stonedsailor Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 the club/company thing is really easy to understand, how can you still be having trouble with it? It is so easy that this is what a judge had to say about it. Judge says Rangers' argument over club v company indemnity coverage "isn't going to work" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakamura Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 That list of explanations for what happened between Spiers and a Rangers director, in full: - A professional journalist deliberately invented a story that might show Rangers in a bad light, purely motivated by malice and a desire to damage Rangers; He then intentionally orchestrated his own dismissal from a well-paid and cushy job, in order to show Rangers in a bad light and to win approval from Celtic fans; and now, the National Union of Journalists has backed the journalist, because the National Union of Journalists also hates Rangers and wants to show them in a bad light, or - A Rangers director told Spiers that he quite likes the Billy Boys song. Only a buffoon would believe that the former is more likely than the latter, regardless of which team they support. Not Scottish here, and I don't know Spiers at all. Talking about journalists in general, not knowing the specific guy, nothing would surprise me when it comes to today's 'professional journalists', especially in the field of sports. Sports journalism today is dominated by twitter and sensationalism, everyone is trying to break some story to stay relevant, and since there aren't that many real stories, lots of stuff gets made up. Then people get called out, egos come into play, people end up losing jobs and starting blogs. There aren't many sports journalists who are immune to making stuff up, it's part of staying relevant for most at this point, nothing to do with malice or damaging this club or that. It used to be different before blogs and twitter. I don't know if this guy made it up or not, but he'd be one in a long line of "professional journalists" to be full of shit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 So if a journalist came out tomorrow and said lawell was told him he didn't mind roll of honour or roaming in the gloaming , in just a conversation . You would not want celtic to question it? Old Firm evolution landmark We have now reached Theoretical Whitabootery. A proud moment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 not according to all the evidence , but you crack on with your delusions It's not "all the evidence" at all. There's evidence for each view. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 It's not "all the evidence" at all. There's evidence for each view. all the credible evidence backs the same club - sfa, spl, sfl, spfl, eca, uefa have all officially recognised us as the same club, hmrc, the stock market, bdo, duff and phelps have all stated or intimated we are the same club, lord glennie, lord nimmo, the asa have also done this the evidence for the new club amounts some 4 year old quotes from newspapers who have since printed stories which say we are the same club in them (they also printed similar headlines about celtic in the early 90s) and 4 year old quotes from non expert sources (ex players and mangers) who have also mostly since said we are the same club - thats all the actual evidence you have and not one bit of it is anywhere near as good as a single one of the sources backing the same club argument in addition to that you have a mythical scots law about club and companys not being able to separate, which not one of you can provide in 4 years of asking and various theories with no evidence backing them which are contradicted by facts - there is not one single piece of evidence with any credibility that backs the new club argument 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 What was the date that Rangers exited administration? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 It is so easy that this is what a judge had to say about it. feel free to explain how that proves new club in any way? btw here what the judge said specifically about same/new club yesterday all back the same club "Judge says club didn't "spring to existence" on date of transfer in June. Rangers QC agrees." Judge asks Green QC "why it is so important" to define the difference between Sevco and "the entity which has existed for over 100 years". "Judge hypothetically floats idea clause may not specifically state "limited" because Sevco company existed before it acquired "the club" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWilliamson Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Nobody's yet explained why I'm wrong with any of them. Yes they have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) Where's that YouTube of the angry kid being taken off his computer by his mother? Edited January 30, 2016 by Ken Fitlike 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 What was the date that Rangers exited administration? totally irrelevant when every credible source says the club was transferred from oldco to newco, the oldco didnt need to exit administration for the club to survive, if you want to continue with this line of argument feel free to provide some actual evidence supporting it from a credible source, otherwise lets move on as you have nothing supporting it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 'Nacho Newco'has got a nice ring to it. 54 and stopped counting due to being deid. (And several of the 54 should have been stripped) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Judge said "club did not just spring in to existence" on date of transfer in June Have the diddie chose just to ignore this quote? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Rangers cheated, then they died. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 all the credible evidence backs the same club - sfa, spl, sfl, spfl, eca, uefa have all officially recognised us as the same club, hmrc, the stock market, bdo, duff and phelps have all stated or intimated we are the same club, lord glennie, lord nimmo, the asa have also done this the evidence for the new club amounts some 4 year old quotes from newspapers who have since printed stories which say we are the same club in them (they also printed similar headlines about celtic in the early 90s) and 4 year old quotes from non expert sources (ex players and mangers) who have also mostly since said we are the same club - thats all the actual evidence you have and not one bit of it is anywhere near as good as a single one of the sources backing the same club argument in addition to that you have a mythical scots law about club and companys not being able to separate, which not one of you can provide in 4 years of asking and various theories with no evidence backing them which are contradicted by facts - there is not one single piece of evidence with any credibility that backs the new club argument A great many of the bodies you cite have not reached an independent position. They've done it by taking a lead from the SFA's position, one they're not sufficiently bothered about to challenge. The evidence of new club isn't confined to newspaper stories at all. Rangers had to apply to play at several different levels of our game because they were, to an extent, new. This newness also meant they couldn't play in Europe for a while if they qualified. The argument about them being exactly the same thing, depends on a complete acceptance of the club/company divorce idea. That idea is terribly problematic because professional football clubs are companies. You've not yet explained what you actually mean by 'club' in this context. I don't insist that this Rangers is an entirely new thing, because I don't think it really is. It's not really possible to argue that nothing has changed either though. Your claim that "all the evidence" points to a single reading, is quite simply untrue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Judge said "club did not just spring in to existence" on date of transfer in June Have the diddie chose just to ignore this quote? Nope. It's a sentiment I recognise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Yes they have. Not in a remotely convincing way for anyone attempting objectivity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 So if a journalist came out tomorrow and said lawell was told him he didn't mind roll of honour or roaming in the gloaming , in just a conversation . You would not want celtic to question it? World of difference between questioning/challenging a view, which is right and proper, and threatening their employer unless the give them the bullet. But you'd understand that if you grasped that this isn't about singing a song or not, it's about scrutiny of sevco's attitude to sectarianism and the opaqueness of "them doing all they can." I don't believe you are really this dense, so I infer that you and your fellow bears (on here at least) are just being willfully ignorant as usual. Which underlines and reinforces the widely held view that you are in fact just a bunch of c***s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 World of difference between questioning/challenging a view, which is right and proper, and threatening their employer unless the give them the bullet. But you'd understand that if you grasped that this isn't about singing a song or not, it's about scrutiny of sevco's attitude to sectarianism and the opaqueness of "them doing all they can." I don't believe you are really this dense, so I infer that you and your fellow bears (on here at least) are just being willfully ignorant as usual. Which underlines and reinforces the widely held view that you are in fact just a bunch of c***s. They did not threaten their employer , they questioned the statement , the herald have already said Advertisers and rangers had no bearing on the decision Are you accusing them of lying? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 They did not threaten their employer , they questioned the statement , the herald have already said Advertisers and rangers had no bearing on the decision Are you accusing them of lying? Yes. And it is painfully obvious even to the willfully ignorant that this is the case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 all the credible evidence backs the same club - sfa, spl, sfl, spfl, eca, uefa have all officially recognised us as the same club, hmrc, the stock market, bdo, duff and phelps have all stated or intimated we are the same club, lord glennie, lord nimmo, the asa have also done this the evidence for the new club amounts some 4 year old quotes from newspapers who have since printed stories which say we are the same club in them (they also printed similar headlines about celtic in the early 90s) and 4 year old quotes from non expert sources (ex players and mangers) who have also mostly since said we are the same club - thats all the actual evidence you have and not one bit of it is anywhere near as good as a single one of the sources backing the same club argument in addition to that you have a mythical scots law about club and companys not being able to separate, which not one of you can provide in 4 years of asking and various theories with no evidence backing them which are contradicted by facts - there is not one single piece of evidence with any credibility that backs the new club argument f**k up TEDI! 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.