CityDave Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 and I am perfectly content that the club i support have won 54 titles, confirmed by the SFA and the league body responsible for issuing those titles, I guess the Leeds fans are also happy that they got to keep their titles courtesy of the English version of the SFA. The establishment loves certain clubs, that is just the way it is. Distraction fail. But still no evidence that there is any continuation and the Leeds Utd nonsense surfaces yet again. Repetition and distraction, deflect and whataboutary, its obvious you don't know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 So, king could end up chairman of a company without any assets, if deemed they were fraudulently obtained? You'd think he'd make comment on this, at least to the shareholders, to put their mind at ease. You know how, under his stewardship, he promised complete openness. Whur's the deeds? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 So far, there's been no proof that Dave King can pay market value for a Mars Bar. Awfy dear them Mars bars Norman.. Rangers have confirmed new chairman Dave King has handed the club a £1.5m loan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I'll ask again, if I pitches up at ibrox next week and make an offer solely for the club without "the company" What exactly would I be buying? As I said, the playing and non playing contract are held with "the company" as are the assets I.e Ibrox and still not renamed Murray Park along with the SFA/SPFL registration and memberships. Can anyone answer? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Can Dave King pay the market value of the assets, to start a new club?No. The club don't have nor need any assets. Edited September 9, 2015 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Mere pocket change for oor Killie fan Aye well he does see himself as a top hatted toff..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 If the legal and footballing authorities can't convince you then I reckon we have two options. 1. You are at the wind up. 2. You believe what macclumpany and other bloggers blog. Personally I find the lengths that some of you knew clubbers go to, quite amusing..... Neither option. Is there an option 3 or a 4, these first two appear very beige and nothing but default reasoning?. Do better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Tedi in mare shocker 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 What the league body that handed out the awards to Rangers proclaiming that they belong to Rangers currently enjoying a fine start to the new season is not evidence? really? I salute your infallibility Dave. This is still not evidence, try again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 No. The club don't have nor need any assets. hmmmm this is complicated. things were so much easier before the governing bodies changed the rules, to suit their second biggest asset. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 If the chairman of Thistle comes out with the begging bowl, suggesting we are in dire financial straits. Should he be ignored? After all, it's only a company that's failing. And who'd be stupid enough to part with their cash, to save a company, right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythstoliveby Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 tedi, i think you need to take a step back, try and gather your thoughts and then return with cogent arguments against what it being listed on here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dindeleux Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I don't think you will ever get a "Rangers" fan these days who stuck to the "Rangers" story to admit that it is not the same club. My brother in law doesn't support the new team as, in his words, its not the same. I'm sure most people (maybe even Bennett and Tedi) know people with similar views. The argument with the whole club/company thing is who won 54 trophies and 9IAR? Surely if the company own the players contracts, the assets, hire the manager etc then it is indeed the company who has won the trophies? If the club didn't own anything how could they win anything? If Kilmarnock went bust (liquidation wise) I would not support the new creation. I might take an interest but my heart wouldn't be in it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Aye, you are not an Establishment club, nobody cares.So you freely acknowledge the rules were changed to suit rangers circumstance. Edited September 9, 2015 by dave.j 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 If the league body that handed them oot say they belong to Rangers, then they belong to Rangers, there really is nobody better qualified to judge their ownership. After long and protracted discussions involving a company very heavily linked to a fraudulent purchase of the assets belonging to Rangers FC. With the man who announced to the world it was the same club because he had just (allegedly fraudulently) bought the history for a quid and added a "The" to the name of the new Rangers company. Just saying lyk. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythstoliveby Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Now that the rangers fanatics aren't around, can anyone answer the question - If it is ruled that the assets are to be returned to the oldco, who gets them? - David Murray? - Craig Whyte? - Ticketus? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Now that the rangers fanatics aren't around, can anyone answer the question - If it is ruled that the assets are to be returned to the oldco, who gets them? - David Murray? - Craig Whyte? - Ticketus? The creditors via sale by BDO (The Liquidators) if there is any money left then it would be split between the shareholders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythstoliveby Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 The creditors via sale by BDO (The Liquidators) if there is any money left then it would be split between the shareholders. So Ticketus, HMRC , the facepainter etc would all get to sell Ibrox and Murray Park? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 It must be quite a conundrum for the Berz. Club dies like many before it. Rules are changed by the governing body to protect their second biggest income stream. Some would say, doing so is immoral. Rangers keep their history, but deep down, know they were given preferential treatment, no one has been treated like this and probably never will again. Now we have a company who they acknowledge fraudulently acquired the assets to keep the story going. It's no wonder the Berz are refusing to discuss what's happening. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Neither option. Is there an option 3 or a 4, these first two appear very beige and nothing but default reasoning?. Do better. The problem I have Is that I don't believe that you believe it's a new club, just something hollow about your posts that doesn't ring true. It's like you're trying too hard to convince but you'll have to convince yourself first. 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.