Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Monkey Tennis]

which differs with what the football authorities state

I know.

[bennett]

So Mr "club's have no legal personality, they are the sporting side of the company" novo, can I go and buy Gretna and their history now? I might bid £1, although you couldn't buy anything of value with that could you?

Only one way to find out sir.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

yawn - you keep coming out with this, but provide nothing to back it up, i am happy to acknowledge any new club evidence provided

all that i have seen in the last 4 years are newspaper headlines and ex players statements, you dont have anything else

Exactly.

Newspaper headlines, ex player and manager statements, and one big red card demonstration.

That's because everyone. EVERYONE knew what liquidation would mean.

I challenge you to find one single source relating to the rangers farrago denying this before your hero Charles green commenced his guff for you to ingest.

[nacho]

so rangers weren't liquidated, then?

 

the company was, the club was sold pre liquidation and continued on just like hearts , leeds luton, middlesborough etc, which you you didnt mention in your wee list even though they are the most relevant examples being almost identical to the rangers scenario, you ignored it because it destorys your argument just like your ignore all the other facts

 

[nacho]

I know.

 

fair enough, glad you can admit that your view differs from the official view

[Ranaldo Bairn]

I'm off to do some family stuff now, bit I'll make one last statement.

Despite my keyboard tappings, I obviously recognise limited continuity in aspects of Rangers' history, with one big break.

Pay your debts, and I think I would accept continuation.

Not that it matters to anyone else, nor should it.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

fair enough, glad you can admit that your view differs from the official view

We "newclubbers" are well aware we disagree with the authorities!

[nacho]

Exactly.

Newspaper headlines, ex player and manager statements, and one big red card demonstration.

That's because everyone. EVERYONE knew what liquidation would mean.

I challenge you to find one single source relating to the rangers farrago denying this before your hero Charles green commenced his guff for you to ingest.

 

no bother, heres three pre cva being rejected, you can add that to the numerous examples of clubs going through the same as rangers and surviving - leeds, luton, middlesborough and hearts and thats 7 examples - easy

 

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.â€

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."

 

Source

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/311940/Liquidation-a-possibility-for-Rangers

 

Lord Glennie - "This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers")

[Monkey Tennis]

fair enough, glad you can admit that your view differs from the official view

It often does.

[nacho]

I'm off to do some family stuff now, bit I'll make one last statement.

Despite my keyboard tappings, I obviously recognise limited continuity in aspects of Rangers' history, with one big break.

Pay your debts, and I think I would accept continuation.

Not that it matters to anyone else, nor should it.

the pay your debts pish is the most nonsenisical new club argument of them all, based on absolutely nothing   clubs agreeing a cva dont pay all their debts, just pennies in the pound like oldcos creditors will get, does that mean dundee, etc are new clubs after all their debts werent paid in full - lunacy

[Monkey Tennis]

the company was, the club was sold pre liquidation and continued on just like hearts , leeds luton, middlesborough etc, which you you didnt mention in your wee list even though they are the most relevant examples being almost identical to the rangers scenario, you ignored it because it destorys your argument just like your ignore all the other facts

What was the nature of this transaction that saw a "club" sold and purchased? What did this "club" consist of and in what way did say, the Gretna situation, materially differ?

[Ranaldo Bairn]

The first one, transferring bibs n cones to another company is not the same as the club. Leaving behind the utter immorality of dumping debt.

The second one, duff n phelps haha try again.

The third one, well that looks more promising, he calls your club a company. Could you confirm that this was after the authorities redefined a club as "something that can be owned and operated"?

[Ranaldo Bairn]

the pay your debts pish is the most nonsenisical new club argument of them all, based on absolutely nothing clubs agreeing a cva dont pay all their debts, just pennies in the pound like oldcos creditors will get, does that mean dundee, etc are new clubs after all their debts werent paid in full - lunacy

They weren't liquidated.

And you will not find me sticking up for serial cheats like Dundee, Motherwell or Livingston either.

[nacho]

What was the nature of this transaction that saw a "club" sold and purchased? What did this "club" consist of and in what way did say, the Gretna situation, materially differ?

 

the club was sold according to the insolvency specialists involved, both bdo and duff and phelps say it was sold with the assets of oldco, the experts know better than you, it differs from the gretna situation in the most obvious of fashions, no one bought gretna or ardrie - the situations are totally different

 

[aofjays]

the pay your debts pish is the most nonsenisical new club argument of them all, based on absolutely nothing   clubs agreeing a cva dont pay all their debts, just pennies in the pound like oldcos creditors will get, does that mean dundee, etc are new clubs after all their debts werent paid in full - lunacy

 

You're a funny guy.

[nacho]

The first one, transferring bibs n cones to another company is not the same as the club. Leaving behind the utter immorality of dumping debt.

The second one, duff n phelps haha try again.

The third one, well that looks more promising, he calls your club a company. Could you confirm that this was after the authorities redefined a club as "something that can be owned and operated"?

what post are you quoting, post this again with your stuff and i will reply

[Ranaldo Bairn]

Your three quotes.

[nacho]

They weren't liquidated.

And you will not find me sticking up for serial cheats like Dundee, Motherwell or Livingston either.

 

i know they werent liquidated, i was pointing out the stupidity of another posters pay your debts and you will be considered the same club argument - which is based on nothing and makes no sense - Dundee, Motherwell or Livingston didnt pay their debts, therefore according to the other posters logic they cant be considered the same club

 

[nacho]

Your three quotes.

ah right

"The first one, transferring bibs n cones to another company is not the same as the club. Leaving behind the utter immorality of dumping debt." - legally it is as the article shows

 

"The second one, duff n phelps haha try again." - its evidence that you asked for - bdo said exactly the same however that was after the time period specified

 

The third one, well that looks more promising, he calls your club a company. Could you confirm that this was after the authorities redefined a club as "something that can be owned and operated"? - this was pre cva being refused , pre anything from the scottish footballing authorities

[stonedsailor]

yet for over 100 years both hibs and hearts have been considered the same clubs they were before hibs vanished for a year and hearts newcoed in 1905, the denying of over 100 years of precedent only started after 2012 - wonder why?

Is it because since 2011 UEFA has had rules in place which prohibit a club from changing legal form during insolvency and prior to that other rules were in place?