BinoBalls Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Ok, but what about what the gates say?Don't they point to (not prove) the difficulty of insisting that club and company are not the same thing? You're trying to teach a card trick to a dog here. Bennett's purpose in life is to distort the truth and obsess over blogs. You could point a gun at his head and ask him to discuss what the gates say on them and why, and he'd reply with "bloggers, lol". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 nope all the business side is run by the company including debentures, the club consists of the footballing side, history , records, games, achievements, trophies etc Oh, for crying out loud. You really are saying 'good stuff - club; bad stuff -company'. Utterly beyond parody. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 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. the numerous clubs who went through the same process in england and scotland without any mention of them being a new club gives you numerous examples pre 2011. if the club and the company are one and the same, how did they all manage to separate their club from the oldco and continue on as the same club without a peep from you lot, you accepted hearts as the same club for over a hundred years before the rangers situation arose 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 does it? oldco ran the club until it was bought by newco, there wasnt one second where the club didnt have a company to run it - seamless. if it is so ludicrous, why cant you provide one credible source stating so? The club wasn't bought. Assets were. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 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. in what way is it a sore one? the article is explicit in stating that the club would be the same one. As for your sane comment, the only sane people on here are the people who know we are the same club 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 When the Armageddon line was fed. How was this even close to being a remote possibility if rangers weren't allowed to enter above the lowest tier? How could so many clubs go to the wall without rangers? Only months earlier rangers themselves had shown that clubs can't die? Surely all Armageddon would have brought would have been the introduction of new companies taking over the clubs? clubs can die if no one buys them during the liquidation process, an obvious point that you fail to grasp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Sums it up. Practically everyone thought liquidation = no more history, it was only when this became inevitable that everyone associated with Rangers changed their tune. But I've yet to find a single Bear who will admit this. Note wee Nacho will still dismiss this evidence because it's 4 years old. Pretty sure Chucky Green also said they needed a CVA "to preserve the history". Not that I'd take his word for anything as he's a lying toad. But again it was an almost universal assumption at the time (except for Tedi of course - he knew all along). this whole idea that we changed our minds after the cva failed is utter bollocks as proven by my earlier post which listed various evidence pre cva failure that showed this is clearly not the case, lord glennie, the stv phoenix club article, statements from duff and phelps all clearly show that liquidation did not neccesarily mean the end 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 If a company which owns and operates a football club decides to sell the club to another company, are the players free to walk away or was this specifically a rangers thing? as pointed out numerous times, the only way this is possible is through admin, the players would then have the choice to stay or leave through tupe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 It's not all we can come up with though. It's one more fragment to establish that the picture is murky and that this idea of the complete divorce between club and company is something of a nonsense. It's telling that no Rangers fan on here is actually tackling the strength of that symbol, preferring instead simply to ridicule anyone who highlights it. the strength of the symbol if the strength of that symbol is so strong why did we not change it in 99 when the company changed to a plc, you are arguing about gates now, shows the paucity of your evidence 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Oh, for crying out loud. You really are saying 'good stuff - club; bad stuff -company'. Utterly beyond parody. no im saying footballing stuff - club, buisiness side - company - something that two high court judges agree with - your supposedly dynamite unanswerable question took me two seconds to destroy - thats how terrible your arguments are 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 The club wasn't bought. Assets were. assets of the company which included the club according to d+p and bdo , two experts in that area, why would i believe a halfwit on the internet over them? they both stated the club was sold, you claim otherwise without any evidence Game , set and match on that point 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 the strength of the symbol if the strength of that symbol is so strong why did we not change it in 99 when the company changed to a plc, you are arguing about gates now, shows the paucity of your evidence I'm not citing it as evidence that Rangers are a new club. I'm fairly neutral on that. I am however citing it as evidence of the fact that club and company have always been regarded as synonymous. The divorce idea requires mental contortion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 hearts, leeds , rangers - bought gretna, third lanark - not bought - the first three survived, the second two didnt - thats the facts of the matter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 assets of the company which included the club according to d+p and bdo , two experts in that area, why would i believe a halfwit on the internet over them? they both stated the club was sold, you claim otherwise without any evidence Game , set and match on that point D & P I think we can safely discount. BDO also had vested interest in the notion of some ethereal 'club' being purchased. What did they say on the matter anyway? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 this whole idea that we changed our minds after the cva failed is utter bollocks as proven by my earlier post which listed various evidence pre cva failure that showed this is clearly not the case, lord glennie, the stv phoenix club article, statements from duff and phelps all clearly show that liquidation did not neccesarily mean the end I have no issues with you believing it's the same club, it's the fact you are so blinkered and won't accept any of the evidence to the contrary. Maybe you need to look up the word evidence. Five questions: (1) the Blue Knights said you'd lose history if you didn't get a CVA. Do you accept they said this? (2) Charles Green said you'd lose history if you didn't get the CVA. Do you accept he said this? (3) Your deplorable fans chief said a liquidation means the club dies. Do you accept he said this? (4) The vast majority of Rangers fans had the same opinion as the 1-3 above. Do you accept this? (5) During the time of administration, is it correct to say that you, wee Nacho, were under no doubt that they were all talking bollocks? Seems you and Tedi both knew. What clever chaps you are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 hearts, leeds , rangers - bought gretna, third lanark - not bought - the first three survived, the second two didnt - thats the facts of the matter Yet Gretna play in black and white at Raydale Park now. Surely by your definition of club as "footballing side...games...records etc" they're alive and well? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 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. So once again, a request for definition results in deflection. If knowing is so intuitive then I will gladly listen to what you intuition is telling you as long as it is something tangible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 So once again, a request for definition results in deflection. If knowing is so intuitive then I will gladly listen to what you intuition is telling you as long as it is something tangible. Something intuitive can still be articulated. I too, am all ears for this definition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 I'm not citing it as evidence that Rangers are a new club. I'm fairly neutral on that. I am however citing it as evidence of the fact that club and company have always been regarded as synonymous. The divorce idea requires mental contortion. I dont disagree, as the legal persona of the club of course they were synonymous, the club is also synonymous with the current company (closely associated with according to the dictionary before any halfwit claims that means i am saying they are the same thing) they are inter-linked but the club could be separated from the company and was, something lord nimmo and lord glennie had no problem with 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 D & P I think we can safely discount. BDO also had vested interest in the notion of some ethereal 'club' being purchased. What did they say on the matter anyway? of course you want to discount them as they prove you wrong - the simple fact is that they are experts in this field and you are not - they were responsible for the club being sold and say it was 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.