hellbhoy Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Will the "you're deid" brigade still be popping up in 2 years' time? Or 20 years' time? Sadly, they probably will. OH deffo BWM as one of those comments to the opposition just to score points and wind them up. I'm looking forward to Celtic & Rangers meeting up since last year because the threads and comments will certainly be funny. If Green could come up with the cash to pay the oldco's creditors because they got a favourable outcome in the BTC and acquired the oldco's companies house registration then there would be no argument IT'S RANGERS ! B@STARDS ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 ^^^ doing it wrong AW FFS I don't wanna know what yer other half says to you when your pumping her. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) There's the post i replied to. The inference i took from that was that you were as dismissive of the ECA and their finding about the club as most others on here,whether you agree or not with the ECA is neither here nor there but at least give them credence for reaching their finding without bias or influence you failed to do that,therefore giving the impression that no matter which body gives a decision in favour of the continuation you would be opposed to that decision. However what i failed to realise was that you do recognise(to a degree) the continuity,so for that i apologise to you. Fair enough. As you know, there's lots of analysis of sources when they get cited on here. It's fair enough, but it's influenced much of the reponse to failed lawyers, IRA writers, Leggo etc. What I was saying was that ECA would, in my view be expected to see things the way Rangers would wish. Rangers were a founding member and I'd maintain that the body is dedicated to the interests of the powerful. As for continuation, I conceded a version of it a while back. It was in response to your very own claim that you'd answer on what might be considered fair, if fans would accept continuation. As I said then - and since - I don't think it's seamless and I think it must be recognised that liquidation is what led to SFL3. However, clubs are defined by their fans, and the Rangers ones, for good or very ill - appear to still be in place. I can therefore accept a significant degree of continuation. Edited January 4, 2013 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) Guys, I think you're talking to a brick wall when it comes to Tedi The Liar and Blinkered Bennett. I understand you're trying to explain basic business laws, and I know football authorites broke their own rules to accomodate their zombified club. However, time and time again when faced with the indefensible or undeniable. They and the others will simply ignore, deflect, bring up a meaningless or discredited source to back up their argument. Edited January 4, 2013 by Fotbawmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 thats worked well tonight In terms of showing you up to be repetitive and without any form of counter argument i would say that it has been a great success. Consider yourself owned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtt Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Fair enough. As you know, there's lots of analysis of sources when they get cited on here. It's fair enough, but it's influenced much of the reponse to failed lawyers, IRA writers, Leggo etc. What I was saying was that ECA would, in my view be expected to see things the way Rangers would wish. Rangers were a founding member and I'd maintain that the body is dedicated to the interests of the powerful. As for continuation, I conceded a version of it a while back. It was in response to your very own claim that you'd answer on what might be considered fair, if fans would accept continuation. As I said then - and since - I don't think it's seamless and I think it must be recognised that liquidation is what led to SFL3. However, clubs are defined by their fans, and the Rangers ones, for good or very ill - appear to still be in place. I can therefore accept a significant degree of continuation. Bollocks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 The way Tedi and Kincardine have hijacked Bendarroch's use of the word "plastics" makes me cringe. Like a b*****d. Same guy Guys, I think you're talking to a brick wall when it comes to Tedi The Liar and Blinkered Bennett. I've just discovered that I am Tedi. Ask me a question and see if I, "Ignore, deflect or bring up a meaningless or discredited source." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtt Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Guys, I think you're talking to a brick wall when it comes to Tedi The Liar and Blinkered Bennett. I understand you're trying to explain basic business laws, and I know football authorites broke their own rules to accomodate their zombified club. However, time and time when faced with the indefensible or undeniable. They and the others will simply ignore, deflect or bring up a meaningless or discredited source to back up their argument. Hear,Hear 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Guys, I think you're talking to a brick wall when it comes to Tedi The Liar and Blinkered Bennett. I understand you're trying to explain basic business laws, and I know football authorites broke their own rules to accomodate their zombified club. However, time and time when faced with the indefensible or undeniable. They and the others will simply ignore, deflect or bring up a meaningless or discredited source to back up their argument. I agree with everything here. The only credible source they could provide is the statement from any of the governing bodies (SPL SFA SFL UEFA FIFA) agreeing that they are the same club. Not one of these bodies nor any legal source has made any such statement. Only the SFL has ignored their new club status (to an extent) whereas all other bodies have treated them ad though they were a brand new club. So no governing or legal source has agreed continuation since liquidation. Not one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I've just discovered that I am Tedi. Ask me a question and see if I, "Ignore, deflect or bring up a meaningless or discredited source." Who said if Rangers were liquidated that would mean the end of the 'History' ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) See if you good people believe Rangers are a continuation, and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, why do you try ever so hard to convince everyone else? Returning the love to those who try so hard to convince themselves that the opposite is true. Ultimately, a club exists because of its support and the culture that surrounds it. It has no reason or need to exist otherwise. I don't give a f**k what the suits say with their fancy dan clauses, sub clauses, articles of association and all the rest of that shite. As I've said before - I don't support the newco just as I didn't support the oldco - I support Rangers. Nothing has changed for me - except a new found desire to see some other clubs suffer exactly as we did. And how the f**k I'll laugh when it inevitably happens. Oh, there has been one other shift in my outlook of late, I do now hope they reconstruct the leagues to fast-track us back. Even if only because it should see the integrity warriors refuse to support their own clubs and help speed them to a sweet state of total fuckedupedness. Edited January 4, 2013 by Bendarroch 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Ask me a question and see if I, "Ignore, deflect or bring up a meaningless or discredited source." Name one legal or governing source or body which has stated that the old club continues despite liquidation 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Guys, I think you're talking to a brick wall when it comes to Tedi The Liar and Blinkered Bennett. I understand you're trying to explain basic business laws, and I know football authorites broke their own rules to accomodate their zombified club. However, time and time again when faced with the indefensible or undeniable. They and the others will simply ignore, deflect, bring up a meaningless or discredited source to back up their argument. Much more likely - there's no value in your pish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Returning the love to those who try so hard to convince themselves that the opposite is true. Ultimately, a club exists because of its support and the culture that surrounds it. It has no reason or need to exist otherwise. I don't give a f**k what the suits say with their fancy dan clauses, sub clauses, articles of association and all the rest of that shite. As I've said before - I don't support the newco just as I didn't support the oldco - I support Rangers. Nothing has changed for me - except a new found desire to see some other clubs suffer exactly as we did. And how the f**k I'll laugh when it inevitably happens. Oh, there has been one other shift in my outlook of late, I do now hope they reconstruct the leagues to fast-track us back. Even if only because it should see the integrity warriors refuse to support their own clubs and help speed them to a sweet state of total fuckedupedness. As already stated. Everyone in the football world outside of the orc support believe that this is a completely new club with no history or titles. If the orcs genuinely dont care then why come on here attempting to convince everyone else that legality doesnt apply to you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Name one legal or governing source or body which has stated that the old club continues despite liquidation The SFL. OK next? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Who said if Rangers were liquidated that would mean the end of the 'History' ? You. OK next? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) Name one legal or governing source or body which has stated that the old club continues despite liquidation Name one footballing authority that has definitively stated that there is no club continuity,by that i mean a full statement alluding to Rangers and Rangers alone. And while you're here kindly explain why Rangers will be insolvent by the end of this year as you stated on another thread. Got to come back to this to add;Lord Glennie is a legal source that determined the club was one and the same,Lord Nimmo Smith was another.. Edited January 4, 2013 by youngsy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 The SFL. OK next? Really? The SFL have stated that since liquidation the club continues unbroken? Three questions raised here. 1, where is this statement 2, why did the SFL not seed rangers in the League Cup based on their previous league position 3, why did they not accept rangers as though they had been relegated from the SPL ad opposed to treating them as new entrants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 As already stated. Everyone in the football world outside of the orc support believe that this is a completely new club with no history or titles. If the orcs genuinely dont care then why come on here attempting to convince everyone else that legality doesnt apply to you. Karl-Heinz Rumminige recognises the continuity on behalf of the ECA. Now unless Rumminege is a Rangers fan i would say that he's quite a high profile figure in European football who is well outside the Rangers community,wouldn't you? Amongst others of the ECA of course who give their recommendations to UEFA 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Karl-Heinz Rumminige recognises the continuity on behalf of the ECA. Now unless Rumminege is a Rangers fan i would say that he's quite a high profile figure in European football who is well outside the Rangers community,wouldn't you? Amongst others of the ECA of course who give their recommendations to UEFA The ECA are neither a legal nor a governing source. 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.