fixture missing The Dwellers of Ibrox v East Fife is not listed as a league cup fixture, Have the Fifers been given a bye ???

The Dwellers? They were super powerful mothers. Don't want them reaching that level.

[strichener]

What you're suggesting there, then, is that Associate Members aren't entitled to enter into commercial arrangements independent of the League at all. The result of which is exactly the same as I noted earlier. I gladly concede your technical point, and note that it makes no difference whatsoever to anything.

No, you are inferring that. I only stated that they are not bound by the rule (using your logic). I would think that they can enter into commercial agreements without reference to the league (as they are not explicitly prevented from doing so) again this is using your logic of only taking literal definitions.

Ref: rule 71.7

So, TV rights for cup games can be sold by Newco then if this is only applicable for league competitions. Can they therefore refuse to accommodate the cup sponsors etc.?

TBH - I am fed up arguing the point. It appears that you will conclude that Newco are not entitled to any money on the basis that there is no inclusion in the rules for such distribution regardless of the number of ambiguities that there are within the rules.

[Savage Henry]

Um, they'll be entitled to the same "financial fallback" as any other Associate Member, whatever that turns out to be. Whether it means they get a share of TV revenue or they don't (and you'll be pleased to know I've contacted the SFL to clear Rule 68 up, awaiting response), there's currently no evidence to suggest they'll be made a special case.

What? The whole point of this sorry saga is that people have been trying to make a special case for Rangers. That's precisely what's happening! It seems to me you are reading what you want to read. I'd be very surprised if the SFA don't refer you to the definition quoted earlier in the thread, that the term "member" is used loosely and can define either a full member alone or a full member and associate member depending on how the SFA choose to interpret their own laws. Which again, is entirely the point.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Savage Henry

[H_B]

The problem with the "they are in Div Three now, let's all be friends" approach is that it panders to the McCoist/Jardine mantra of "we have been punished enough" despite not having been punished at all yet.

[Happy Buddie]

No, sure, I see that. And I entirely understand why it's right and proper that the rules are applied to the legal entity. No problem there.

Nonetheless, if a fresh entity exists that calls itself Rangers, and is still considered to be Rangers by everyone who made up that looser definition of the 'club' as it existed before then, as far as I'm concerned, it'll still be Rangers.

The fans who go to Ibrox, to support the home team, will continue to call them Rangers and will still assert that it's a continuation of the club founded in 1872. A few will say that, but deep down, accept that it's a phoenix.

A few of the other clubs' supporters might accept that , in spirit, it's the same club, particularly if the Orcs continue with their sectarian, bigoted bile.

But, even so, however it pans out, us diddies will insist that they're NOT Rangers any more, and will rip the pish out of them at every available opportunity.

[Wings Over Scotland]

I'd be very surprised if the SFA don't refer you to the definition quoted earlier in the thread, that the term "member" is used loosely and can define either a full member alone or a full member and associate member depending on how the SFA choose to interpret their own laws. Which again, is entirely the point.

1. That wasn't a "definition", it was an interpretation, and one I believe to be entirely mistaken.

2. We're talking about the rules of the SFL here, not the SFA. The SFA has indeed tried very hard to make Rangers a special case, but there is as yet no evidence for the SFL doing so.

[welshbairn]

I think you'll find that is bollocks. Wimbledon FC became MK Dons after the owner decided to relocate them to Milton Keynes. AFC Wimbledon was set up by the fans in protest to this move and is a totally separate entity to Wimbledon FC. Bit like FC United of Manchester after the Glaziers took over Manchester United.

At its AGM on 5 June 2006, the FSF again considered a motion[8] proposed by the FSF Council to allow MK Dons Supporters Association membership if the honours and trophies of Wimbledon F.C. were given to the London Borough of Merton. In October 2006, agreement[9] was reached between the club, the MK Dons Supporters Association, the Wimbledon Independent Supporters Association and the Football Supporters Federation. The replica of the FA Cup plus all club patrimony gathered under the name of Wimbledon F.C. would be returned to the London Borough of Merton. Ownership of trademarks and website domain names related to Wimbledon F.C. would also be transferred to the Borough. The Borough subsequently transferred all trademarks to AFC Wimbledon. As part of the same deal it was agreed that any reference made to Milton Keynes Dons F.C. should refer only to events subsequent to 7 August 2004 (the date of the first League game of Milton Keynes Dons F.C.).

[Granny Danger]

The fans who go to Ibrox, to support the home team, will continue to call them Rangers and will still assert that it's a continuation of the club founded in 1872. A few will say that, but deep down, accept that it's a phoenix.

A few of the other clubs' supporters might accept that , in spirit, it's the same club, particularly if the Orcs continue with their sectarian, bigoted bile.

But, even so, however it pans out, us diddies will insist that they're NOT Rangers any more, and will rip the pish out of them at every available opportunity.

That's a mythical bird. Just like Magee's wife!