bennett Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Go figure out who put the bit in bold and then figure out who the twit is. Then comeback and apologise. If it's too difficult ask WRK. Link to clue for the twit Twit. Brown nosing Norman, a new low for you..... -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Awe please! Where am I talking about multiple clubs? The UEFA rule that is Article 12 refers to the criteria that any club requires to meet in order to participate in UEFA competition. Your club fails to meet at least one condition, end of. The fact that the Article mentions that the creation of a newco constitutes a change to the club's (any club, not specifically The Rangers) legal form is an irrelevance. That particular condition is there to catch out those clubs who might seek to go down the route that American guy was intending to take your club. Setting up a newco specifically to expunge debt. Your club went into liquidation (involuntary) and it's assets were bought over by another company - set up for football purposes - which then changed it's name to something very close to that of the old club. This club has not met the 3 year rule yet. I'm sorry but I have tried to steer you from embarrassing yourself, alas to no avail. You're obviously going to take a right gubbing tonight once the less tolerant guys get in and have a read back. I did my best. Pub! You have my admiration for your patience, AD. As you say, you can only place the rule in front of him. Handily for us, UEFA have provided it in English. Seems plain enough to me, and indeed many others. Unfortunately, over the course of the rangers' existence (and Tedi's somewhat shorter P&B presence), those wishing to sweep away all that the old club did while clinging onto the "glory" have moved closer and closer to wanking scarecrow territory. They are no longer capable of simple comprehension, and must dismiss anything which doesn't fit their revisionist view as tic wet dreams and diddy fantasy. Well, you tried. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Again you are backing to ignoring that line again, ah well, I tried. How the Fk am I ignoring it. I mentioned it and explained - quite painstakingly btw - why it has no relevance. It is relevant because that was the answer UEFA gave, ignore it if you want, no biggie really. No it's not and no it was not. It forms a part of the rule 'Article 12' that UEFA quoted as by explanation for why The Rangers are ineligible to participate in UEFA comp. The answer to the question was NO, Article 12 was presented as the reason for the answer and is a list of qualifying criteria, to which The Rangers failed to meet on one count. NOT HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF A MEMBER ASSOCIATION FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 3 CONSECUTIVE YEARS. I HAVE IGNORED fk ALL Someone call him something nasty. I'm too nice and far too sober. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 The PM gangs ganging up on Tedi again and they're still making an arse of it lol... -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 It is relevant because that was the answer UEFA gave, ignore it if you want, no biggie really. That's kind of my point. It is no biggie. It is not relevant to the current discussion. The way you say "because that was the answer UEFA gave", makes it sound like this is them talking about old club/new club when it's nothing of the sort. More than a little dishonest that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 The PM gangs ganging up on Tedi again and they're still making an arse of it lol... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No fukin words. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No fukin words. One word - PUB. Go on, Don, you've earned a couple of cold ones with today's attempted remedial lesson. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No fukin words. Love is blind they say. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 That's kind of my point. It is no biggie. It is not relevant to the current discussion. The way you say "because that was the answer UEFA gave", makes it sound like this is them talking about old club/new club when it's nothing of the sort. More than a little dishonest that. Exactly, it is a direct quote of one of their rules which sets out a list of criteria that all clubs must meet, in order to gain UEFA licence. It is not an opinion. As the rule was quoted in answer to a question as to whether The Rangers would be eligible for said licence, it has to be concluded that the club failed to meet part or all of the required criteria. Tedi has decided that it is the part that mentions 'change of legal form', this is incorrect. Clubs change legal form often but it does not prevent them participating in UEFA comp. The 3x year rule is the correct answer and it has fk all to do with being late with the accounts. Now pub. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 One word - PUB. Go on, Don, you've earned a couple of cold ones with today's attempted remedial lesson. Jacket is on. Take over, be my guest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 The PM gangs ganging up on Tedi again and they're still making an arse of it lol...Presumably English is not your native tongue? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Of course it is relevant, ASA asked for UEFA`s opinion or Rangers claiming continuity and that was the answer they gave, the fact you want to pretend it is irrelevant is no biggie it is exactly what I would expect. This is a response to whether or not sevco are allowed to play in Europe. Why are you resorting to telling lies? Poor show Tedi. Poor show. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Of course it is relevant, ASA asked for UEFA`s opinion or Rangers claiming continuity and that was the answer they gave, the fact you want to pretend it is irrelevant is no biggie it is exactly what I would expect. Tedi, dear Leader, forget the ASA. Read the email from UEFA. The one in response to STV, not the ASA. The one which clearly states reasons why ANY club could be excluded from eligibility for UEFA competitions. We don't want you getting accused of deflection or attempting to muddy the waters here, do we now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BossHogg Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 From the ECA .... Rangers do not hold a UEFA club licence as a result of a break in their accounts and, having lost their top-flight status, are no longer ordinary members of the ECA, the organisation confirmed. (Thats no licence because of a break in accounts ..not because they weren't filed in time but because they had none) "Alike at Scottish FA level, this 'new entity' had to re-apply for membership with ECA as according to Swiss law, membership of an association is neither heritable nor transferable (article 70.3 of the Swiss Civil Code). (Re apply- not heritable nor transferable) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 How can I? How can you?, we always have to remember the toils of the 78 who would not let it go and the 82 who could not let it go. Shields up. Waters muddied. Looks like the Don has the right idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BossHogg Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 New Rangers owner Charles Green admits he is 'not confident' of achieving a company voluntary agreement (CVA) that would preserve the history of the club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BossHogg Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Hello..... I hope that the creditors vote for the CVA route and that it's a success,that way the club will stay as it is in name and history. . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Rangers failed to achieve a CVA and are being liquidated. The current club which was formed by Charles Green's Sevco played their first ever game against Brechin City in the Ramsden's Cup. No amount of angels dancing on the head of a pin will alter those facts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Yep, the old Rangers cheated and then they died. Very simple stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 This is actually quite important. The SFA, as the governing body, have ameneded their rules to provide a way for clubs' companies (pay attention to the grammar there) to actually avoid being prosecuted for precisely this offence. It has taken the most extravagant implosion of one of their main marketing tools (RFC) to make them realise this. As such they deemed it necessary to provide this fudged method of continuity to allow them (the SFA) to be able to market the bigot twins as an historical continuance if and when they get back together. They will say, and in fact do, anything to perpetuate the hate-fest as they see it as their preferred marketing product. Can they convince the rest of Scottish Football that this is so....? Can they f**k...... If not the spelling 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.