oscar mad Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 1357241528[/url]' post='6947697']Are we back to "it's no the same club" pish on here yet again? Listen you all can say we're not the same club for as long and as much as you want but it will never be our opinion or what UEFA,FIFA,ECA,SFL etc says or what the rest of the world barring Scotland think. So up ye ya c***s. We'll be proud of our glorious 54 titles and you lot can envy us. ^^^^^ cry me a river 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 The UEFA website demonstrates the continuation of the club It doesn't ,ECA recognise the continuation, Quite the opposite. Under the Swiss Law, within which they operate, they had to terminate Rangers membership and grant a brand new membership to the brand new club. SFL recognise the continuation, They don't, hence why they put you in the 3rd Division and not the 1st and why you weren't seeded in the League Cup. transference of SFA membership ensures continuation, The very fact that the membership had to be "transferred" highlights that its a brand new club! Doh! Lord Glennies summation ruled the club was one and the same from 1872. Lord Glennie made his ruling before Rangers went into liqquidation and sold its assets. There have been many other instances of member clubs of UEFA that have went through the same as Rangers whose timeline is recognised as continuos,Rangers,as a member club of UEFA are no different,our timeline has been recognised by the appropiate football authorities. Its not been recognised by any football authorities - hence why the brand new club is in the 3rd Division. The Annals of Scottish Football going forward will record the club as one and the same,founded in 1872,with our next trophy the 225th in all competitions played since 1872. That's the reality,people might not accept it but the record books will show as such. The records will show that The Rangers began life in the 3rd Division. You might not accept it but that is what the record books will show. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Are we back to "it's no the same club" pish on here yet again? Listen you all can say we're not the same club for as long and as much as you want but it will never be our opinion or what UEFA,FIFA,ECA,SFL etc says or what the rest of the world barring Scotland think. On the contrary, its the opinion of Scots Law, Swiss Law, FIFA, UEFA, ECA, SFA, SFL, SPL and every single non Rangers supporter on the planet that The Rangers is a brand new club. We'll be proud of our glorious 54 titles and you lot can envy us. You can be as proud as you like of the 54 titles won by your club through the exploitation of sectarianism, bigotry, intimidation and cheating - feeling proud of a football club is what life's losers do. But that club is now dead and the new club you support has won fuck all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Meet me half-way then Bennett. It's not been a seamless 'continuation'. Had it been so, Rangers would be in the SPL with points penalties and crippling debts. I think I'm right in saying you fully accept not being in the SPL, so there's an extent to which things have changed due to the management of the former club - no? Don't go all Andy Cameron on us now. I'd say it is, if we were out of football for a while and then came back after a year or two then i'd maybe agree with you. Rules were broken and we're now in the bottom tier thats all. Thank f**k one P&Ber hasn't airbrushed out the SPL's proposed financial and points deduction schemes that were once mooted and for that i thank you. Thats harsh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 This thread has descended into pish again over nothing roll on the SPL commission to get things heated up when the commission will publicly state Rangers the club died on the 14th of June 2012 and had to be reformed to take the place of the dead club but I will concede to some sort of continuance of a team called Rangers playing football at Ibrox ! The Clone Rangers ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 This thread has descended into pish again over nothing roll on the SPL commission to get things heated up when the commission will publicly state Rangers the club died on the 14th of June 2012 and had to be reformed to take the place of the dead club but I will concede to some sort of continuance of a team called Rangers playing football at Ibrox ! The Clone Rangers ! Perhaps you should quote page 17 of the three man commission instead. "In common speech a club is treated as a recognisable entitiy which is capable of being owned and operated,and which continues in existance despite it's transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on,bought and sold" Perhaps you should also take into account the finding of Lord Glennie,as well as that of the ECA an organisation that is fully funded by UEFA and has no gain for recognising the club continuity. Add to that the SFL recognising the continuity. As i've said before the club continuity is recognised by the appropiate football authorities and this will be verifified when the clubs next trophy is recognised as the 225th. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbungo1874 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Perhaps you should quote page 17 of the three man commission instead. "In common speech a club is treated as a recognisable entitiy which is capable of being owned and operated,and which continues in existance despite it's transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on,bought and sold" Perhaps you should also take into account the finding of Lord Glennie,as well as that of the ECA an organisation that is fully funded by UEFA and has no gain for recognising the club continuity. Add to that the SFL recognising the continuity. As i've said before the club continuity is recognised by the appropiate football authorities and this will be verifified when the clubs next trophy is recognised as the 225th. However Charles Green bought 224 of those titles so it would be nice to see Sevco win one on the pitch 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Rules were broken and we're now in the bottom tier thats all. No, that interpretation implies that wrongdoing was punished by an authorised demotion of several divisions. It didn't happen that way. A club died and the new one taking its place was offered a berth at the base of the National leagues. I actually can accept a continuity of sorts (beating a total newcomer in September would have been far less fun), but let's not pretend it's been seamless - that's dishonest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Perhaps you should quote page 17 of the three man commission instead. "In common speech a club is treated as a recognisable entitiy which is capable of being owned and operated,and which continues in existance despite it's transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on,bought and sold" Perhaps you should also take into account the finding of Lord Glennie,as well as that of the ECA an organisation that is fully funded by UEFA and has no gain for recognising the club continuity. Add to that the SFL recognising the continuity. As i've said before the club continuity is recognised by the appropiate football authorities and this will be verifified when the clubs next trophy is recognised as the 225th. I do love the way Rangers fans quote what they like and forget the rest if it does not fit the agenda.Paragraph [45] on the commission report relates to the death of the club {Rangers FC} and on which day the club actually died as within the rules of the associations of liquidated clubs. Also Youngsy I wouldn't put too much faith in the commission as it's primary function is to legally dish out punishments from the old club to the new club if the commission agree to the SPL's supplied evidence ! operator ? that in the associations rules are for selling clubs that are actually not being liquidated and are financially viable like when Murray sold Rangers to Whyte and not when the liquidators were called in to wind up the dying club and the assets were sold off to pay of debts. One point here ! why did the club have to be reformed ? And FCUK yer ECA accredited link because it's been well debunked because a Rangers guy runs it. Rangers fans and only Rangers fans will claim to be the very same club minus the debt even when confronted with actual evidence that the club died.So when another club gets liquidated and reforms will you then say that that club is in fact the very same club ? Rangers did die and reformed with as much as the old clubs history,assets & licence to be a continuance of "A" Rangers team that plays football at Ibrox and that's the gospel there.You and your fans can claim to be the very same club only when all the creditors have been paid off and your club reclaims the companies house papers that the old club had dating back to the end of the 18th century. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) No, that interpretation implies that wrongdoing was punished by an authorised demotion of several divisions. It didn't happen that way. A club died and the new one taking its place was offered a berth at the base of the National leagues. I actually can accept a continuity of sorts (beating a total newcomer in September would have been far less fun), but let's not pretend it's been seamless - that's dishonest. I'm not having that, several SPL charimen (those who voted) made it clear that their actions were down to wrong doings of Rangers which needed a substantial rebuke from them. As Stuart 'big man' Gilmour put it, we used EBT's for years and by jove we were going to pay for it but that's going away from what we're talking about. The whole was it the club or company who went under has been done to death, there's others who may take that up with you. As far as i'm concerned we've carried on from last season without missing any games and the team i go and support is the same one, only in a lower tier. Edited January 3, 2013 by bennett 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 You and your fans can claim to be the very same club only when all the creditors have been paid off and your club reclaims the companies house papers that the old club had dating back to the end of the 18th century. I don't think even Bendarroch claims they're that old, mate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I'm not having that, several SPL charimen (those who voted) made it clear that their actions were down to wrong doings of Rangers which needed a substantial rebuke from them. As Stuart 'big man' Gilmour put it, we used EBT's for years and by jove we were going to pay for it but that's going away from what we're talking about. The whole was it the club or company who went under has been done to death, there's others who may take that up with you. As far as i'm concerned we've carried on from last season without missing any games and the team i go and support is the same one, only in a lower tier. I don't think that's the case. The chairmen acted in the best interests of the club and league on the basis that their club's supporters balked at the idea of a club going bust and starting in the top league. I don't blame them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Most interesting revelation tonight is the suggestion of another spurious Rangers floating about in the ether, formed in the 1700's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 No, that interpretation implies that wrongdoing was punished by an authorised demotion of several divisions. It didn't happen that way. A club died and the new one taking its place was offered a berth at the base of the National leagues. I actually can accept a continuity of sorts (beating a total newcomer in September would have been far less fun), but let's not pretend it's been seamless - that's dishonest. Ask him why Nuff n Helps got to vote on whether to allow Green's newly formed club straight into the SPL when Nuff n Helps were still in control of Rangers PLC who still held the valid licence for the SPL and Rangers PLC were still an active SFA & SPL member at the time. Maybe throw in why did Green not have any fucking licence when the voting was taking place in the SPL & SFL to allow A NEW club straight into the senior leagues while Rangers PLC was in administration pending liquidation.So there was Rangers PLC in admin and Green looking for a shoe into the senior leagues by obtaining a licence. Rangers PLC weren't demoted they were ejected from the SPL & SFA after they got the order from the HMRC to wind up the club.Greens new Rangers were gifted a licence to play in the SFL 3rd division only because of the size of the support and no other reason ! preferential treatment ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I don't think even Bendarroch claims they're that old, mate. :lol: thanks for pointing that out 19th century then FFS ! I was thinking 1899 and it came out the wrong way :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Most interesting revelation tonight is the suggestion of another spurious Rangers floating about in the ether, formed in the 1700's. Let's keep repeating it to see if the daft orcs believe it eventually and yes I've made a blooper of it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I don't think that's the case. The chairmen acted in the best interests of the club and league on the basis that their club's supporters balked at the idea of a club going bust and starting in the top league. I don't blame them. Thats what i was talking about earlier with one of the monkey posters (can't recall which one), this whole revisionism/half truths about us staying in the SPL without mention of the sanctions (financial and points) which were to apply for 5 years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Ask him why Nuff n Helps got to vote on whether to allow Green's newly formed club straight into the SPL when Nuff n Helps were still in control of Rangers PLC who still held the valid licence for the SPL and Rangers PLC were still an active SFA & SPL member at the time. Maybe throw in why did Green not have any fucking licence when the voting was taking place in the SPL & SFL to allow A NEW club straight into the senior leagues while Rangers PLC was in administration pending liquidation.So there was Rangers PLC in admin and Green looking for a shoe into the senior leagues by obtaining a licence. Rangers PLC weren't demoted they were ejected from the SPL & SFA after they got the order from the HMRC to wind up the club.Greens new Rangers were gifted a licence to play in the SFL 3rd division only because of the size of the support and no other reason ! preferential treatment ! When administrators are called in they take over the running of the company, what is it with that you don't understand? Ofcourse voting took place after the CVA was rejected, even reading that as a layman, it has to be one of the most stupid things i've read on here. You forgot to mention the SPL's plan to bully the SFL into placing us into SFL1, not as clear cut as you make out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 When administrators are called in they take over the running of the company, what is it with that you don't understand? Ofcourse voting took place after the CVA was rejected, even reading that as a layman, it has to be one of the most stupid things i've read on here. You forgot to mention the SPL's plan to bully the SFL into placing us into SFL1, not as clear cut as you make out. Nuff n Helps voted on whether to allow Green's new club straight into the SPL while Rangers PLC were still an active member you nugget which meant Rangers PLC were voting to allow a new club straight into the SPL when the PLC club was to be liquidated into the history books because the CVA failed.Which part can't you understand ?. And it is clear cut ! Green wanted the SPL berth at any cost and had made a bid to have his new club admitted at the highest tier but instead the diddy clubs revolted and voted not to have a new club enter the senior leagues other than the 3rd division. Lastly when the embargo was enforced before the voting you Rangers fans were greetin yer eyes oot that ye wur gonna get relegated and forced to watch the worst Rangers team ever to play in either the SPL or the SFL 1st division and why you all wanted the 3rd because you all felt your youth players would pump all the teams in the 3rd rotten.Fucking glory hunters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Intangible Asset FC 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.