BinoBalls 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. What defines a "club" is fairly central to why this issue is so debatable. However you won't get a coherent definition out of him. Insults are all he does. I pity his offspring when they were at school. "Dad what's 6+3?" "You should know this, you idiot" "Yes I know but can you tell me" "If you don't know the answer then you truly are an imbecile" "Yes but what is the answer?" "You kids are all the same, you're all desperately thick" "Can you teach me how to add?" "Shut up you little fuckwit" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 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 They wouldn't be very good administrators if they said "by the way the history is wiped", would they? It would be professional suicide. Lord Nimmo's opinion means much more than quoting the people responsible for getting the most amount of money from the assets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) 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. provide the evidence in context and i will have a look at them , i dont accept number 4 as this was not the case, there was plenty of evidence available at the time showing the club could survive if we found a buyer, most rangers fans at the time knew the club would survive, the message boards i was on all knew this 100% heres a few posts from the time proving this Posted 4 Apr 2012 Well meaning nonsense - sorry but while liquidation shod be avoided if possible those who have bought IMHO the myth that the history goes as well have fallen into the trap set by those who dont wish us well.. A Cva is preferable but someone buying the Assets and running us as a club is much preferable to extinction! Jpooler92 03-05-2012, 12:33 Nonsense, he will "try" to achieve a CVA by offering a few pence in the pound. Then of course the creditors will fail to agree his terms so he'll be "left with no option but to liquidate".okay so he liquidates the old company, so f#ck. the rangers football club lives on, debt free, may i add. Craigieboy 03-05-2012, 12:36 okay so he liquidates the old company, so f#ck. the rangers football club lives on, debt free, may i add.This, I totally agree with. Thank god at last something has happened Jpooler92 03-05-2012, 14:47 It IS liquidation."There are none so blind as those who do not want to see..." yes it is liquidation of rangers football club plc (company) not liquidation of rangers football club (our club) they are seperate. i support a club not a company. pooler92 03-05-2012, 15:08 I will continue to support my club, Rangers Football Club no matter what parent company they are under. rosstheger 03-05-2012, 18:07 Rangers 1899 Company might die.But I couldn't care less. Rangers Football Club still exists and will be in a healthier position in a 'newco' - that can't be argued. Edited March 25, 2016 by nacho 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 provide the evidence in context and i will have a look at them , i dont accept number 4 as this was not the case, there was plenty of evidence available at the time showing the club could survive if we found a buyer, most rangers fans at the time knew the club would survive, the message boards i was on all knew this 100% King provided screenshots on #1 and #3 in the last 24 hours on this thread. #2 listen to last 10 seconds of this: I am however heartened to know that most Rangers fans knew "100%" that this was all nonsense though. Weird that the fans chief was out of line with what the people he represents were all saying though. But I'm sure you're not exaggerating and focusing only on what suits you, it's not your style is it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener 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 The football side that contains no players. Trophies that cannot be owned or pocessed by something that has no legal personality. This leaves us with the history, records, games and achievements which are intangible. Your belief in a seperate club entity is akin to a belief in creationism. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
energyzone Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 provide the evidence in context and i will have a look at them , i dont accept number 4 as this was not the case, there was plenty of evidence available at the time showing the club could survive if we found a buyer, most rangers fans at the time knew the club would survive, the message boards i was on all knew this 100% That's what they are saying now. It wasn't what we all remember the case to be four years ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 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? nope as they are a seperate entity from the old club as the old club was not bought, uefa would probably recognise them as the same club though like fiorentina 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 nope as they are a seperate entity from the old club as the old club was not bought, uefa would probably recognise them as the same club though like fiorentina Is there an item on an accountancy sheet for Newco Rangers which says "purchased: club, £1"? I can answer that for you if you like. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 They wouldn't be very good administrators if they said "by the way the history is wiped", would they? It would be professional suicide. Lord Nimmo's opinion means much more than quoting the people responsible for getting the most amount of money from the assets. yep and he stated we were the same club numerous times 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 They wouldn't be very good administrators if they said "by the way the history is wiped", would they? It would be professional suicide. Lord Nimmo's opinion means much more than quoting the people responsible for getting the most amount of money from the assets. Indeed. As well as being discredited, D&P were never going to say otherwise. As a source in this discussion, they're utterly compromised. Nacho would be best steering clear of them, especially if he wishes to call others "fuckwits". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 King provided screenshots on #1 and #3 in the last 24 hours on this thread. #2 listen to last 10 seconds of this: I am however heartened to know that most Rangers fans knew "100%" that this was all nonsense though. Weird that the fans chief was out of line with what the people he represents were all saying though. But I'm sure you're not exaggerating and focusing only on what suits you, it's not your style is it. provide the full interview, not a clip taken out of context 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 The football side that contains no players. Trophies that cannot be owned or pocessed by something that has no legal personality. This leaves us with the history, records, games and achievements which are intangible. Your belief in a seperate club entity is akin to a belief in creationism. wrong on all points as usual, your beliefs are akin to a flat earth as all the evidence shows we are the same club and you continue to deny it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 nope as they are a seperate entity from the old club as the old club was not bought, uefa would probably recognise them as the same club though like fiorentina Well if UEFA disagree with you on what constitutes continuation, then you'll need to stop citing them in terms of Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) wrong on all points as usual, your beliefs are akin to a flat earth as all the evidence shows we are the same club and you continue to deny it Argue the points then. If the footballers are contracted to the company, how did the club have a football team. Who owned the trophies? The problem with this continual reference to flat earth is that it is actually more relevant to those that believe in some ethereal club. You continue to post "evidence" that completely ignores the fact that posession, ownership etc. are terms defined in law whereas the club does not exist seperately from the legal personality. The whole point of the process of incorporation is to provide the unincorporated association with a legal personality. Edited March 25, 2016 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Is there an item on an accountancy sheet for Newco Rangers which says "purchased: club, £1"? I can answer that for you if you like. its there an item on the sheet proving it wasnt bought, i can answer that for you if you like, t the people resonsable for the sale of the club say it was sold, two judges say this was possible and did happen, we are officially recognised as the same club by the sfa,the eca the spfl and uefa, hmrc and the stock market recognise us as the same club, so does the asa wheres your evidence proving the club was sold and didnt continue - the simple facts are asiude from four year old newspaper headlines and opinions of non experts you dont have any do you dispute that officially we are the same club according to the footballing authorities? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 wrong on all points as usual, your beliefs are akin to a flat earth as all the evidence shows we are the same club and you continue to deny it You're talking about judgements, rather than evidence, although you continue to treat the words as interchangeable. Now, I'll admit that I'd prefer that other judgements had been reached, but I also suggest that if that were the case, your respect for those judgements would not be the same as it currently is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Argue the points then. If the footballers are contracted to the company, how did the club have a football team. Who owned the trophies? you argue the points! you made a couple of statements with no argument in your previous post and expect me to guess what your argument is ? halfwit the players play for the club and are contracted to the company, the trophies were owned by the company but won by the club - not a difficult concept to understand except for you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 its there an item on the sheet proving it wasnt bought, i can answer that for you if you like, t the people resonsable for the sale of the club say it was sold, two judges say this was possible and did happen, we are officially recognised as the same club by the sfa,the eca the spfl and uefa, hmrc and the stock market recognise us as the same club, so does the asa wheres your evidence proving the club was sold and didnt continue - the simple facts are asiude from four year old newspaper headlines and opinions of non experts you dont have any do you dispute that officially we are the same club according to the footballing authorities? Jesus. Have you read any of the parts where I've said I accept its the same club and I accept most of the evidence, though some of it is clearly unobjective and should be ignored (eg D&P and the stock exchange). You don't need to ram your evidence at me - I get it and I accept most of it. All I'm trying to do is to get you to acknowledge that there is some evidence of another viewpoint. It's so ironic you calling other people flat earthers when you, too, are determined to completely ignore anything that doesn't suit your agenda. Have you found The King's post yet with the Blue Knights statement and the tweet from Chris Graham? It must be on the last 3 pages somewhere on here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 You're talking about judgements, rather than evidence, although you continue to treat the words as interchangeable. Now, I'll admit that I'd prefer that other judgements had been reached, but I also suggest that if that were the case, your respect for those judgements would not be the same as it currently is. no i am talking about evidence, expert state that club and company can be separated without any major issues in scottish law - thats evidence my respect for the evidence is based on its quality, im sure even you can admit that the evidence for the same club is vastly superior to anything the new club argument can dredge up? im sure you can also agree that officially we are the same club 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 nope as they are a seperate entity from the old club as the old club was not bought, uefa would probably recognise them as the same club though like fiorentina What exactly was bought in the case of Rangers, that wasn't with Gretna? I'm well aware that the situations were far from identical. I'm interested in what the key differences are though, as far as you're concerned. Saying the "old club" was bought, doesn't really cut it, when sorting out what is meant by "club" is proving so problematic. 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.