The Troll Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 A book published in the 1920s: That's brilliance 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mylothedog Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 A book published in the 1920s: so...... it was 1873 and not 1872 after all!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Also this is FIFA's take on the matter... Rangers go under 14 June Rangers’ perilous financial position had been an open secret but there was still shock when, after 140 years of history and a world record 54 league titles, the club was consigned to liquidation in mid-June. The Glasgow giants were subsequently reformed as a new company and granted entry to the Third Division, Scotland’s fourth tier, which they currently lead by nine points with a game in hand. My link 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Also this is FIFA's take on the matter... Rangers go under 14 June Rangers' perilous financial position had been an open secret but there was still shock when, after 140 years of history and a world record 54 league titles, the club was consigned to liquidation in mid-June. The Glasgow giants were subsequently reformed as a new company and granted entry to the Third Division, Scotland's fourth tier, which they currently lead by nine points with a game in hand. My link From a blog-type article. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 From a blog-type article. Indeed, just so you know I wasn't taking any side I'm merely trying to provide evidence to try and end this discussion, therefore ending this thread so it can be closed, culled slightly and moved into the Gold Forum 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Indeed, just so you know I wasn't taking any side I'm merely trying to provide evidence to try and end this discussion, therefore ending this thread so it can be closed, culled slightly and moved into the Gold Forum To be fair, it's a good idea to put the thread out of its misery. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 A book published in the 1920s: Great, so does that mean you'll be celebrating 140 days of proud history tommorow? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ How about after the club Rangers is wound up .. the one being looked after by the liquidators. That would probably mark a decent cut-off point, given the Thread's title, right enough. I'd miss the thread though. Obviously, it's best days lie well behind us, but it still serves a purpose in drawing lots of stuff together. When interesting stuff does come along, it's probably the best place to discuss title stripping etc. It's definitely not at its best right now though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscar mad Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 1357382047[/url]' post='6952378']A month after the ECA statement and the P&Bers still can't accept or handle it. and ...and the 'Motherwell fan' popping up everywhere attention seeking and and We all accept and handle it, just seems Sevco fans don't understand it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Getting a bit tedious .. no we're not .. aye you are. I'm as guilty as anybody of being drawing into the Orc's deflective pish. A pity thread owners cannot moderated their own thread and delete pish posts. I think 75% of these pages would go. It's an "unwinnable" argument imo. I'll never believe they are the same club, they will always believe they are the same club. I'm guilty too, but it is getting boring now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 and ...and the 'Motherwell fan' popping up everywhere attention seeking and and Clearly raging. Probably the easiest of all the orcs on here (well aliases anyway) to break. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 It's an "unwinnable" argument imo. I'll never believe they are the same club, they will always believe they are the same club. I'm guilty too, but it is getting boring now. The interesting aspect is that the orcs clearly deep down dont believe it. If they did why would they grasp and jump and hold up for all to see any shred of tenuous evidence they can find. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 It's an "unwinnable" argument imo. I'll never believe they are the same club, they will always believe they are the same club. I'm guilty too, but it is getting boring now. It is a winnable argument but certain people won't accept the situation that Rangers PLC had to be liquidated first before Green reformed the same team under a new club status.Although it is still Rangers under any other guise but with the embarrassment of having to be reformed from liquidation hurts Rangers fans like fcuk There was Rangers PLC in admin and Sevco Scotland existing at the very same time shortly after 14th of June 2012 ! so what defines a club here between the 2 ? the Rangers fans would argue that it is the fans that are the club,but the fans need a team to support or it is not a club.Who owned the team here in this instance ? Rangers PLC in admin or Sevco Scotland which will become Rangers Ltd ? As far as I'm aware the PLC still had the players under contract and none had tuped over.I may also point out here that Green at this time only had the stadium and facilities and the PLC had the players under contract and the PLC also still was the member club with the SPL & SFA,I would argue that the PLC here was still the club as it had the team but no stadium.The team could have played on the streets and the fans said they would watch them on them and Green had no team but had facilities to field a team. In short Rangers were liquidated then within a short period of time the club was reformed and resurrected under Green the only thing Rangers have really lost is their original companies house registrations which is the most important thing to claim that the club is in fact the very same club it has always been.It will still hurt Rangers fans like fcuk that the club was killed off even if it was only for a short period of time . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 It is a winnable argument but certain people won't accept the situation that Rangers PLC had to be liquidated first before Green reformed the same team under a new club status.Although it is still Rangers under any other guise but with the embarrassment of having to be reformed from liquidation hurts Rangers fans like fcuk There was Rangers PLC in admin and Sevco Scotland existing at the very same time shortly after 14th of June 2012 ! so what defines a club here between the 2 ? the Rangers fans would argue that it is the fans that are the club,but the fans need a team to support or it is not a club.Who owned the team here in this instance ? Rangers PLC in admin or Sevco Scotland which will become Rangers Ltd ? As far as I'm aware the PLC still had the players under contract and none had tuped over.I may also point out here that Green at this time only had the stadium and facilities and the PLC had the players under contract and the PLC also still was the member club with the SPL & SFA,I would argue that the PLC here was still the club as it had the team but no stadium.The team could have played on the streets and the fans said they would watch them on them and Green had no team but had facilities to field a team. In short Rangers were liquidated then within a short period of time the club was reformed and resurrected under Green the only thing Rangers have really lost is their original companies house registrations which is the most important thing to claim that the club is in fact the very same club it has always been.It will still hurt Rangers fans like fcuk that the club was killed off even if it was only for a short period of time . In fact what happened was the company that used to run the club wasn't liquidated till around the beginning of November. You can check that at Companies House if you want. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 In fact what happened was the company that used to run the club wasn't liquidated till around the beginning of November. You can check that at Companies House if you want. No idea why you got a red dot for that. You just reported facts. Maybe the guy who did it can come on and give an explanation. I suspect, though, he won't show his cowardly moustache. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 In fact what happened was the company that used to run the club wasn't liquidated till around the beginning of November. You can check that at Companies House if you want. This club and company shite has went on far too long I'll be sure to inform any other businesses that they can when facing liquidation they can just ditch the company status and carry on just as before because Rangers have shown the way and any business can now avoid liquidation just by forming a new company in the very same name and plying the very same trade. It does not matter what the relevant dates are to which and what was done,the plain fact that Rangers the club PLC went into liquidation.Rangers the club PLC had to sell it's assets and give up it's membership licences.To which Charles Green then miraculously reformed the team in time to start the new season in the 3rd division and had to acquire the former clubs licences to carry on as Rangers. Every fucking source that is legal or credible says that Green reformed Rangers again after the club was given over to the liquidation process ie it was going to be resigned into the history books.No companies house registration and Rangers are not a club because they will not be able to trade in football ie the club can't play competitive games,can't by players or sell them,can't charge monies to watch the team play,can't join a senior or junior league and so on.Would Rangers fans actually watch their former players on the pavements and still call it a club ? can't see them players staying and playing on the pavements so the fans would have to play on the pavements and would they still consider themselves a club without a league ?.And who would care about a handful of diehards on the streets claiming to still be The Mighty Rangers 54 titles WATP ?. A challenge to the Rangers fans here ! who actually owns the licences ? the club or the company ? if it's the company then how can the club obtain a licence when the club itself needs the licence when it's the company that applies for it ? if it's the club the why does the company have to obtain the licence when it's the club that's needs it ? take away the company then can the club still remain a club if it does not own the licence itself and can't play a competitive fixture without it and would then run out of money and the players would leave by breach of contract.Would the fans show up and pay money to watch nothing ? Can Green sell the club and still keep the company running a profit ? and would the new company still run the club as a club when it's Greens company who would have the relevant licence and stadium which means the club couldn't compete in a competitive fixture,so the new company would have to obtain a new licence because Green needs the licence to make money without a club because he still owns the company the stadium and facilities as they are not the club and it's the company that obtained the licence. The club is the company as both need to be each other as to be a singular entity to be a club and at the same time a company or it's nothing at all. Lastly I'd like to see someone sell a club/players and keep the company,stadium and facilities ! I do wonder how that would work out for the club/players if it has no company run it's affairs or a stadium to play football in 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) We all accept and handle it, just seems Sevco fans don't understand it. Some of the Celtic fans don't like that word mate and are petty enough to report you for it. Edited January 5, 2013 by bennett 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 This club and company shite has went on far too long I'll be sure to inform any other businesses that they can when facing liquidation they can just ditch the company status and carry on just as before because Rangers have shown the way and any business can now avoid liquidation just by forming a new company in the very same name and plying the very same trade. It does not matter what the relevant dates are to which and what was done,the plain fact that Rangers the club PLC went into liquidation.Rangers the club PLC had to sell it's assets and give up it's membership licences.To which Charles Green then miraculously reformed the team in time to start the new season in the 3rd division and had to acquire the former clubs licences to carry on as Rangers. Every fucking source that is legal or credible says that Green reformed Rangers again after the club was given over to the liquidation process ie it was going to be resigned into the history books.No companies house registration and Rangers are not a club because they will not be able to trade in football ie the club can't play competitive games,can't by players or sell them,can't charge monies to watch the team play,can't join a senior or junior league and so on.Would Rangers fans actually watch their former players on the pavements and still call it a club ? can't see them players staying and playing on the pavements so the fans would have to play on the pavements and would they still consider themselves a club without a league ?.And who would care about a handful of diehards on the streets claiming to still be The Mighty Rangers 54 titles WATP ?. A challenge to the Rangers fans here ! who actually owns the licences ? the club or the company ? if it's the company then how can the club obtain a licence when the club itself needs the licence when it's the company that applies for it ? if it's the club the why does the company have to obtain the licence when it's the club that's needs it ? take away the company then can the club still remain a club if it does not own the licence itself and can't play a competitive fixture without it and would then run out of money and the players would leave by breach of contract.Would the fans show up and pay money to watch nothing ? Can Green sell the club and still keep the company running a profit ? and would the new company still run the club as a club when it's Greens company who would have the relevant licence and stadium which means the club couldn't compete in a competitive fixture,so the new company would have to obtain a new licence because Green needs the licence to make money without a club because he still owns the company the stadium and facilities as they are not the club and it's the company that obtained the licence. The club is the company as both need to be each other as to be a singular entity to be a club and at the same time a company or it's nothing at all. Lastly I'd like to see someone sell a club/players and keep the company,stadium and facilities ! I do wonder how that would work out for the club/players if it has no company run it's affairs or a stadium to play football in Do you really think another company couldn't take over the club? What Green then did with the company that now runs the club would be up to him. He could change its name again and run a burger joint or a petrol station with it if he wanted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Do you really think another company couldn't take over the club? What Green then did with the company that now runs the club would be up to him. He could change its name again and run a burger joint or a petrol station with it if he wanted. Pretty sure this is what hes doing right now. Apart from the petrol station. But any day now....... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 It's an "unwinnable" argument imo. I'll never believe they are the same club, they will always believe they are the same club. Sensible summary. It is a winnable argument but certain people won't accept the situation Insane summary. 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.