Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Bearwithme]

Aye the above statement from the SPL commission outcome clearly says Rangers did feck all wrong notice the wording removing the blame from the club to the company and clearly shows there were breaches.And also read that the club was the company in bold .

Now I am really confused with this, it quite clearly says there that Rangers FC were not separate legal entity from oldco, ie they were part of oldco. Charles Green, the trustable, stated he bought the assets of oldco yet the assets, as listed by Duff and Phelps, did not mention Rangers FC or the club.

How and when was the club separated from oldco? Why was the club not listed amongst the assets sold? Do/did Rangers FC ever exist?

Sent from my iPhone 5 Black Diamond using Pie and Bovril mobile app

Perhaps it will help that LNS et al stated in a previous ruling (their Reasons for the decision of 12/9/12) that the club is a separate entitty but not one with legal personality.

[Bendarroch]

LNS found that You were found not guilty of cheating

Finally we can agree on something. And LNS is a fine bear judge.

[flyingrodent]

Finally we can agree on something. And LNS is a fine bear judge.

Woeful.

ETA: And totally embarrassing.

Edited May 10, 2013 by flyingrodent

[stonedsailor]

 

Aye the above statement from the SPL commission outcome clearly says Rangers did feck all wrong notice the wording removing the blame from the club to the company and clearly shows there were breaches.And also read that the club was the company in bold .

Now I am really confused with this, it quite clearly says there that Rangers FC were not separate legal entity from oldco, ie they were part of oldco. Charles Green, the trustable, stated he bought the assets of oldco yet the assets, as listed by Duff and Phelps, did not mention Rangers FC or the club.

How and when was the club separated from oldco? Why was the club not listed amongst the assets sold? Do/did Rangers FC ever exist?

Sent from my iPhone 5 Black Diamond using Pie and Bovril mobile app

 

Perhaps it will help that LNS et al stated in a previous ruling (their Reasons for the decision of 12/9/12) that the club is a separate entitty but not one with legal personality.

I have accepted that but it does not explain how CG claimed that the newco were Rangers when Rangers were not listed in the assets bought by Green. Non physical assets, as the club would seem to exist as, like goodwill were listed.

It would seem that the club were a non physical asset of the PLC which was not sold to Green as part of the package he bought.

Sent from my iPhone 5 Black Diamond using Pie and Bovril mobile app

[As We Rise Again]

Woeful.

ETA: And totally embarrassing.

Spacker.

[hellbhoy]

http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/the-great-pretenders/

Spot on the money and no FTT or LNS will save them from that piece of journalism and should make Rangers fans shit their pants many times.

[flyingrodent]

Spacker.

I pointed out that LNS's Commission said that "Rangers did not gain any unfair competitive advantage and none of the players were ineligible to play" because they weren't caught gaining an unfair advantage and playing ineligable players at the time when they were gaining an unfair advantage and playing ineligible players.

I repeat - that's entirely true. That was the finding of the Commission. It's undisputed, at present.

You haven't refuted that 100% true point. You haven't cast doubt upon it, or even meaningfully disputed it.

So calling me a Spacker isn't really helping you here, is it?

Edit to add: If Rangers were gaining an unfair advantage by playing ineligible players, but they can't be retrospectively punished because of a loophole in the law - and this is what Lord Nimmo Smith said happened - how should football fans regard all those games won? Should we smell the whiff of bullshit?

I suspect we should.

Edited May 10, 2013 by flyingrodent

[hellbhoy]

Perhaps it will help that LNS et al stated in a previous ruling (their Reasons for the decision of 12/9/12) that the club is a separate entitty but not one with legal personality.

I have accepted that but it does not explain how CG claimed that the newco were Rangers when Rangers were not listed in the assets bought by Green. Non physical assets, as the club would seem to exist as, like goodwill were listed.

It would seem that the club were a non physical asset of the PLC which was not sold to Green as part of the package he bought.

Sent from my iPhone 5 Black Diamond using Pie and Bovril mobile app

It all came down to a piece of paper in the end.

To become the very same club apparently Green had to accept the five way agreement to get the SFA licence and this is where the fudged associations rules came into play.

To the SFA Rangers the club est 1872 was reduced down to an SFA licence ? this is where it gets complicated .The original club was granted a licence that would always remain the property of the SFA and could be revoked at any time which meant the licence was not the club at all,but now the SFA have rewritten their rules that the licence can now be the deciding factor on whether or not it is the same club ie meaning the SFA licence can now be a club that they maintain is a member of the association.

If Green did not attain that licence the old club owned then it's not Rangers est 1872.Rangers FC = An SFA licence .

It's a fudged up cover up to keep the cash cow alive at any cost and it is starting to backfire with the club back in financial soapy because it did not get voted straight into the SPL,and the associations going mental to try and get the new Rangers into the SPL asap and why reconstruction is top on the agenda but that has now failed and they know 2 more years in the SFL leagues and the club will go bust on it's current financial model.

Next year they will be plying us with another reconstruction that places Rangers into the SPL top flight to try and save the club.

[stonedsailor]

That still does not explain why the non physical asset, which existed as a non legal entity, was not listed in the sale of assets HB. If it existed then and still exists then it has not been sold and exists as part of the PLC which is being liquidated atm.

Sent from my iPhone 5 Black Diamond using Pie and Bovril mobile app

Edited May 10, 2013 by stonedsailor

[Bendarroch]

Woeful.

Bitter.

No editing required.

[hellbhoy]

That still does not explain why the non physical asset, which existed as a non legal entity, was not listed in the sale of assets HB. If it existed then and still exists then it has not been sold and exists as part of the PLC which is being liquidated atm.

Sent from my iPhone 5 Black Diamond using Pie and Bovril mobile app

It was a cunning plan hatched by both the SPL & SFA to somehow separate the players and staff from the management and place any blame on the management but phrase the management as the company and the players as the club .SFA licences cannot be sold to another company and in 2011 they changed their rules & regulations that a licence cannot be transferred to another company or legal entity to only the association can do this as they see fit.

The club is dead as far as the law of the land is concerned and died of insolvency.

The club on the other hand as far as the associations are concerned is who they see fit to give a dead clubs licence too to give credence that's it's the same club because that SFA licence says so and has been rewritten for a change of company so they would have us believe.

It's all an elaborate lie that has legal protection because the associations can make up any rules they like especially when it comes to Rangers to keep the cash cow alive in it's original form.

[flyingrodent]

Bitter.

No editing required.

I repeat: "Rangers did not gain any unfair competitive advantage and none of the players were ineligible to play" because they weren't caught gaining an unfair advantage and playing ineligable players at the time when they were gaining an unfair advantage and playing ineligible players".

That's true. That's what the Commission found.

You got off with cheating, because you weren't caught cheating while you were cheating.

That's Lord Nimmo Smith's judgement.

It's not up for dispute. It's a fact.

Edit to add: Which makes "Helicopter Sunday" more like "Fraudcopter Bullshit Sunday", to pick one of many, many, fraudulent and bullshit results.

Now. One of us has LNS behind that, and the other is "bitter". Is it me, or you?

Edited May 10, 2013 by flyingrodent

[As We Rise Again]

I repeat: "Rangers did not gain any unfair competitive advantage and none of the players were ineligible to play" because they weren't caught gaining an unfair advantage and playing ineligable players at the time when they were gaining an unfair advantage and playing ineligible players".

That's true. That's what the Commission found.

You got off with cheating, because you weren't caught cheating while you were cheating.

That's Lord Nimmo Smith's judgement.

It's not up for dispute.

What if's etc etc blah blah blah.

[As We Rise Again]

It was a cunning plan hatched by both the SPL & SFA to somehow separate the players and staff from the management and place any blame on the management but phrase the management as the company and the players as the club .SFA licences cannot be sold to another company and in 2011 they changed their rules & regulations that a licence cannot be transferred to another company or legal entity to only the association can do this as they see fit.

The club is dead as far as the law of the land is concerned and died of insolvency.

The club on the other hand as far as the associations are concerned is who they see fit to give a dead clubs licence too to give credence that's it's the same club because that SFA licence says so and has been rewritten for a change of company so they would have us believe.

It's all an elaborate lie that has legal protection because the associations can make up any rules they like especially when it comes to Rangers to keep the cash cow alive in it's original form.

You're saying that the club is dead etc but you'll happily talk about it every single day for hours and hours. You've got a screw loose pal.

[hellbhoy]

You're saying that the club is dead etc but you'll happily talk about it every single day for hours and hours. You've got a screw loose pal.

I've got a screw loose .

You have forgotten what I call your club,if you had thought for at least a second before posting your pile of pish "THE CLONE RANGERS" looks and acts just like the original except it has cloned defects and is much more stupid and aggressive than the source of the gene pool it was created out of and you are a prime example of stupidity at times and I'm being generous there AWRA.

It's not actually Rangers est 1872 but a clone created in 2012 to replace the dead club to be the dead club but somehow exists as the old dead club.

You are a victim of fraud being peddled an original when it is clearly a copy .

[youngsy]

Yoy, this happens a lot - people respo

Lots of words, but no actual argument. A lot of waffle, but no substance.

I'm telling you as a fact, and not as an opinion, that this was the Commission's finding: Rangers deliberately broke the rules, but because they weren't caught while they were doing it, we can't punish them very much.

Now, that's true. That was the verdict of the Commission.

If you have a good reason to cast doubt on that verdict, be my guest - testify, brother.

No argument? This is straight out of the SPL Commission summation so that is fact, that is the ruling but of course you don't want to accept that, that much is obvious. Show us all where it states your words "Rangers deliberately broke the rules, but because they weren't caught while they were doing it,we can't punish them very much". You're full of garbage, the verdict of the commission was that the club were guilty of non-disclosure of registration,not guilty in fielding ineligible players,in other words no sporting advantage,to bad if you can't accept that. By the way don't call me brother,you are not or never will be.

Edited May 10, 2013 by youngsy

[youngsy]

I repeat: "Rangers did not gain any unfair competitive advantage and none of the players were ineligible to play" because they weren't caught gaining an unfair advantage and playing ineligable players at the time when they were gaining an unfair advantage and playing ineligible players".

That's true. That's what the Commission found.

You got off with cheating, because you weren't caught cheating while you were cheating.

That's Lord Nimmo Smith's judgement.

It's not up for dispute. It's a fact.

Edit to add: Which makes "Helicopter Sunday" more like "Fraudcopter Bullshit Sunday", to pick one of many, many, fraudulent and bullshit results.

Now. One of us has LNS behind that, and the other is "bitter". Is it me, or you?

Show us all where these words of yours appear on the SPL Commission summation. I'll help you out here, they don't, all these words that you have posted show you up to be the bigot that you undoubtably are.

Although fair play to you;you do hide it very well,in saying that some can pick up on exactly what you are. So come on show where the words "because they weren't caught gaining an unfair advantage and playing ineligible players at the time when they were gaining an unfair advantage and playing ineligible players"are on the SPL Commission summation. That's your words,not the SPL Commissions words.So show where those words were stated by the commission. You've just made an absolute cunto of yourself with that statement.

Edited May 10, 2013 by youngsy

[stonedsailor]

That still does not explain why the non physical asset, which existed as a non legal entity, was not listed in the sale of assets HB. If it existed then and still exists then it has not been sold and exists as part of the PLC which is being liquidated atm.

Sent from my iPhone 5 Black Diamond using Pie and Bovril mobile app

 

It was a cunning plan hatched by both the SPL & SFA to somehow separate the players and staff from the management and place any blame on the management but phrase the management as the company and the players as the club .SFA licences cannot be sold to another company and in 2011 they changed their rules & regulations that a licence cannot be transferred to another company or legal entity to only the association can do this as they see fit.

 

The club is dead as far as the law of the land is concerned and died of insolvency.

 

The club on the other hand as far as the associations are concerned is who they see fit to give a dead clubs licence too to give credence that's it's the same club because that SFA licence says so and has been rewritten for a change of company so they would have us believe.

 

It's all an elaborate lie that has legal protection because the associations can make up any rules they like especially when it comes to Rangers to keep the cash cow alive in it's original form.

That's not what LNS said though, he said the club is a continuing entity, not a licence, not a membership number, a continuing entity ie it has not died nor has it changed form. If the club is a continuing entity which has not changed in form then, like goodwill, it is an asset in it's own right. That asset was not sold to either Sevco according to any documents I have read so the ownership of that continuing entity must still lie with RFC 2012 LTD. unless someone can show me how I am mistaken?

There are so many contradictions in this case it's unreal. I have come to view the club as the same as it was before, I have no real desire to see them killed off anymore, watching their fans suffer the humiliation they are going through now and will continue to suffer for a long time yet is justice enough to balance the joy they gleened from years of underhanded and dishonest practices by their club. They are a laughing stock, they are fools, if those fans were treated the same way by a spouse or partner then they would walk away, without doubt but Rangers have been the one thing that lets them feel they are not the mediochre, average, unimportant human beings they are.

One day they will awaken, one day they will realise they are not supporting a club, their money supports a long line of shysters' third homes; mistresses and offshore accounts. That's all well and good when they get a return in success and trophies but are they really willing to feed the hedonism of others in the hope that one day their club might make it to the top again? And for how long?

I hope it's a long while yet, Rangers are better than prozac or entonox just now and their fans are paying for our entertainment, cheers boys (and girls).

Sent from my iPhone 5 Black Diamond using Pie and Bovril mobile app

[flyingrodent]

No argument? This is straight out of the SPL Commission summation so that is fact, that is the ruling but of course you don't want to accept that, that much is obvious. Show us all where states your words "Rangers deliberarately broke the rules, but because they weren't caught while they weere doint it,we can't punish them very much". You're full of garbage, the verdict of the commission was that the club were guilty of non-disclosure of registration,not guilty in fielding ineligible players,in other words no sporting advantage,to bad if you can't accept that. By the way don't call me brother,you are not or never will be.

Youngsy, the verdict says that Rangers intentionally broke the rules over a ten-year period. That's why it levies a massive fine on the dead Oldco. Clubs don't generally get handed massive fines for not-cheating, and LNS is crystal-clear on his reasons for handing out the fine.

It also says that the SPL's rules* mean that clubs have to be caught cheating while they're cheating, if they're to be punished, and observes it again before it hands down the gigantic fine.

You got off solely because you weren't caught cheating while you were cheating, due to a legal loophole. That's why LNS says you "didn't gain an advantage" - because under the rules, your cheating wasn't cheating. Because you weren't caught at the time.

See?

It's not like this is hard to grasp - it's in the executive summary, the bit that's deliberately easy to read. That's the bit you read, remember?

*Which were plainly drawn up by the type of idiot who didn't think clubs - like Rangers - would try to cheat.

[youngsy]

LNS found that "Rangers did not gain any unfair competitive advantage and none of the players were ineligible to play" because they weren't caught gaining an unfair advantage and playing ineligable players at the time when they were gaining an unfair advantage and playing ineligible players.

You were found not guilty of cheating, solely and for no other reason than, you weren't caught cheating while you were cheating.

You escaped punishment because you weren't caught red-handed, which is ironic.

That's not my opinion on the judgement. That is the judgement.

If you think that's not what LNS said,tell us why.

Because it wasn't on the full summation. Hope that's clear enough.