Henrik's tongue Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Is it mental gymnastics day again already? It comes round so soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 As I said in my post the board will say nothing. Nor do I. How are the assets of the club protected from an insolvency event, assets held against yet more loans via Mike Ashley? Is this part of the plan? At some point Mike Ashley will own all the assets and the football club, but not the company. The company can go down the pan for all its going to be worth. Erm, what the hell is this you've contrived ?, the SFA have already deemed that owning part of the company constitutes owning part the club ie the shares. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacGafraidh Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 So will selling McLeod keep the lights on at the "big hoose" for a few more days? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 A new club would suffer a 15 point penalty An existing club who had already been through a previous insolvency issue would suffer a 25 point penalty, that is why they say 'Where a Club, whether owned and operated by the same or a different Member' they clearly state here that the member is the operator of the club and that member is also the owner of the club. Sorry Mhonkhey but if you are pushing for 25 points then you are arguing that club and company are separate which is clearly how the SFA see things, it very much does decide the old club new club debate. Oh, for God's sake Ted. Stop being so bloody defensive. My point was to say that the scale of penalty is not dependent in this case, on how continuation is viewed externally. It's clear that a Rangers scenario is, for such purposes, deemed to involve the same club committing a repeat offence. It's you who's tried to steer discussion back in that direction. I've my own view on continuation which some characterise as fence-sitting, but it's fine. My sense of self is not reliant on others sharing that view. And if you really wish to discuss things sensibly, drop the 'Mhonkey' business please. It's a little ironic how you then go on to berate WRK for similar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 A new club would suffer a 15 point penalty An existing club who had already been through a previous insolvency issue would suffer a 25 point penalty, that is why they say 'Where a Club, whether owned and operated by the same or a different Member' they clearly state here that the member is the operator of the club and that member is also the owner of the club. Sorry Mhonkhey but if you are pushing for 25 points then you are arguing that club and company are separate which is clearly how the SFA see things, it very much does decide the old club new club debate. Try reading the whole rules & regulations Tedi, they can't even distinguish between the club and company at times. Read rule E20 and it's sub articles, they screwed up by not telling us it's the company that runs the club that is responsible for taxes and paying the HMRC. HMRC Obligations and Reporting E20 Subject to Rules E21 and E28, any Club which: E20.1 does not by 1 August 2014 pay in full to HMRC the amount due to be paid to HMRC to discharge the Club’s Tax Liabilities due prior to and remaining outstanding on 1 June 2014; E20.2 does not within twenty eight days of a Tax Liability becoming due by the Club on or after 1 June 2014 pay to HMRC the full amount of that Tax Liability; E20.3 does not by 1 August 2014 pay to HMRC the full amount due to discharge the Club’s Tax Liabilities arising as a result of an assessment issued by HMRC prior to 1 June 2014; E20.4 does not within twenty eight days of the date of an assessment issued by HMRC on or after 1 June 2014 pay to HMRC the full amount of the Club’s Tax Liabilities arising as a result of that assessment; and/or E20.5 defaults on the terms of any Time to Pay Agreement; So Tedi ?, if the club is something that the SFA & SPFL see as separate from the company then how can the club be responsible for taxes when in fact it is the company that runs the club that is responsible for paying taxes by operating the club ??? Why haven't the associations separated the club from the company here ?, it looks pretty much like the club is in fact a footballing company that pays taxes to the HMRC and not that the company operating the club pays taxes to the HMRC. How many times in rule E20 does it mention the company here ?, it's the company that has the Companies House docket number to pay taxes and not the club, therefore the club cannot pay taxes because the club isn't registered with Companies House to pay them. In fact Tedi the whole fucking rule book is riddled with such failures. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 He also forgets, he himself stated, these rules and definitions were created after the original Ragers went under ... undermining his own argument here ,.. all over the shop. You'd better watch Dhenny, the chump is now going to try and claim when he ties himself up in knots it is a cunning Baldrick like plan to wind us all up now ??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Agreed, I have no idea why your fans keep bringing this up. Agreed, I have no idea why your fans keep bringing this up.BECAUSE YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 'Where a Club, whether owned and operated by the same or a different Member, suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event" Pretty clear from this. The SPFL aren't concerned with who owns the membership; it is the club which takes part in the sporting events and Rangers were allowed to skip all the stages involved with a new club as they were considered to be the existing club, only the holding company changed. Owning companies can't get sporting penalties such as points deductions, only clubs can. Not the same club = no history, apart from your two lowly league titles. You can't have it all ways. We'll skip the first as thats down to how one reads it and that can differ depending on the person. New clubs stages? The authorities kind of made a right mess out that one, you could make arguments were both old and new clubs if it were down to the authorities actions. 'Desperate wee bear' 'Lord, how we have tried' 'Brother Campbell' 'Bigotfest' Is it any wonder nobody ever tries to debate anything with you when all you ever do is resort to this nonsense? it is no wonder at all however why they just resort in kind, now away you go WKR. Norman is basically a panto villain now, a mere parody of his former self. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 The club was already being ran by new operators by this point, the oldco never entered liquidation until October 2012. This should be fun, Tedi define what is the club when the liquidation order was given ? Oldco = PLC's debts and held Rangers FC's licences. Newco = Assets bought from Rangers FC PLC when it went tits up and no licences. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
printer Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 If Rangers are the same club Administration would be they're THIRD insolvency event. 1.Admin under whyte 2.Liquidation. They got 15 points for the 1st but I dont recall Rangers being docked points for their 2nd insolvency event, Liquidation? Why was that?...If they survived liquidation then surely they should have been docked 25 points. Surely initial administration, failure to resolve that situation and successfully come out with the finiancial crisis resolved with resultant liquidation is one insolvency event? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Not another cunning plan ... how does he do it? Notice how the chump just ignored my post I replied to him about rule E20 ?, the post which the SPFL can't even in their own rules distinguish between the company paying taxes because it is registered in Companies House and the club which isn't a company being responsible for paying taxes ??? The club can't in the associations new rules & regulations pay taxes because it doesn't have any legal recognition any more according to their rules and the company running the club is responsible for paying taxes operating the club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 No ... they're about one of the only fuckers your lot haven't written to, phoned or abused/threatened ,,,, hardly an achievement. Edit: "Boo Hoo did you see what they wrote in their match programme" .... cue hissy fits, gnashing of teeth and wailing. :lol: :lol: It would appear that this went right under the radar during the ASA thingy, Rangers FC used to boast n brag they were the worlds most successful club, nowadays they only boast n brag they are Scotland's most successful club, why is that do you think ? Surely something went wrong there ?, or is it false advertising to claim to be the worlds most successful club when legally the club was wound up by Her Majesty's Government. Why don't Rangers FC Ltd in Govan not advertise they are the world's most successful club any more ?, damn pesky legal laws eh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 The club was already being ran by new operators by this point, the oldco never entered liquidation until October 2012. The points deduction comes the moment a club enters an insolvency event , not when it ends idiot. Rangers ENTERED liquidation in June , whilst in administration ,THEN Green bought the liquidised assests...... June..http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile/news/140-years-of-rangers-liquidated-after-just-8-minutes-of-meeting.17875998 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 There was a break in continuation under UEFA rules, of that there is no doubt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 There was a break in continuation under UEFA rules, of that there is no doubt. And an overlap in the two clubs' existence according to Scotland's Governing Bodies... You could almost feel sympathy for the poor Orcs, trying to wrap their limited intellects around the mental contortions necessary to believe they can still cuddle up to their 54 title comfort blankets... Almost. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I don't think you will find a more successful Rangers FC anywhere else in the world. The point being they dropped advertising being the world's most successful club to just being Scotland's most successful club immediately after the ASA thingy. HTH 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 There was a break in continuation under UEFA rules, of that there is no doubt. I do hope Tedi posts another backfiring self exploding link from UEFA. He's probably looking on the UEFA website for one as we post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 This is all completely irrelevant since the football club had to be voted in/admitted to the Scottish League as a new club in August. Rangers fans believe they were relegated down to the lowest division. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I do hope Tedi posts another backfiring self exploding link from UEFA. He's probably looking on the UEFA website for one as we post. He'd do better to look at the words of the Court or Arbitration for Sport, the body named as the final word in the SFA's articles of association and UEFA's articles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Ahhhh the old lets all join together and shout down any Rangers fan who attempts to debate routine, an old favourite on here. 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.