The_Kincardine Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 My God this is worse than Tedis attempt to liken English clubs to Rangers liquidation. Nothing like that at all. My argument is prosaically simple: RR were bankrupted RR's assets were acquired and used by a newly-formed company No-one but a fool would regard RR as only dating from 1971 We all accept that brands/clubs/legal entities/incorporations are loosley coupled and can go through legal change without the product/brand being affected. All this talk of receivership over bankruptcy over liquidation doesn't detract from these simple truths. What’s worse is the WRK hasn’t the grace to apologise for saying, “It means that, after the company had gone into receivership, the Government of the day saved the company. Not the assets” 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Rangers cheated, then they died. How's that for a simple truth? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Look, please do not continue with this. The Govt acquired THE ASSETS of RR. This is why it formed a new COMPANY, called, Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited. As it says over here: http://www.econ.uniurb.it/siepi/dec03/papers/lazonick.pdf "To ensure continuity of those activities of Rolls-Royce which are important to our national defence, to our collaborative programmes with other countries and to many air forces and civil airlines all over the world, the Government has decided to acquire such assets of the aero-engine and marine and industrial gas turbine engine divisions of the company as they may be essential for these purposes" (quoted in Department of Trade and Industry 1972, 14). A new company, Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited was therefore formed that took control of the assets of Rolls-Royce acquired by the government." You're wasting your time, the P's and D's will just group together and attempt to shout you down. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BossHogg Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Nothing like that at all. My argument is prosaically simple: RR were bankrupted RR's assets were acquired and used by a newly-formed company No-one but a fool would regard RR as only dating from 1971 We all accept that brands/clubs/legal entities/incorporations are loosley coupled and can go through legal change without the product/brand being affected. All this talk of receivership over bankruptcy over liquidation doesn't detract from these simple truths. What’s worse is the WRK hasn’t the grace to apologise for saying, “It means that, after the company had gone into receivership, the Government of the day saved the company. Not the assets” look up receivership idiot then get back to us! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 You're wasting your time, the P's and D's will just group together and attempt to shout you down. Ben, you know we're made of sterner stuff than this. To paraphrase Dame Margaret, "The Bear's not for turning" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Nothing like that at all. My argument is prosaically simple: RR were bankrupted RR's assets were acquired and used by a newly-formed company No-one but a fool would regard RR as only dating from 1971 We all accept that brands/clubs/legal entities/incorporations are loosley coupled and can go through legal change without the product/brand being affected. All this talk of receivership over bankruptcy over liquidation doesn't detract from these simple truths. What’s worse is the WRK hasn’t the grace to apologise for saying, “It means that, after the company had gone into receivership, the Government of the day saved the company. Not the assets” Apologise? With the greatest of respect, have a word with yourself. If you want to try and draw an exact correlation between two entirely disparate sets of circumstances, you really shouldn't be surprised when you are ridiculed. Not everybody's as stupid as your fellow follow followers, and neither is everybody as willing to accept any old nonsense that fits your blinkered view. Now might be the time for you to go find a chiropractor who can untie those knots you've tangled yourself into. Unless you want to carry on digging, now Bennett's arrived to give you a hand with the shovel? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Ben, you know we're made of sterner stuff than this. To paraphrase Dame Margaret, "The Bear's not for turning" Thatcher - dead. rangers - dead. A much more apposite analogy. Well done, we're making progress now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Apologise? With the greatest of respect, have a word with yourself. If you want to try and draw an exact correlation between two entirely disparate sets of circumstances, you really shouldn't be surprised when you are ridiculed. Not everybody's as stupid as your fellow follow followers, and neither is everybody as willing to accept any old nonsense that fits your blinkered view. Now might be the time for you to go find a chiropractor who can untie those knots you've tangled yourself into. Unless you want to carry on digging, now Bennett's arrived to give you a hand with the shovel? I fear having words with himself is likely the root of his problem tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Unlike you I don't have to wait on what KDS or CQN says to form my own opinion. I am perfectly happy to reach my own views and to voice them and am happy that others may disagree. Nor need I fret over what one law lord said versus a quote from another law lord as posted on a forum. That our continuing existence is true should be no surprise nor even a point worth contending. That football clubs have a life that is not coterminus with their associated company is, again, beyond contention. We all, in every day life away from football, accept that brands/clubs/legal entities/incorporations are loosley coupled and can go through legal change without the product/brand being affected. I mentioned Horlicks yesterday who are a good example of that. Rolls Royce (the company that makes cars rather than the Rolls Royce of football which is Rangers) is another. The company went tits-up in 1971 and had to be rescued by the government. Not even a fool would have said thereafter that a car made in the same factory by the same workers and using the same components was anything other that a Rolls Royce. Mind you, I wouldn't put it past a BRALT wag to say something like, "Rolls Royce? They even came out with a car called a Phantom and another called a Wraith. This proves they're deid. Zombie cars for a Zombie company" This is a logic that we live with every day. Sadly, though, the Ps&Ds have replaced logic with schadenfreude, much to the detriment of their ability to cogitate.. I do not scour CQN or KDS to post what they think or believe, the club was liquidated and was the end of the club. The SFA made some new rules so that they could phoenix the club aKa reforming the club back together again from being dead but with a new company status. The HMRC on the other hand are legally by law dealing with another football club called Rangers because the government are collecting taxes from another different Rangers club hence the new different companies house registration number. The SFA say it's the same club because they are depserate to keep the OF alive to them. The HMRC are new collecting taxes from a different club operating out of Ibrox called Rangers. Like I have said it's a continuance of Rangers but it ain't the very same facking club it used to be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Apologise? With the greatest of respect, have a word with yourself. If you want to try and draw an exact correlation Nope. I know that all analogies are flawed. However: 1. RR died and started as a new company. RR 1971 Ltd. 2. RR 1971 acquired the assets of the defunct company 3. No one would say RR dates from 1971. All these are inalienable truths and no amount of dancing around can gainsay them. Now what you have to apologise for is saying this: “It means that, after the company had gone into receivership, the Government of the day saved the company. Not the assets” This is the polar opposite of what happened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 It's highly amusing watching him dodge the facts and evidence provided by himself ... doubt Bennett will answer either .. :lol: I doubt bennett's comprehension goes further than "wan ae us", in all fairness. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Friday 28th Feb. It's not Groundhog Day, is it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Nope. I know that all analogies are flawed. However: 1. RR died and started as a new company. RR 1971 Ltd. 2. RR 1971 acquired the assets of the defunct company 3. No one would say RR dates from 1971. All these are inalienable truths and no amount of dancing around can gainsay them. Now what you have to apologise for is saying this: “It means that, after the company had gone into receivership, the Government of the day saved the company. Not the assets” This is the polar opposite of what happened. So your a polar bear? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Thank you the Kincardine for providing my Friday afternoon bus journey home with such amusement I've never laughed at such a load of drivel in all my life. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Nope. I know that all analogies are flawed. However: 1. RR died and started as a new company. RR 1971 Ltd. 2. RR 1971 acquired the assets of the defunct company 3. No one would say RR dates from 1971. All these are inalienable truths and no amount of dancing around can gainsay them. Now what you have to apologise for is saying this: “It means that, after the company had gone into receivership, the Government of the day saved the company. Not the assets” This is the polar opposite of what happened. I don't have to apologise for a damn' thing, Kincy. Just as you don't have to apologise for editing my posts in a vain attempt to bolster your argument. The link you provided - yes, you, not a P or a D, but you - clearly refers to the sale of the company. Not the assets, the company. If you want to play with those who can think for themselves, then I would suggest you stop trying to cram everything into your "this'll prove ra gers are the same club" mental filter. It just makes you look foolish. Your "inalienable truths", like so many before them, are simply your opinions. Opinions which, could I be arsed, I would argue against individually. As you have already supplied a link to demolish point 2, point 1 uses emotive language rather than stating the true circumstances, and point three assumes your right to speak on behalf of the Human Race, I don't see there being a lot of mileage in that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Thank you the Kincardine for providing my Friday afternoon bus journey home with such amusement I've never laughed at such a load of drivel in all my life. The drivel being what? Did the RR company die? Yes. Did a new company, RR 1971 Ltd, acquire the assets of the defunct company? Yes. Does everyone agree that Rolls Royce is older than 43 years? Yes. Does this demonstrate that brands/clubs/legal entities/incorporations are loosely coupled and can go through legal change without the product/brand being affected? Yes. Aside from the usuals quibbling over minutiae there has been no-one denying the substantive truths here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Stop please I can't take any more. I've almost peed myself laughing at everyone pointing flaws in your posts with links that you have provided. You really can't compare the 2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 wtf has the liquidation process of an English company to do with the liquidation process of a Scottish sports club? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Nope. I know that all analogies are flawed. However: 1. RR died and started as a new company. RR 1971 Ltd. 2. RR 1971 acquired the assets of the defunct company 3. No one would say RR dates from 1971. All these are inalienable truths and no amount of dancing around can gainsay them. Now what you have to apologise for is saying this: “It means that, after the company had gone into receivership, the Government of the day saved the company. Not the assets” This is the polar opposite of what happened. WOW JUST WOW !, Kinky you should stop sending Tedi PM's on how to post self exploding in yer face links and stop digging yourself a huge hole ffs . Daily Telegraph in 2011 ran this article. The company overspent and overran on development. By early 1971, it was out of cash and lenders pulled the plug. Rolls' failure sparked uproar on both sides of the Atlantic, leading to Edward Heath's new Conservative government stepping in to bail out the company via nationalisation. Rolls Royce was nationalised you numpty before it was fully liquidated. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/8314440/Rolls-Royce-results-will-be-a-historic-day-for-Sir-John-Rose-and-the-company.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 The drivel being what? Did the RR company die? Yes. Did a new company, RR 1971 Ltd, acquire the assets of the defunct company? Yes. Does everyone agree that Rolls Royce is older than 43 years? Yes. Does this demonstrate that brands/clubs/legal entities/incorporations are loosely coupled and can go through legal change without the product/brand being affected? Yes. Aside from the usuals quibbling over minutiae there has been no-one denying the substantive truths here Is "substantive" more emphatic than "inalienable", then? I think you'll find the only one who isn't saying you're talking nonsense has been bennett - hardly the Gold Standard. He also pissed off sharpish when he got a squint at the link you'd used to support your theory. Maybe he's not that thick after all... Your first three lines are wrong or, to be kind in the third case, supposition rather than fact. Kind of renders your "we're the same gers" conclusion in line four redundant. 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.