Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

This again?

It's straightforward, surely - in the sense that they play in blue at Ibrox in front of the same fans, Rangers are still "the same club".

In the sense that the old club overspent far beyond its means and died as a result, and some roaster bought the stadium, its contents and some of the players, they're an entirely new enterprise.

For footballing shorthand, NewCo Rangers are "Rangers". In any other sense, they're a new team, just as new Airdrieonians are not old Airdrieonians.

This issue isn't in dispute, by the way - it's merely denied by the fans of one team, which isn't the same thing.

If a tenth of the population decided tomorrow that the world is flat, there wouldn't be a dispute over the flatness of the world - the world would remain as round as it's ever been. It's just that there'd be a mob of nutters claiming otherwise, which would be a total irrelevance to the world's actual shape.

Edited by flyingrodent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nothing that a wee lick of paint won't solve. ;)

but that wasn't the point, what did tripadvisor have in its heading for ibrox stadium.......most successfull what?

looks like its not just the sfa and uefa that need educating.

nothing? Thats a review your reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think rory mcallister would be an ideal replacement for jon daly and for half the wages and more goals.

surprised no one has come in for him all these years he was banging in the goals at peterhead

Has McAllister finished his apprenticeship yet. The reason h left ICT to go part time was to get a trade to fall back on should football fail for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the review has nothing to do with anything, its the heading im interested in.

so who else has acknowledged the worlds most successful football club?. :lol:

Ill try again ..pay attention moron..thats the headline from a REVIEW!!!!...not by Tripadvisor ..heres theirs.

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g186534-d2720452-Reviews-Ibrox_Stadium-Glasgow_Scotland.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ill try again ..pay attention moron..thats the headline from a REVIEW!!!!...not by Tripadvisor ..heres theirs.

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g186534-d2720452-Reviews-Ibrox_Stadium-Glasgow_Scotland.html

Ibrox - rated Number 19 in Attractions in Glasgow.

The Necropolis - Rated Number 15.

Must have better zombies, or something... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it might come as a surprise to some on here but i don't believe the sfa membership held by rangers during the summer of 2012 is proof of continuity and of course if its the company that are the licence and membership holders then there was a break in membership once the assets were transferred over to charles green as the membership had to be re approved by the sfa.

the continuity came with the club that were transferred as assets from the administrators to charles green's company.

now here's the challenge, how can it be proved otherwise that the club itself is not a continuation?

ive seen no evidence otherwise and a lot of confusion on here and other forums between club and company trying to distinguish between the two. Now it is well known that with uefa/eca they understand the difference since rangers kept the history but had their membership downgraded which was the same as what happened with the sfa.

now in reference to the article 12 on uefa membership it confirms rangers loss of the ordinary membership due to a break in the accounts and loss of top flight status, re application and downgrading of rangers status. there is no evidence of a break in continuity with the club only a break in uefa membership.

sorry guys just catching up, started writing a similar post last night but the power went

:lol: That is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morning all.

Quite an exchange I missed on here late last night.

To be honest, Ted emerged with more credit. There are contradictions in what he's saying, but he wasn't behind any of the tag team abuse that has outsiders claiming the beloved BRALT should close.

FWIW, I reckon the various links point towards my mealy mouthed, fence sitting view being about right:

Rangers do still exist - "allows for continuity of sporting record" ;but it's not been seamless - "must be member for 3 consecutive years".

Between the wildly polarised sides, I think we've got there. You just won't allow yourselves to see it, or certainly admit it.

Are you on the wind up here ?, didn't you just read a tag team posting competition by Tedi & Bennett towards me before posting this and I wasn't even online at the time ?. Maybe you haven't noticed that my posts appear to be fair game for ridicule by the mob that is the resident Rangers support and they can gang up in numbers themselves.

Tedi emerged with more credit ? :lol: , the bumbling fucking idiot keeps posting like he is more than a slice of bread short of a loaf and deliberately placed himself in the firing line for posting such nonsense in the face of contradictory evidence and then defended it like it was gospel.

Rangers is not and never will be the original Rangers club it ever was and that is the crux of all the heated exchanges on here and even you have posted something in the same context. It is a new Rangers that was created after the death of another Rangers to replace the old dead club and is a continuation but not the exact original club it was. It will still lay claim to the former clubs honours ?? snigger snigger :lol: , and will carry on in Rangers spirit as Rangers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you on the wind up here ?, didn't you just read a tag team posting competition by Tedi & Bennett towards me before posting this and I wasn't even online at the time ?. Maybe you haven't noticed that my posts appear to be fair game for ridicule by the mob that is the resident Rangers support and they can gang up in numbers themselves.

Lies and damned lies. There isn't a moment that you or a member of your team of clerks in your chambers isn't online. You have 7x24 communication with The BRALT.

The rest of your post is simply pathetic, 'you can dish it out but you can't take it' rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuxace, Johnnybhoy. I thought I was a grumpy old fucker but you make me look positively optimistic and gamine!

Please, Kinky I keep reading that with a soft 'c' due to the 'e' on the end. Fuxache (my favoured spelling) or fuxake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was mocking the QC`s own choice of words, correctly.

The whole post from the QC was a wonderful example of rage, tears and snotters, at least the QC in his 2nd last paragraph grasped the truth of my motive when replying to him and quite a few others on this thread.

You truly are a thick twat when you are online, you on two threads kept posting some ASA released statement to somehow say you were right. You were quickly shown that UEFA themselves see things completely differently and then still had the barefaced cheek not to even engage on UEFA's article 12 in any way shape or fashion.

You daft fuckers called a Rangers support keep asking for a reasonable and sensible debate on all things related to Rangers, when confronted with something that needs some sort of response from the Rangers support you all then just turn into wumming fannies by avoiding or derailing the topic or conversation.

You Tedi have shown yourself up last night for being a cnut of the highest magnitude, it doesn't matter what is put in front of you for questioning you just respond by any other method other than what was put to you. "Here's a link here", "you spelled something wrong", or any other futile pathetic response.

I you think that you deliberately knowing that I'll get somewhat abusive to gain a proper response from you by you posting pish then just shows the type of person you are in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know how many times I have to repeat it.

UEFA are only talking about one club not multiple clubs.

UEFA also state that the creation of a newco constitutes a change to the (no plural here) clubs legal form. the fact they use the word 'change' means they are talking about the same entity, if it was as you state a new club then there was nothing to change.

Maybe you could explain in article 12 in the UEFA rules & regulations where a club "must be a legal entity of it's own right ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...