Bendarroch Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) So we are pretty much agreed. Green's Govan Galloots are a new club. I'm glad that's settled. We should now let them quietly get on with climbing the leagues and making new friends wherever they go. Best wishes and all that. Only the diddies (as if they matter a f**k) and some plastics would 'pretty much agree'. And we know they are lying to themselves to make an unpalatable truth digestible. The plan was - Rangers to die in the summer, no league to play in, Ibrox sold to pay creditors - that didn't happen so the plan evolved to an empty Ibrox, Rangers to die in September/October/November/Yadda, a failed share issue, diddy-players and - of course - the Tax man to absolutely f**k us over. Didnae happen - we're still at Ibrox, packed houses, successful share issue, decent players, tax man slammed and - those b*****ds! - winning relentlessly. Again. We'll be back horsing the likes of dolly in no time at all. Blink of an eye. You know it, we know it, everyone knows it. The only thing we don't know is what the top league will be called when we get there and how many of their current clubs make it and how many fhail. I'd love it to be Aberghreen, but the wee hibs would be my first club of choice to fail. Much more likely we'll have Killie (oh those nasty, nasty rumours just wont shush) or Vlad's rocketry down first. 'Mon the fast-track reconstruction plans. That would be fucking sweet. ETA - I do hope that Rangers refuse transfer fees to SPL clubs into the future. Taking their best players on bosmans would be perfect. Edited January 25, 2013 by Bendarroch 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Didnae happen - we're still at Ibrox, packed houses, successful share issue, decent players, tax man slammed and - those b*****ds! - winning relentlessly. Again. :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Only the diddies (as if they matter a f**k) and some plastics would 'pretty much agree'. And we know they are lying to themselves to make an unpalatable truth digestible. The plan was - Rangers to die in the summer, no league to play in, Ibrox sold to pay creditors - that didn't happen so the plan evolved to an empty Ibrox, Rangers to die in September/October/November/Yadda, a failed share issue, diddy-players and - of course - the Tax man to absolutely f**k us over. Didnae happen - we're still at Ibrox, packed houses, successful share issue, decent players, tax man slammed and - those b*****ds! - winning relentlessly. Again. We'll be back horsing the likes of dolly in no time at all. Blink of an eye. You know it, we know it, everyone knows it. The only thing we don't know is what the top league will be called when we get there and how many of their current clubs make it and how many fhail. I'd love it to be Aberghreen, but the wee hibs would be my first club of choice to fail. Much more likely we'll have Killie (oh those nasty, nasty rumours just wont shush) or Vlad's rocketry down first. 'Mon the fast-track reconstruction plans. That would be fucking sweet. ETA - I do hope that Rangers refuse transfer fees to SPL clubs into the future. Taking their best players on bosmans would be perfect. Just one 'fhailure' so far. The Old 1872 (or is it 1873) Rangers. Hence the New imitation (plastic?) Rangers 2012 currentll playing with style and dignity in the bottom reaches. Most other clubs have had financial concerns as far back as I can remember, but always seem to get by - albeit, a few with successful CVAs, possibly because they all carried a degree of goodwill. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Just one 'fhailure' so far. The Old 1872 (or is it 1873) Rangers. Hence the New imitation (plastic?) Rangers 2012 currentll playing with style and dignity in the bottom reaches. Most other clubs have had financial concerns as far back as I can remember, but always seem to get by - albeit, a few with successful CVAs, possibly because they all carried a degree of goodwill. I hope those fanciful, fantasy thoughts offer you at least some comfort when we're back rubbing your noses in endless Rangers wins over Aberghreen. I know that for a fact - even though I have no idea where dholly are placed in the wobble to be least worst loser in this seasons One Horse Race championship your, eh, competing in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally88 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 :lol: No you're struggling ... LOLZ .. what a fcking halfwit., (just after I have ridiculed him for that). No you're a jakey, thick as mince .. etc. Lolz?? Are you 12 years old? Be careful at the piggery. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Only the diddies (as if they matter a f**k) and some plastics would 'pretty much agree'. Welcome to the club Didnae happen - we're still at Ibrox, packed houses, successful share issue, decent players Your team is rank mate, and the funniest thing about it is you can't even afford them 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I hope those fanciful, fantasy thoughts offer you at least some comfort when we're back rubbing your noses in endless Rangers wins over Aberghreen. I know that for a fact - even though I have no idea where dholly are placed in the wobble to be least worst loser in this seasons One Horse Race championship your, eh, competing in. MUSSUS BUNFIELD!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 The word you're looking for is "opinion", Youngsy. Judges offer Opinions all the time, which are just that, and in no way definitive. There's a long way to go before that happens. Strange as it may seem, legal opinions are not the be all and end all, and have been known to be changed or retracted in the face of new evidence or circumstances. Something a bit more current would help your argument - so would not having posted what you did in April. See, opinions change with circumstances....yours as well, apparently. Sorry, Youngsy, but I can see no evidence in this to suggest that you had the slightest notion that the company and club were separate. In actual fact, you don't even USE the word "company" - and why would you? As for recognition from the football authorities, would that be the spineless SPL, the corrupt SFA, or the b*****ds in the SFL that vetoed SFL1? Funny how opinions change with circumstances, isn't it? First of all i should have paragraphed that post,very amiss of me. However it's very pedantic to point out that i referred to the club rather than the PLC as regards the EBTs but that in no way constitutes a change of opinion from me,it doesn't matter how you or anyone reads it. As regards the SFA,SPL,SFL i don't think you'll find me describing these bodies in such a way as you've described,but as i've stated numerous times,as long as the football authorities recognise continuity of the club under a football context then that is all i'm interested in. Now as i said before this is all getting rather tedious and at the end of the day the continuity has been recognised uNder the context i described whether people accept it or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 After some digging around I have found the English FA's view on football clubs becoming limited companies. English FA's view on clubs Now noticeably you'll note why Rangers became a limited company. A, It becomes a recognised entity within the law and can create an accounting department to file accounts as well as a legal department or one guy to run both. B, If the club becomes insolvent the owners are not liable for the clubs debts ? sounds like a good reason the clubs founders to become one. No where in the FA's guidelines says the club has a separate company to run it's affairs at all other than the club will now have the capacity to legally run it's affairs and will be recognised by the law as a company,companies house do not list football clubs as clubs they are legally recognised as a company as the UK law requires.For tax purposes only as well as legal protection in courts for the owners. What sort of person wastes their time reading the English FA's rule book? Sorry Hellboy but you're a f**king nutter mate 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Zombie fan is really seething ... pleasing ... aye, they are watching their Charlie Green imitation 'plastic' pseudo Rangers and indulging in the self-delusion that it is still 'The Mighty Glasgow Rainjurs -We Are The Peepul!!!! '. A bit like thinking they are in a steamy session with Rihanna while they feverishly pump their blow-up doll. as you say 'pleasing' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 First of all i should have paragraphed that post,very amiss of me. However it's very pedantic to point out that i referred to the club rather than the PLC as regards the EBTs but that in no way constitutes a change of opinion from me,it doesn't matter how you or anyone reads it. As regards the SFA,SPL,SFL i don't think you'll find me describing these bodies in such a way as you've described,but as i've stated numerous times,as long as the football authorities recognise continuity of the club under a football context then that is all i'm interested in. Now as i said before this is all getting rather tedious and at the end of the day the continuity has been recognised uNder the context i described whether people accept it or not. ^^^^ Still thinks you can separate PLC from the club as if they are two different things! Doesn't know what incorporated means. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 So, can you clarify when you changed your stance on this, I'm struggling to understand your posts from April that I quoted earlier... The ones where you discuss every bit of shit that was flying about, EBTs, dual contracts, liquidation... And at every opportunity you describe them as that of the club's. Not once did you consider using the term PLC or company, or mention to separate parts within Ibrox. How come for you it was all the club, at the start of April? What changed? Simple - pure expediency. Back in March, it was most convenient to say one thing. As soon as April began and the situation changed, and it was more convenient to say the opposite. Nothing more logical, moral or intellectual going on than that. To demonstrate how this works, here's an example from today's press - Derek Johnstone suddenly, miraculously changes his mind on the issue of Ibrox naming rights... http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/rangerscomment/derek-johnstone-we-have-seen-darker-days-than-renaming-of-ibrox-fans-113661n.20003934 Short summary - 1) Derek Johnstone was not in favour of selling naming rights to Ibrox, and thought it was a terrible idea and a mercenary travesty. 2) Derek Johnstone has now realised that Charles Green is going to sell the naming rights, whether DJ likes it or not, and so 3) Derek Johnstone is now very much in favour of selling naming rights to Ibrox, and says it's an awesome idea. Has he been won over by the economic argument, or has he just realised he's going to be disagreeing with the rest of his easily-led supporter base? You decide... I know everyone else knows this, but really is worth repeating - if Ibrox was destroyed by an earthquake and drowned in a tsunami tomorrow, Rangers fans would show up the day after claiming that they'd always been in favour of violent tectonic upheavals and destructive inundations. It's in their nature. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 ^^^^ Still thinks you can separate PLC from the club as if they are two different things! Doesn't know what incorporated means. Oh i know what full well what incorporated means but perhaps you should quote the part of my post which states,"as long as the footballing authorities recognise the continuity of the club under a football context then that's all i'm interested in". Did you miss that part or just choose to ignore it to suit your argument. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic Rebel. Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 1. You obviously can't read 2. It's a guide to legal structures of clubs and a document to advise (also educational .. you may learn something) I've highlighted the important parts .. the bits that make you WEEP .... This is how fucking mental the zombies are,take a look at this. http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC426693 Asdfghjkl Limited is an Active business incorporated in Scotland on 21st June 2012. Their business activity has not been recorded. Asdfghjkl Limited is run by 1 current members. . It has no share capital. It is not part of a group. The company has not yet filed accounts. Asdfghjkl Limited's Risk Score was amended on 25/06/2012. Previous Names Previous name: RFC 2012 LIMITED Date changed: 31/07/2012 Previous name: RFC 0712 LIMITED Date changed: 22/06/2012 asdfghjkl Ltd the middle line of a keyboard. Mental as f**k that mob. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Simple - pure expediency. Back in March, it was most convenient to say one thing. As soon as April began and the situation changed, and it was more convenient to say the opposite. Nothing more logical, moral or intellectual going on than that. To demonstrate how this works, here's an example from today's press - Derek Johnstone suddenly, miraculously changes his mind on the issue of Ibrox naming rights... http://www.eveningti...13661n.20003934 Short summary - 1) Derek Johnstone was not in favour of selling naming rights to Ibrox, and thought it was a terrible idea and a mercenary travesty. 2) Derek Johnstone has now realised that Charles Green is going to sell the naming rights, whether DJ likes it or not, and so 3) Derek Johnstone is now very much in favour of selling naming rights to Ibrox, and says it's an awesome idea. Has he been won over by the economic argument, or has he just realised he's going to be disagreeing with the rest of his easily-led supporter base? You decide... I know everyone else knows this, but really is worth repeating - if Ibrox was destroyed by an earthquake and drowned in a tsunami tomorrow, Rangers fans would show up the day after claiming that they'd always been in favour of violent tectonic upheavals and destructive inundations. It's in their nature. A good example of cognitive dissonance. We see a lot of it from fans the new, plastic, rangers int. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 They transferred a licence from a club (incorporated company) to what exactly Youngsy .... ??? ^^^Ahm young Dhensboy an ah like dishing oot questions so ah dae, it makes feel very impotent so it dis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 ^^^Ahm young Dhensboy an ah like dishing oot questions so ah dae, it makes feel very impotent so it dis. move along, this doesn't concern you. it;s a discussion, far too advanced. away and PM Tedi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 They transferred a licence from a club (incorporated company) to what exactly Youngsy .... ??? I'm sure that this has been done more than a few times on here but just to satisfy you;Transference of the original SFA Membership of the club took place on 3.08/2012 between The Rangers Football Club plc and Sevco Scotland,renamed The Rangers Football Club Limited. Now can you have the good grace to answer this truthfully;has the continuity of the club been recognised after transference of the SFA membership by the SFA,SPL,SFL? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Capsule Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Simple - pure expediency. Back in March, it was most convenient to say one thing. As soon as April began and the situation changed, and it was more convenient to say the opposite. Nothing more logical, moral or intellectual going on than that. To demonstrate how this works, here's an example from today's press - Derek Johnstone suddenly, miraculously changes his mind on the issue of Ibrox naming rights... http://www.eveningti...13661n.20003934 Short summary - 1) Derek Johnstone was not in favour of selling naming rights to Ibrox, and thought it was a terrible idea and a mercenary travesty. 2) Derek Johnstone has now realised that Charles Green is going to sell the naming rights, whether DJ likes it or not, and so 3) Derek Johnstone is now very much in favour of selling naming rights to Ibrox, and says it's an awesome idea. Has he been won over by the economic argument, or has he just realised he's going to be disagreeing with the rest of his easily-led supporter base? You decide... I know everyone else knows this, but really is worth repeating - if Ibrox was destroyed by an earthquake and drowned in a tsunami tomorrow, Rangers fans would show up the day after claiming that they'd always been in favour of violent tectonic upheavals and destructive inundations. It's in their nature. Here's where I think Charles Green realizes he can do whatever he wants now. Wasn't it The Union Bears (or some other group) that claimed they would boycott Ibrox if the name was changed? Maybe it was no supporter group at all. My memory isn't so good. What will happen WHEN the name gets changed is no-one will avoid going because of the name. Now, they can protest all they want and claim they won't go as it's not Ibrox, name isn't for sale etc, might not attend a few weeks, but these Rangers fans live for football and have nothing else as important in their life. they will return eventually. You have to admire their passion for the club, but it's also somewhat sad that they don't have much else going on in their lives. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Here's where I think Charles Green realizes he can do whatever he wants now. Wasn't it The Union Bears (or some other group) that claimed they would boycott Ibrox if the name was changed? Maybe it was no supporter group at all. My memory isn't so good. What will happen WHEN the name gets changed is no-one will avoid going because of the name. Now, they can protest all they want and claim they won't go as it's not Ibrox, name isn't for sale etc, might not attend a few weeks, but these Rangers fans live for football and have nothing else as important in their life. they will return eventually. You have to admire their passion for the club, but it's also somewhat sad that they don't have much else going on in their lives. You're correct it will be a short term non-attendance by very few as tbh the majority of fans realise that clubs are willing to bring in sponsorship cash from every avenue,including the renaming of their stadium. It won't affect the crowd attendace in any significant way. 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.