Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[No8.]

Unbelievable.....just unbelievable.

[Monkey Tennis]

That's it.They can put as much hurdles in front of us as they can, they'll still not stop us.

"As much hurdles" FFS!

[BinoBalls]

You took as an insult, not my fault that being called a nobody gets to you that easily, do not pretend it does not, you have started every post greeting about it, I think you are among the easiest posters to offend on P & B.

I have answered every one of your questions, you have ignored many of mine and as for the confrontation thing, I suggest you look at your own posting style.

LNS is a law lord, he used his title when delivering the tribunals findings, his opinion can be considered as legal opinion, his opinion in any circle will always carry a lot more weight than yours and I would always accept his interpretation over yours, thanks all the same.

Glennie clearly defined club and company as separate when he used the word operates.

I do not think I have seen anything in the law which disagrees with LNS when he said a club can be owned and operated, nor nothing in the law to disagree with LNS legal opinion that a club can be bought and sold and as we know he was referring to Rangers when this took place, you may also be aware that the SFA acknowledged that the transfer of the club took place before the oldco was liquidated when they said Sevco Scotland the new owners of the Rangers Football Club.

You mentioned earlier that there has been no legal challenge, why not? after all was there not a consortium of Celtic fans that met with regards to this very matter with financial pledges made to support it, a discussion on display for everyone to view on a well known Celtic Blog, why did they not go ahead after they took legal advice?

UEFA will and obviously already have sought the governing bodies opinion and guidance on the matter as they have done with other clubs where the parent company running them has been liquidated.

Any hope you have of Rangers being officially declared as a new club rests with the SFA, this has always been the case, anyone else's opinion is irrelevant, the SFA have made their position clear time after time.

Nice demonstration of not being obsessed by the way, you have been arguing this point for 3 days straight alongside numerous attempts over the past Year, you really are convincing.

You did a fine job of not coming across as a complete arse again there Tedster.

I happen to accept continuation of Rangers, but it's fcking tiresome that when an obviously intelligent guy wants to come on here and actually have a proper debate with interesting points, he is smeared as a "nobody" who is "obsessed".

[Monkey Tennis]

Took me a while to find this!!

Ok..Take the QoS support. How many made it to the final? I am sure there are many QoS supporters who pick and choose their games. You have admitted you do this yourself. You brought a great support up for the cup game...did you take that level of support to all away games? You could fill your stadium easily with real QoS supporters who do take an active interest in your club.

As for the Rangers supporters you mention...Claiming to be a Rangers supporter doesn't actually make you one. I get fed up hearing the same line from these eejits....It usually starts something like this....'I am a Rangers supporter as well. I don't go to the games but ..............' I usually stop listening right around this point.

There is one guy i see every single day of the week he is wearing a Rangers top...It is embarrassing. He couldn't find Ibrox with an A-Z despite living within 10 miles of the stadium. He is a middle aged man and has never been to Ibrox! That is not , imho, a Rangers supporter.

There are other Rangers supporters who have maybe drifted away due to the constant struggle to get tickets..Unable to sit in the stand of their choice..Missing out on Cup Finals after being to most of the games throughout the season etc. I have a certain sympathy for these people. I know myself i didn't go to as many away games as i could have due to the constant struggle to get tickets.

Rangers were in the 4th tier and averaged around 40,000ish...that makes the stadium 4/5ish full. No other club in Scotland got anywhere near that last season as far as i know

That's more like it No8.

I wish you were right in your musings about our potential fanbase, based as they are, on the numbers we've taken to Cup Finals, but you're not.

We took nearly 18,000 to the Cup Final in '08, but only a tiny fraction of that number would have answered "Queens" to the question: "Who do you support?", if asked the question 6 months earlier (or later).

I personally know plenty who would describe themselves as Rangers fans who travelled that day and actually supported Queens. Now you - probably correctly - wouldn't regard such types as real Rangers fans, but they sure as Hell aren't Queens ones.

I'm sad to say that the reality is that we simply have too few Queens fans. Our national disease sees too many identifying with either of the OF. They might not go to games - which was actually my point, if you recall - but they buy the tops, watch on Sky and sit on their fat arses when the local team turns out.

That's not Queens' fault. It's their's.

My original point that a far bigger proportion of those who'd call themselves Queens fans actually go to games, than is the case for Rangers, still stands.

And don't try to distort our discussion with the bit about me choosing my games. You very well know the reasons for that.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Monkey Tennis

[bennett]

That's more like it No8.

I wish you were right in your musings about our potential fanbase, based as they are, on the numbers we've taken to Cup Finals, but you're not.

We took nearly 18,000 to the Cup Final in '08, but only a tiny fraction of that number would have answered "Queens" to the question: "Who do you support?", if asked the question 6 months earlier (or later).

I personally know plenty who would describe themselves as Rangers fans who travelled that day and actually supported Queens. Now you - probably correctly - wouldn't regard such types as real Rangers fans, but they sure as Hell aren't Queens ones.

I'm sad to say that the reality is that we simply have too few Queens fans. Our national disease sees too many identifying with either of the OF. They might not go to games - which was actually my point, if you recall - but they buy the tops, watch on Sky and sit on their fat arses when the local team turns out.

That's not Queens' fault. It's their's.

My original point that far more of those who'd call themselves Queens fans actually go to games, than is the case for Rangers, still stands.

And don't try to distort our discussion with the bit about me choosing my games. You very well know the reasons for that.

Rangers will play some part in this

[Monkey Tennis]

Rangers will play some part in this

As you also very well know.

[No8.]

Of course you are correct about the amount of so called Rangers fans who dont go but my point about you having easily enough supporters to fill your stadium...if you get Rangers in a cup you would sell out easily.

you really took 18,000 to hampden? That is far more than i thought. That is pretty impressive. Shame more didnt go onto start following the club on more regular basis.

I dont know why you pick and choose games. I remember it was Skyline that mentioned it and i gave you a hard time for a day or two. TBH none of my business what games you attend. i was just using you as an example of the supporter the club need to get back week in week out.

I am on my phone so probably havent explained myself properly but at the end of the day Rangers themsrlves cannot be blamed for QoS supporters staying away...infact surely your crowds peaked after you cheated....whoops sorry i mean beat Rangers in the Ramsden cup?

Rifht my finger is gowping

[Monkey Tennis]

Of course you are correct about the amount of so called Rangers fans who dont go but my point about you having easily enough supporters to fill your stadium...if you get Rangers in a cup you would sell out easily.

you really took 18,000 to hampden? That is far more than i thought. That is pretty impressive. Shame more didnt go onto start following the club on more regular basis.

I dont know why you pick and choose games. I remember it was Skyline that mentioned it and i gave you a hard time for a day or two. TBH none of my business what games you attend. i was just using you as an example of the supporter the club need to get back week in week out.

I am on my phone so probably havent explained myself properly but at the end of the day Rangers themsrlves cannot be blamed for QoS supporters staying away...infact surely your crowds peaked after you cheated....whoops sorry i mean beat Rangers in the Ramsden cup?

Rifht my finger is gowping

I'm not so much blaming Rangers, as the the people who 'follow' them at the expense of their local team.

Without wishing to go over it all again, I've decided I'm more readily prepared to miss Queens games than before, following the way my club voted last summer. The reality is though that I've still attended the majority of games.

Anyway, the point isn't about me, or even Queens. It's about the fact that too few people, in my view, would see themselves as fans of their local diddy outfit. Of those who do though, most are pretty committed. The same would not be said of those who call themselves Rangers (or Celtic) fans.

[Liam.]

You took as an insult, not my fault that being called a nobody gets to you that easily, do not pretend it does not, you have started every post greeting about it, I think you are among the easiest posters to offend on P & B.

I have answered every one of your questions, you have ignored many of mine and as for the confrontation thing, I suggest you look at your own posting style.

You haven't offended me Tedi. You've frustrated me by your inability to discuss this like an adult but offended? Nah, I've been called a lot worse on the internet and as you said earlier, I am a nobody. What, did you think the fact I'm completely unqualified in law is news to me? Thankfully the rulings/laws I've discussed are devoid of any legalese and you don't have to be learned to speculate in this thread.

LNS is a law lord, he used his title when delivering the tribunals findings, his opinion can be considered as legal opinion, his opinion in any circle will always carry a lot more weight than yours and I would always accept his interpretation over yours, thanks all the same.

I do not think I have seen anything in the law which disagrees with LNS when he said a club can be owned and operated, nor nothing in the law to disagree with LNS legal opinion that a club can be bought and sold and as we know he was referring to Rangers when this took place, you may also be aware that the SFA acknowledged that the transfer of the club took place before the oldco was liquidated when they said Sevco Scotland the new owners of the Rangers Football Club.

A title is simply a title, it indicates a person has achieved a certain position or qualification. It does not mean a person is acting in a professional capacity.

His opinion will carry more weight than mine, on that we are agreed. LNS and I have the same opinion on this though, that under the SFAs definition of club they are separate. My argument going back to my first post on Sunday is that the SFAs definition of club is at odds with the legal definition. You keep trying to claim I'm arguing with LNS as a means of deflections so I'll make this incredibly clear: I am not saying LNS is wrong, I am saying you are wrong to claim he was acting in a his capacity as a law lord.

It's worth pointing out (again, as you ignored the first time), that LNS's most recent involvement prior to issuing the statement we're discussing was... oh that's right, when he chaired the panel which handed out the transfer ban that was subsequently overturned in court. Was he acting as a law lord when he handed that punishment out?

Here's the evidence that once a club incorporates a company they become one legal entity. Straight from Sport Scotland.

Glennie clearly defined club and company as separate when he used the word operates.

He didn't clearly define them as separate considering he then went onto use his short hand for the club to describe the company.

You mentioned earlier that there has been no legal challenge, why not? after all was there not a consortium of Celtic fans that met with regards to this very matter with financial pledges made to support it, a discussion on display for everyone to view on a well known Celtic Blog, why did they not go ahead after they took legal advice?

I have no idea, this is the first I'm hearing of that. The fact they decided against certainly isn't evidence that Sevco is the same club, it's possible they decided against for any number of reasons. Maybe they need to have been disadvantaged to instigate a challenge? I'll need more details before I can even attempt to formulate an opinion.

UEFA will and obviously already have sought the governing bodies opinion and guidance on the matter as they have done with other clubs where the parent company running them has been liquidated.

Any hope you have of Rangers being officially declared as a new club rests with the SFA, this has always been the case, anyone else's opinion is irrelevant, the SFA have made their position clear time after time.

Nope. The SFA do not get to define club when there is already a legal definition. That would be like suggesting the FSA overrule the government on banking legislation.

"Tedi, on 04 Jun 2013 - 20:22, said:

Nice demonstration of not being obsessed by the way, you have been arguing this point for 3 days straight alongside numerous attempts over the past Year, you really are convincing."

Thanks.

(Just in case you're being sarcastic, I've spent the last 3 days confined to my bed room for all bar two trips to the doctors/pharmacists. I've spent most of the last 3 days playing Champ Man 01/02. 8 posts or so over 3 days is hardly obsessive and you call people obsessed so often it's lost all meaning anyway. Back to work tomorrow though so it'll probably be back to my usual average of about 1 post per week.)

Edited June 4, 2013 by Liam.

[Liam.]

You did a fine job of not coming across as a complete arse again there Tedster.

I happen to accept continuation of Rangers, but it's fcking tiresome that when an obviously intelligent guy wants to come on here and actually have a proper debate with interesting points, he is smeared as a "nobody" who is "obsessed".

That's probably the most incorrect thing posted tonight.

[No8.]

I'm not so much blaming Rangers, as the the people who 'follow' them at the expense of their local team.

Without wishing to go over it all again, I've decided I'm more readily prepared to miss Queens games than before, following the way my club voted last summer. The reality is though that I've still attended the majority of games.

Anyway, the point isn't about me, or even Queens. It's about the fact that too few people, in my view, would see themselves as fans of their local diddy outfit. Of those who do though, most are pretty committed. The same would not be said of those who call themselves Rangers (or Celtic) fans.

I will agree that many who claim to be Rangers supporters wouldnt attend the games even if they were led by the hand to ibrox and giveen free access.

I would certainly nit agree that 'diddy' suporters are in any way fairly loyal and the difference between the glamour games and the run of the mill league games kinda proves this...imo.

Anyway we are obviously not going to sgree so best to agree to disagree

[MikeyWellFan]

Surely when a company runs a club it becomes one and the same thing ?

How do you define a club ?

[weirdcal]

I Thought spl 2 was 10 clubs?

Wouldn't that mean one of the breakaways wouldn't get in?

Also I thought rangers didn't want to be in the spl?

Sent from ma phone using Pie & Bovril mobile app

[weirdcal]

At last something different from the club / company boring argument.

Are you saying Rangers have been invited to join a 12 team SPL2?

I am sure they have no given an opinion on this? well apart from a few sound bites from our previous CEO, I think you will find many of the fans would be against acceptance of it.

The article was about a breakaway this season and mccoist not having any if his players as trialists if rangers were to play.

Bit bizarre when it was meant to be the 10 1st div teams leaving the sfl and forming spl2.

Rangers would still be able to play these players as they'd be in div2 and by time they are in that league the 'embargo' would be over.

Just a really odd article to have written for no reason if its meant to happen this season.

Sent from ma phone using Pie & Bovril mobile app

[weirdcal]

There has been rumours about this for weeks, I figured given that we actually got our renewal forms for ST`s that this was definitely off, I imagined that they would jack the ST`s up in price if SPL2 was going to happen.

I imagine the majority of fans would be against probably around 70% but I think the club would accept any invitation without hesitation, so much for sporting integrity.

I doubt it would go through in time but its an odd odd article

Sent from ma phone using Pie & Bovril mobile app

[Ken Fitlike]

That's it.They can put as much hurdles in front of us as they can, they'll still not stop us.

FFS!

So rules that apply to all clubs are now viewed as 'hurdles' that have been delberately and vindictively designed by 'them' to hamper Zombie Rangers progress.

[WILLIEA]

I will agree that many who claim to be Rangers supporters wouldnt attend the games even if they were led by the hand to ibrox and giveen free access.

I would certainly nit agree that 'diddy' suporters are in any way fairly loyal and the difference between the glamour games and the run of the mill league games kinda proves this...imo.

Anyway we are obviously not going to sgree so best to agree to disagree

I think the difference between a club like Queens and Rangers/Celtic is that we get far fewer big games. When we do it becomes an occasion for the whole town.. Not only do you get lapsed supporters clamouring for tickets but a whole host of wives, girlfriends, good ol' boys, people who, never mind the offside rule wouldn't know a penalty kick if it bit them in the ar*e.

I suppose if you follow up a good cup run with sustained good league form the lapsed fans will eventually come back but you will never transform these others into regulars.

I would reckon that this is also true for the other smaller clubs.

[captain kirk]

In my opinion anyone who spends the past 3 day and many other occasions arguing the same points about a team he does not even support is pretty obsessed, I would not dream of following the behaviour pattern should the situation be reversed.

To me, he is a nobody, sorry if my plain speaking upsets anyone, forget how sensitive people get on here.

Maybe it's just because some rangers fans are so easy to hook, I mean look at rangers fans attempts to wind Celtic fans up with this pacific shelf crap , it died on its arse cos Celtic fans wouldn't entertain it , whereas some rangers fans like yourself have spent the last 2 years of their life on the Internet telling everyone your not dead , if you truly knew your club wasn't rotten and dead you would never be on this thread giving it oxygen , but the fact is ,

IT IS YOU ,who is obsessed with Other fans laughing at your dead club , you muppets can't stand it and spend every waking moment on here boring everyone to death with the same garbage.

[captain kirk]

I see the cardigan had a fat EBT years after left rangers which was kept quiet?

[Ally88]

Bigoted cretin.

shut it ya wee Jessie