Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

Compulsory or voluntary liquidation is meaningless, apart from the liquidation bit.

They're both new clubs, that's clear. If a foreign FA recognises a foreign club as continuous when it's not, that's up to them.

I have three guinea pigs. If I recognise them as horses, or when they die, name their replacements the same as them, that's up to me. Doesn't make it the same piggies. Sevco possess Rangers' bibs n cones. My next piggies will possess the extant ones' hutch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Leeds liquidation scenario interest me because it shows a glaring hole in the 'Rangers are a new club and no other club has survived liquidation' nonsense.

Leeds clearly did, what makes it even more bizarre was a number of posters including yourself accepted this scenario was a possibility way back in April 2012, funnily enough nobody was speaking about players back then either....to be honest I am not sure why you are mentioning it now, I can only assume it is some sort of straw you are trying to clutch.

and the 'you used to me a better poster line' ..........cringe....a line which you have used all over this forum against numerous posters, we have been through this before, everyone sees through it.

When it comes to the players I did find this, it was released 12th July, the day after the sale of the 'business and assets' was agreed but before the transfer of memberships was finalised.

The FA gives Leeds the all-clear to play York in a pre-season friendly tonight after being given certain assurances. An FA spokesman tells PA Sport: "We are happy for the game to go ahead as long as it's being played by the old club - Leeds United in administration. As long as players and trialists are registered to the old entity we have no objections."

It certainly suggests that a transfer of player registrations was about to get underway and that the FA were making sure it had no happened yet.

Edit it again and see if you can make it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compulsory or voluntary liquidation is meaningless, apart from the liquidation bit.

They're both new clubs, that's clear. If a foreign FA recognises a foreign club as continuous when it's not, that's up to them.

I have three guinea pigs. If I recognise them as horses, or when they die, name their replacements the same as them, that's up to me. Doesn't make it the same piggies. Sevco possess Rangers' bibs n cones. My next piggies will possess the extant ones' hutch.

What are their names?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would consider discussing something that did not interest me? really, I think that is bullcrap to be honest but then you have always been a bullcrap poster, do not think I have ever pretended otherwise.

(translation)

of course I'm not going to discuss the TUPE aspect of it because I know that the players who stayed on at Ibrox transferred their contracts between the old club and the new club therefore proving that it is not the same club.

That is why it 'does not interest me'. No matter how much I dance around with comparisons to similar (but different) situations, there is no getting away from the fact that Rangers 1973 1873 died.

And I can't handle it.........

EDIT - wrong century. easily done on a Rangers / 'Rangers' thread.

Edited by Ken Fitlike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(translation)

of course I'm not going to discuss the TUPE aspect of it because I know that the players who stayed on at Ibrox transferred their contracts between the old club and the new club therefore proving that it is not the same club.

That is why it 'does not interest me'. No matter how much I dance around with comparisons to similar (but different) situations, there is no getting away from the fact that Rangers 1973 died.

And I can't handle it.........

Very succinct, Ken. Tedi is the epitome of the berrz who will bang on about perceived similarities until the cows come home while dismissing differences as irrelevant. Season with a lack of self-awareness and add a soupçon of desperation, and they're comedy gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh for the love of God. If you have proof of anything post it. Otherwise shut the f**k up. You're worse than the blogger you constantly bemoaned.

Desperate doesn't cover it.

Tedi won't post his "proof", as the document he keeps cherry picking from contains a few of those differences I mentioned. Also, I'm guessing,a fair bit of stuff that he doesn't really understand. You can find it on the mightyleeds site, if you're interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(translation)

of course I'm not going to discuss the TUPE aspect of it because I know that the players who stayed on at Ibrox transferred their contracts between the old club and the new club therefore proving that it is not the same club.

That is why it 'does not interest me'. No matter how much I dance around with comparisons to similar (but different) situations, there is no getting away from the fact that Rangers 1973 died.

And I can't handle it.........

You mean they did it before, and nobody noticed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Says the guy that claimed Companies house was wrong and that Leeds did not enter liquidation, never mind WKR 'business and assets' is backing you up, next he will telling us again how KPMG said Leeds got a CVA.

Since you are pointing it out then I guess you are claiming assuming that Leeds did thing differently with regards to TUPE and that the FA had no reason to release that statement, I guess then you will be agreeing with Thundercats and providing proof of this.

Like I say - Rangers died and you can't handle it.

No matter how much water-muddying minutiae and utter bollocks you scrape up or make up.

Your current club should be called Rangers 2012 in the same style as Gretna 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will take that as a no then...not really a surprise.

making stuff up? you were the one that said Leeds were not liquidated :lol:

I seriously don't give a monkey's w**k about Leeds. All smoke and mirrors to feed your desperate denial.

I know the horrible, arrogant, cheating club that played out of Ibrox stadiun ran into financial shite, purely at their own instigation and useless financial control, were put into administration, the administrators could not get a creditors' CVA agreement and WATP FC 1873 were put into liquidation.

Charles Green bought some assets mainly to enable him to use the Big Hoose (House!) in Govan to get the bearz money so he could buy a Big Hoose (Chateau) in Normandy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Says the guy that claimed Companies house was wrong and that Leeds did not enter liquidation, never mind WKR 'business and assets' is backing you up, next he will telling us again how KPMG said Leeds got a CVA.

Since you are pointing it out then I guess you are claiming assuming that Leeds did thing differently with regards to TUPE and that the FA had no reason to release that statement, I guess then you will be agreeing with Thundercats and providing proof of this.

There was no TUPE in the Leeds situation , can you guess why or prove otherwise :1eye

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
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...