Mark Connolly Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Getting back to the Airdrie / Clydebank continuation...Surely The Rangers are a continuation of the old Rangers in the eyes of the footballing authorities. Not interetested in the oldco/newco and what your personal thoughts on the matter are but purely through the laws of the game. If The Rangers have the membership of old Rangers then why were they not invited to take their place in the SPL. Don't shoot me down here i am just looking for an explantion. I had a wee argument with a mate over this as i thought Airdrie United started in the lowest tier when they bought The Bankies..Looks like i was wrong..........again I would imagine it is because they don't have the membership of the old Rangers. My understanding is that the SFA didn't transfer the old membership, and gave them a new, conditional one. This may of course not be the case. As far as the SPL place goes, the SPL membership was NOT transferred, and as such there was no place for them in the SPL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrsonCarriage Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I agree with you. SevCo are a completely different entity from Rangers. And SevCo are currently playing in SFL3. http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/football/third/table/ Sorry old chum I can't seem to locate any club going by that name? Perhaps you might consider abstention from the hallucinogenics prior to posting? There's a good chap.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I would imagine it is because they don't have the membership of the old Rangers. My understanding is that the SFA didn't transfer the old membership, and gave them a new, conditional one. This may of course not be the case. As far as the SPL place goes, the SPL membership was NOT transferred, and as such there was no place for them in the SPL. This shit is more complicated than i thought I am also not 100% sure here but i thought we did get the Rangers SFA membership and the SPL membership was 'released' on the condition we accept any punishment through the EBT case. Now if The Rangers are going to be punished for crimes of the Old Rangers then surely in the eyes of the footballing authorities the new Rangers are a continuation of the old Rangers. So then 'relegation' to the 3rd was a punishment from the SPL ... Was it not? FFS i am confusing myself here...i know it is easy done 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 There is no Judge and if there was and you had commited a crime then I am sure you would want any bent coppers "playing" with the evidence and you mean upstanding lawyers like these guys http://www.bentjudges.com/rogues.htm You will notice that Harpers feature strongly on that site And people call us paranoid 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Getting back to the Airdrie / Clydebank continuation...Surely The Rangers are a continuation of the old Rangers in the eyes of the footballing authorities. Not interetested in the oldco/newco and what your personal thoughts on the matter are but purely through the laws of the game. If The Rangers have the membership of old Rangers then why were they not invited to take their place in the SPL. Don't shoot me down here i am just looking for an explantion. I had a wee argument with a mate over this as i thought Airdrie United started in the lowest tier when they bought The Bankies..Looks like i was wrong..........again It's really quite simple, to have been a continuation Sevco would have had to buy the whole club from Rangers, as the club is the company by the law of the land. I am sure it was you, around the time of the COS review of the embargo, who said "do the SFA believe they are above the law of the land?" ETA, the "further punishments" as you put it are not legally enforceable, as well you know, due to Sevco not being a continuation of Rangers. The "further punishments" are actually bribes paid by Charles Green to the sporting authorities so that he can perpetuate the con. Edited September 7, 2012 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/football/third/table/ Sorry old chum I can't seem to locate any club going by that name? Perhaps you might consider abstention from the hallucinogenics prior to posting? There's a good chap.. The name of the company does not have to be the trading name of the club. The only place Sevco are recognized as Rangers is the SFL website, an organization which received £1M on the back of perpetuating the lie. Edited September 7, 2012 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Capsule Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 http://www.scottishf...ll/third/table/ Sorry old chum I can't seem to locate any club going by that name? Perhaps you might consider abstention from the hallucinogenics prior to posting? There's a good chap.. I'm sure there's a picture going round somewhere about SevCo being the company name currently, but doing business under the name Rangers. Again, I could be wrong. I don't claim to know much about business, but I know that there is a football club called Rangers which is about to investigated and probably going to liquidated and another football club also called Rangers playing football in the SFL3. Two companies CAN have the same name, but not in the same industry sector e.g. I could start a Graphic Design company called Microsoft, but not in the Computing sector. Hence why people are referring to them as SevCo. The only attachment these two Rangers companies have is that one used to play at Ibrox with a manager called Ally McCoist, as does the new one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 It's really quite simple, to have been a continuation Sevco would have had to buy the whole club from Rangers, as the club is the company by the law of the land. I am sure it was you, around the time of the COS review of the embargo, who said "do the SFA believe they are above the law of the land?" ETA, the "further punishments" as you put it are not legally enforceable, as well you know, due to Sevco not being a continuation of Rangers. The "further punishments" are actually bribes paid by Charles Green to the sporting authorities so that he can perpetuate the con. You think this shit is simple? You are vastly over estimating my intellect here So you are saying any further punishment is not legally enforcable? Surely that cant be correct? I thought to be a continuation of the football club you only had to have the same SFA membership...which The Rangers have. I am not interested in the law of the land regarding the club/company but purely in the laws of the game and the football club 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 This shit is more complicated than i thought I am also not 100% sure here but i thought we did get the Rangers SFA membership and the SPL membership was 'released' on the condition we accept any punishment through the EBT case. Now if The Rangers are going to be punished for crimes of the Old Rangers then surely in the eyes of the footballing authorities the new Rangers are a continuation of the old Rangers. So then 'relegation' to the 3rd was a punishment from the SPL ... Was it not? FFS i am confusing myself here...i know it is easy done They weren't actually relegated to the SFL, although that is effectively the result. They were expelled from the SPL (due to the transfer of share being rejected), and applied for the vacancy in the SFL. As a result of Dundee moving up to the SPL, and others shuffling into D1 and D2 to replace them, this vacancy was in D3. So actually Rangers were relegated to limbo from the SPL, and promoted to SFL3 from limbo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 You think this shit is simple? You are vastly over estimating my intellect here So you are saying any further punishment is not legally enforcable? Surely that cant be correct? I thought to be a continuation of the football club you only had to have the same SFA membership...which The Rangers have. I am not interested in the law of the land regarding the club/company but purely in the laws of the game and the football club It's not legally enforceable, CG has agreed to everything on condition that his new club get to play football. The new club were not eligible for SFA membership due to lacking accounts (if club and company can be separated then where are the separate accounts?) so the SFA bent the rules and allowed them to use the membership of a soon to be dead club, it's amazing how much bending £160k plus can buy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurcher Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) You get Rasta Mouse in Zurich? I am agreeing with 1 small part and was saying this long before you joined this site. You have added nothing to the argument. Your claim the only punishement was a 10 point deduction being just 1 of many inaccuracies Jees the thread's moving fast again these days, it's hard to keep up. Yes we get Rasta Mouse, get the entire free to air British terrestrial channels (BBC1-4, ITV1-4, C4, E4 etc) as part of the basic package on the local cable telly. I even get ch5 so was lucky enough to watch New Dallas with the wife the other night, looked like Dallas, had a few of the same faces, and played at the same ranch, but wasn't the same. Reminds me of something.... If you bother to look back at my posting, I said the only punishment for going into administration was the 10 point deduction, the only other punishment you have had was the fine and transfer ban, and that was cancelled when Charlie took it to court and then only reapplied after negotiation which benefitted Sevco. Please feel free to point out any others though, you have all been asked many times. Also I have requested several times for any of you to list my "many innacuracies" and no-one has come forward, apart from the semantic issue over cheating/breaching the rules, and you agree with me on that! *edit for type thread not threat Edited September 7, 2012 by zurcher 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Tattiescone Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 So actually Rangers were relegated to limbo from the SPL, and promoted to SFL3 from limbo. Weren't they technically in purgatory between the 4th and 14th July? Or is that a bit too Catholic for our sectarian chums? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurcher Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Getting back to the Airdrie / Clydebank continuation...Surely The Rangers are a continuation of the old Rangers in the eyes of the footballing authorities. Not interetested in the oldco/newco and what your personal thoughts on the matter are but purely through the laws of the game. If The Rangers have the membership of old Rangers then why were they not invited to take their place in the SPL. Don't shoot me down here i am just looking for an explantion. I had a wee argument with a mate over this as i thought Airdrie United started in the lowest tier when they bought The Bankies..Looks like i was wrong..........again The situations are quite different. If Charlie Green had bought the assets of Rangers and been refused entry to the SFL, then had bought up say, Cowdenbeath and moved them to Ibrox and changed their name to Rangers, then that would be the same. You'd be calling them Rangers, we'd be calling them Cowdenbeath. The difference is that Sevco's application for a place in the league was granted, and so Newco Rangers are exactly that, Newco Rangers. Airdrie Utd were Newco Airdrieonians, but then bought Clydebank when they were refused a place in the league, so Clydebank still exist (as Airdrie Utd) and Airdrieonians do not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 The situations are quite different. If Charlie Green had bought the assets of Rangers and been refused entry to the SFL, then had bought up say, Cowdenbeath and moved them to Ibrox and changed their name to Rangers, then that would be the same. You'd be calling them Rangers, we'd be calling them Cowdenbeath. The difference is that Sevco's application for a place in the league was granted, and so Newco Rangers are exactly that, Newco Rangers. Airdrie Utd were Newco Airdrieonians, but then bought Clydebank when they were refused a place in the league, so Clydebank still exist (as Airdrie Utd) and Airdrieonians do not. Airdrionians obviously never had hundreds of thousands of pounds of fans' money to use as bribes to get a place in the league set up, cheaper to buy a near dead club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Weren't they technically in purgatory between the 4th and 14th July? Or is that a bit too Catholic for our sectarian chums? If they had been baptised they would have been in purgatory. Hence why I chose limbo! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurcher Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 This shit is more complicated than i thought I am also not 100% sure here but i thought we did get the Rangers SFA membership and the SPL membership was 'released' on the condition we accept any punishment through the EBT case. Now if The Rangers are going to be punished for crimes of the Old Rangers then surely in the eyes of the footballing authorities the new Rangers are a continuation of the old Rangers. So then 'relegation' to the 3rd was a punishment from the SPL ... Was it not? FFS i am confusing myself here...i know it is easy done I think the SFA membership was transferred over, not 100% sure though. The point of this was so that Green could attempt to hold on to the history of Rangers while having nothing to do with the debt. It seems to work for the fans, but everyone else knows it to be ridiculous. New Rangers being "punished" for the crimes of old Rangers was a condition of the membership, again negotiated between the SFA and Sevco. SPL membership was lost pending liquidation and given to Dundee once the clubs realised the fans weren't going to wear sneaking Newco back in. And as I'm sure someone will have typed before me, there was no relegation, you were kicked out the SPL, a newco was formed and this newco applied for a place, which was then granted. It was a promotion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 You think this shit is simple? You are vastly over estimating my intellect here So you are saying any further punishment is not legally enforcable? Surely that cant be correct? I thought to be a continuation of the football club you only had to have the same SFA membership...which The Rangers have. I am not interested in the law of the land regarding the club/company but purely in the laws of the game and the football club It is just like the football debt it was a condition of membership, you had to agree to repay the money from Newco for the sins of Oldco even though in the eyes of the law there would be no need via CVA or in this case liquidation. However due to Charlie wanting to reenact the resurrection the footballing debts are to be paid as condition of regaining/gaining a license to play football. This is a safeguard or clubs would just rack up lots of debt go into administration and return leaving others out of pocket. The temporary license has two purposes, the first, to placate the masses who can see the collusion with the authorities, secondly incase the Newco default and again these two points are about protecting the credibility of the football authorities who want to return the second coming of The Rangers (Sevco 2012) to where they were but need to appease everyone else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Aye and ye forgot to mention the fact that he "also ripped off the taxpayer to the tune of about £40,000" Is that a crime? How about £15m? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Aye and ye forgot to mention the fact that he "also ripped off the taxpayer to the tune of about £40,000" I wonder why?, best sweep that under the rug How much did you da pay ur maw? or was it the other way aboot? Tedi, you are a star. Talking of stars, those five on the old Rangers strip, what gives? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 The £15M that CW deliberately did not pay?, yes have agreed with this many times Still clutching at "a big boy did it and ran away"? Whether you like it or not, it was RFC that deliberately didn't pay, regardless of who gave the order. 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.