strichener Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Except it isn't. Nice change of tense there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 That's a simple and powerful point.Cast iron evidence that club was always regarded as utterly synonymous with company. Likewise when they used to publish their financials or held their general meetings. Not once in the good old days would they dream of suggesting the story they now tell. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) That for me, is where the idea of seamless continuity breaks down. It requires a ludicrous separation of club and company that insults the intelligence. Edited March 25, 2016 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Nice change of tense there. Nope. I've said for years on here that a club's existence isn't coterminous with its associated PLC. This remains an inviolable truth however much the diddies care to rail against it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Can any rangers fan provide any evidence from before 2011 that suggests the story they now tell was not in any way concocted in response to liquidation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 The gates, that's my new favourite new clubism. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) Nope. I've said for years on here that a club's existence isn't coterminous with its associated PLC. This remains an inviolable truth however much the diddies care to rail against it. Want to answer some of the questions then on how the club has players that are contracted to the company, plays in a stadium owned by the company, in front of an audience that has paid the company. So no players, supporters or facilities. Exactly what is the club? ETA: Confusing myself over club v company. Can't imagine why that would be. Edited March 24, 2016 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Can any rangers fan provide any evidence from before 2011 that suggests the story they now tell was not in any way concocted in response to liquidation. You'll have to unpack this yin, Dave. I've tried hard but it makes not one jot of sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Exactly what is the club? The club is what you and your wee diddy pals get so aerated about and have done so through my 10 years+ on P&B. The club is the same one that you and your wee diddy pals have made nearly a quarter of a million posts about on one thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vocal celt Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 You'll have to unpack this yin, Dave. I've tried hard but it makes not one jot of sense. ^^^^^^ Off his face on Buckie ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) The club is what you and your wee diddy pals get so aerated about and have done so through my 10 years+ on P&B. The club is the same one that you and your wee diddy pals have made nearly a quarter of a million posts about on one thread. Are you sure, according to all evidence that would be the company. Although it is nice to see that you cannot define what it actually is. Edited March 24, 2016 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 You'll have to unpack this yin, Dave. I've tried hard but it makes not one jot of sense. Really? OK. Rangers fans would have us believe that they have always known that the club is a separate entity from the company. Well, apart from Youngsy, who changed his tune. I'll use Tedi as an example. Unless he deleted it, he stated on here that he knew the club would be safe and it wouldn't be the club that got liquidated. As such he didn't raise a red card to liquidation. He knew it was the company that would go into liquidation. All i'm asking for is some evidence to suggest that it was common knowledge before admin, that the club and company were separate. I'll give you an example. The Rangers website now runs news items where it has to distinguish between the club and the company. They are quite deliberate when they do it. It is my belief that in the good old days, or the Murray era as it was known, no such distinguishing between the two took place. I'd suggest that pretty much everything published was about "the club". For example at an agm, it would be the "club accounts" that were discussed. Can any rangers fan provide any evidence to suggest otherwise? Is there any evidence out there, like an old newspaper clipping, a website article that mentions the club and company being separate, prior to these events? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 The club is what you and your wee diddy pals get so aerated about and have done so through my 10 years+ on P&B. The club is the same one that you and your wee diddy pals have made nearly a quarter of a million posts about on one thread. ^^^^^ Defines his club by how others see it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Another myth – here’s a quote from an STV article from 2011 outlining what would happen if the Olcdo was liquidated, it’s very clear according to that rangers would survive and be the same club. This proves that the information was freely available before liquidation and it wasn’t some myth created after the event. “There is an alternative for football clubs. As was the case in England with Leeds United, the insolvent company can create a "phoenix" club and attempt to transfer every part of the club to a new business, leaving behind the debt.†Source http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/277115-what-happens-when-a-club-in-administration-sets-up-a-phoenix-company/ Here’s what duff and Phelps had to say at the start of April 2012 before the CVA failed, once again clear the club would survive liquidation. "We cannot rule out the winning bid could prefer a different structure that meant the sale of the business to a new company and in that eventuality it is certainly possible that Rangers would be liquidated," co-administrator Paul Clark told a number of newspapers. "But it would only be done so after the football club was made safe." Rangers fans wanted to avoid liquidation for obvious reasons – losing players, possibility of relegation down the divisions etc. but most were aware that the club would survive as there were buyers in place for it as the evidence shows. you can add lord glennie saying club and company were seperate entities which happened pre cva and its clear that you are talking your usual bollocks Quoting D+P? Get outta town. Oh, and see where it says "create a phoenix club"? Ooft, sair ane for ya. Although I must add: fair play to nacho for trying to answer things in a relatively sane manner, unlike 3 or 4 others we could mention. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Are you sure, according to all evidence that would be the company. Although it is nice to see that you cannot define what it actually is. It is, of course, dire straits* for your sorry mob of Ps&Ds. Absolutely everyone knows that a club can happily exist outwith its company registration number. We all know, too, that we don't support a PLC. The tragedy of the diddies is that they have suspended any common sense and have to tell us hundreds of thousands of times that we're not the club they are posting about. *Yup, I know Sultan of Swing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 It is, of course, dire straits* for your sorry mob of Ps&Ds. Absolutely everyone knows that a club can happily exist outwith its company registration number. We know this now, since the rules got changed. You could almost say we have rangers to thank for that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 We know this now, since the rules got changed. You could almost say we have rangers to thank for that. Well of course Scotland has Rangers to thank for almost everything. My post was not new news, of course. The Whistle's existence as a club, eg, isn't coterminous with its PLC's incorporation. Almost certainly you'll agree with me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 It is, of course, dire straits* for your sorry mob of Ps&Ds. Absolutely everyone knows that a club can happily exist outwith its company registration number. We all know, too, that we don't support a PLC. The tragedy of the diddies is that they have suspended any common sense and have to tell us hundreds of thousands of times that we're not the club they are posting about. *Yup, I know Sultan of Swing. Yes, you are repeating your position. But tell me, what is the club? A fairly simple question that you and your fellow bears appear unable to answer. Is it a brand in the same manner as Nike or Mars? Or a trademark? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Well of course Scotland has Rangers to thank for almost everything. My post was not new news, of course. The Whistle's existence as a club, eg, isn't coterminous with its PLC's incorporation. Almost certainly you'll agree with me. Save The Jags. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Yes, you are repeating your position. But tell me, what is the club? That you even have to ask the question shows how ridiculous you and your thought-free fellow Ps&Ds are. The true truth is that you either ken, intuitively, what a club is or are wedded to the tragic PLC definition beloved by so many who leave their brain aside before they post on The Big Thread. 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.