stonedsailor Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 uefa recognise fiorentina as the same club despite then completely starting from scratch unlike rangers, it stands to reason uefa will recognise us as the same club when you consider that fact, added to that you can look at the numerous examples of them stating we are the same club or showing they consider us the same club as outlined in my previous post As stated UEFA implemented the FFP regulations in 2012. Anything prior to that is moot. All cases since then have seen the club involved in liquidation delicenced and kicked out of their home association, membership interrupted, you may be the same club but you have a new membership of the SFA. The honours your club has in this membership amounts to a grand ole total of 2 (two). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) not according to direct quotes from uefa we are not, clubs can apply again meaning they are the same club even after an insolvency event, uefa recognises sporting continuity which also means we are the same club , we have cooefficent points from five seasons showing continuation all there in black and white in my previous post as direct quotes from uefa, your arguement relies on your flawed interpretation of events which direct quotes from uefa disprove and which you cant provide any evidence to back it up so stop talking drivelShow me a direct, first hand quote from UEFA. With citations. Edited March 7, 2016 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 FFP rules kicked in in 2011. The STV article must have been based on old info. Duff and Phelps stuff is dubious. Their dealings in the affair have been brought into question many times. There was even a quote saying that the only time Craig Whyte looked worried going into administration was when HMRC objected to his choice of administrators. yawn, feel free to provide some evidence properly sourced where the ffp rules alter the rules regarding phoenix clubs or admit its just more unsourced drivel pulled from your behind. the point of that post was to point out that there were numerous sources outlining that the the club would survive in the event of a liquidation event before the show the red card to liquidation event which punctures the myth about us supposedly all thinking liquidation meant new club at that point and all changing our minds later 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 I just read the STV article. This piece from the last part is the most important. So as you can see, no seamless history. No history intact. A shattered historical timeline. New club, a phoenix club, with little more than a legacy. The transfer of membership was forbidden, a new membership with old membership number created. thats not what the uefa rules say though as i have proved in my direct quote from them 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 You see, this bit pretty much confirms my reading of things. Any continuation has not been seamless. This "interruption" idea counters the claims to an unbroken history. Call yourselves the same club if you like, but don't pretend it's been seamless because it's not been. Rangers have the same right to consider themselves 'the same', as have Gretna. but the bit at the end where the club applies again doesnt suit your interpretation which is why you have cut it out, got it loud and clear, its there in black and white that uefa state that we are the same club 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 yawn, feel free to provide some evidence properly sourced where the ffp rules alter the rules regarding phoenix clubs or admit its just more unsourced drivel pulled from your behind. the point of that post was to point out that there were numerous sources outlining that the the club would survive in the event of a liquidation event before the show the red card to liquidation event which punctures the myth about us supposedly all thinking liquidation meant new club at that point and all changing our minds later I have shown you the Timişoara case. You quoted it yourself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 but the bit at the end where the club applies again doesnt suit your interpretation which is why you have cut it out, got it loud and clear, its there in black and white that uefa state that we are the same club FFS. 1st application is turned down. 2nd application 3 years later is the new club who made the first application applying again. Are you really that dense or are you trolling us? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 but the bit at the end where the club applies again doesnt suit your interpretation which is why you have cut it out, got it loud and clear, its there in black and white that uefa state that we are the same club With an interruption. Not a problem for me. Liquidation was massively significant and changes things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Ahhh those people who devote their entire lives to proving its a new club, probably want donations .... PayPal time lads, sock it to sevco lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 With an interruption. Not a problem for me. Liquidation was massively significant and changes things. What interruption? No games were missed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 I have shown you the Timişoara case. You quoted it yourself. yep, and according to uefa we remain the same club despite the change in company structure as proven by my quote on that case, you can add that to all the other evidence i have provided showing uefa consider us the same club and the zero evidence you can provide to contradict that and its clear you are talking nonsense 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 No. These are clearly different things. I doubt if one dog was even a direct replacement for the other, given the length of the 'interruption'. I've no great problem with a continuation of sorts. It just hasn't been seamless as the company that was the club, bit the dust. It's messy. They're sort of old and sort of new. The problem is that it's so important to so many Rangers fans that the club they support has won a lot. Personally, I find that a startling preoccupation for adults to have, but there you are. Nah not with you there mate. I agree there could have been a compromise and we could all have pretended everything was the same, but that would have required admittance of wrong doing, contrition and reparations to the injured parties. So f**k that. Also, I do love how the most corrupt organisations on earth are used as arbiters of truth and reconciliation. If FIFA & Uefa and the SFA and the SPFL and announced Aberdeen were the greatest footballing side ever to have played the fair game, I'd be happy, but I wouldn't believe it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 FFS. 1st application is turned down. 2nd application 3 years later is the new club who made the first application applying again. Are you really that dense or are you trolling us? laughable, when was this first application that was turned down 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Nah not with you there mate. I agree there could have been a compromise and we could all have pretended everything was the same, but that would have required admittance of wrong doing, contrition and reparations to the injured parties. So f**k that. Also, I do love how the most corrupt organisations on earth are used as arbiters of truth and reconciliation. If FIFA & Uefa and the SFA and the SPFL and announced Aberdeen were the greatest footballing side ever to have played the fair game, I'd be happy, but I wouldn't believe it. thats it because they all say rangers are the same club they must be corrupt are hmrc corrupt, the stock market, lord nimmo, lord glennie, bdo, the asa etc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 laughable, when was this first application that was turned down When Timişoara were rejected and took the case to the CAS. You are that thick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 As stated UEFA implemented the FFP regulations in 2012. Anything prior to that is moot. All cases since then have seen the club involved in liquidation delicenced and kicked out of their home association, membership interrupted, you may be the same club but you have a new membership of the SFA. The honours your club has in this membership amounts to a grand ole total of 2 (two). not according to the sfa and spfl we dont, the same membership was transferred over, the key word in the uefa quote is "deemed" uefa regard it as an interruption even if there wasnt actually one 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 thats it because they all say rangers are the same club they must be corrupt are hmrc corrupt, the stock market, lord nimmo, lord glennie, bdo, the asa etc No, I don't think I need to bring in the The Rangers disaster to accuse the footballing authorities of corruption (It really isn't all about you). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 When Timişoara were rejected and took the case to the CAS. You are that thick. a rejectiion is not an application, you really are that thick 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 No, I don't think I need to bring in the The Rangers disaster to accuse the footballing authorities of corruption (It really isn't all about you). but you will bring it up on a page devoted to rangers status as a club, even though thats not what you meant , ok then 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 not according to the sfa and spfl we dont, the same membership was transferred over, the key word in the uefa quote is "deemed" uefa regard it as an interruption even if there wasnt actually one But UEFA are the governing body. If they deem it an interruption it is an interruption. 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.