dorlomin Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 always fun when dorlomin appears as it shows the amigos for they are.... lolwut. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotfromFifehonest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 lolwut. Are you a new RM tit or just another ID - youz lads confuzzle me! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 thoroughly enjoyed catching up on the last day in the thread (laptop fecked so harder on phone)..... always fun when dorlomin appears as it shows the amigos for they are.... Anyhoo Tedi, if club/company totally seperate, what about the inelligibality to qualify for Europe until 3 years of accounts have been published? If club didn't die, why wouldn't chucky have put the club to a company that had already 3 years of accounts thus making new club eligible? Because it is the club that qualifies, NOT the company. They're deid. That one is easy, it's because the UEFA definition of a football club is "the legal entity fully responsible for the football team pa rticipating in national and international competitions" It's only us Scots who know they are the same club, that's because LNS has told us so in his summing up of the arbitration between the SPL and Rangers oldco. In Scotland they are the same club. We will find out if they are worldwide when FIFA rule on Rangers claims to compensation for the players who walked away eg McGregor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 lolwut. I think he means that this thread has approximately 2 intelligent Rangers fans and you are one of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotfromFifehonest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) I think he means that this thread has approximately 2 intelligent Rangers fans and you are one of them. 2 makes a crowd or a unique meeting of the 2 doesn't it? Where did you find 2 suck-up? Edited March 19, 2013 by NotfromFifehonest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 2 makes a crowd or a unique meeting of the 2 doesn't it? Where did you find 2 suck-up? Put it this way, it's two more than East Fife fans on the thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I think he means that this thread has approximately 2 intelligent Rangers fans and you are one of them. Correct, always enjoy dorlomins posts, call me a suckup if you wish..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calum_gers Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Rangers didn't publish their accounts last year so wouldn't have been allowed into Europe anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) Rangers didn't publish their accounts last year so wouldn't have been allowed into Europe anyway. That is only a one year suspension though. Edited March 19, 2013 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calum_gers Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Rangers didn't publish their accounts last year so wouldn't have been allowed into Europe anyway. That is only a one year suspension though. Fair enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Rangers didn't publish their accounts last year so wouldn't have been allowed into Europe anyway. No but if the company that now own the assets had lodged accounts that would suffice "if" club was the same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belfast_Tim Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 "A ned cabal of IRA supporters right at the very heart of your clubs support." That's a belter of a line. Nice to know the **** are concerned about our support. Maybe they aren't all knuckle dragging monkeys after all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 No but if the company that now own the assets had lodged accounts that would suffice "if" club was the same. That's what I don't get. Rangers were transferred to new owners, the club and company are seperate, surely then oldco's accounts would be seperate from the club's and the club's accounts should have been transferred along with the rest of the club. The same goes with the arbitration process for compensation for the players who walked away. Oldco were in arbitration on behalf of the club yet the SFA have failed to allow that arbitration to be transferred along with the club. They are the same club, Lord Nimmo Smith said that under the SPL's rules this was the case, so why are the SFA and UEFA not recognising this? Stupid! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 That's what I don't get. Rangers were transferred to new owners, the club and company are seperate, surely then oldco's accounts would be seperate from the club's and the club's accounts should have been transferred along with the rest of the club. The same goes with the arbitration process for compensation for the players who walked away. Oldco were in arbitration on behalf of the club yet the SFA have failed to allow that arbitration to be transferred along with the club. They are the same club, Lord Nimmo Smith said that under the SPL's rules this was the case, so why are the SFA and UEFA not recognising this? Stupid! Because they aren't the same club. Club and company are the same thing. Old club accounts are also the company accounts. It's impossible 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Because they aren't the same club. Club and company are the same thing. Old club accounts are also the company accounts. It's impossible Which was kinda my point...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Because they aren't the same club. Club and company are the same thing. Old club accounts are also the company accounts. It's impossible Not according to LNS, unless he was only ruling using the SPL's rulebook in the dual contract case. I wouldn't think so though? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 UEFA take their lead from the SFA, as did LNS, that really is about it. Okay, I get that then. I still don't get how the transfer of the arbitration process between the two legal entities was blocked by the SFA via their independent panel ruling on the matter. After all the arbitration was on behalf of the club and not the company, the company side of things was dealt with by the TUPE laws. And what about the accounts? Why did the club's seperate accounts not transfer? I am not doubting continuation I just don't understand it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 You're not suggesting that the club/company separation argument has more holes than a sieve are you stonedsailor you rascal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Okay, I get that then. I still don't get how the transfer of the arbitration process between the two legal entities was blocked by the SFA via their independent panel ruling on the matter. After all the arbitration was on behalf of the club and not the company, the company side of things was dealt with by the TUPE laws. And what about the accounts? Why did the club's seperate accounts not transfer? I am not doubting continuation I just don't understand it. It isn't understandable because the whole idea about a club being separate from the company it became when it was In corporated only came about a year ago. It's totally unheard of. I don't doubt the continuation because the sfa have allowed it. They did die though. The one thing I'll never accept is the separation issue. U can't turn into a business then go back to being a club again 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 It isn't understandable because the whole idea about a club being separate from the company it became when it was In corporated only came about a year ago. It's totally unheard of. I don't doubt the continuation because the sfa have allowed it. They did die though. The one thing I'll never accept is the separation issue. U can't turn into a business then go back to being a club again I think you can actually but you'd have to go through the proper legal process of changing the company back into a club. Did this happen? Did oldco change back into a club and then get bought by newco and incorporated into their company? confused.com 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.