forever_blue Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ken Fitlike said: the previous version of the club didn't welcome being chased by creditors. you can't add to the 54.( about 4 or 5 should actually be deducted clock wound back to zero. Better tell FIFA , sfa and uefa mate , no me after 54 titles , we are still going strong 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 48 minutes ago, forever_blue said: Better tell FIFA , sfa and uefa mate , no me after 54 titles , we are still going strong I vaguely remember that you may have mentioned this curious state of affairs before...... still not buying it though. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Ken Fitlike said: I vaguely remember that you may have mentioned this curious state of affairs before...... still not buying it though. Kudos to you and your before mentioned point rangers fc - Scotland's most successful club Edited July 7, 2016 by forever_blue -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 5 hours ago, Njord said: Haud it right there my boy. So,,,,,,if a company with 3 years accounts had bought the carcass, 'Rangers' would've played in Europe? That's what you are saying? And you need 3 years audited accounts before you can join the SPFL. So how could newco join the spfl without the 3 years accounts...but not play in europe? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 21 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said: Challenge what I say if you object to it Bennett, rather than seek simply to silence me. Here what's this aboot a massive sweetie robbery at Palmerston ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 11 hours ago, nacho said: heres the statement from the guy who does the help for heroes stuff, and yes it was celtic fans behind it specifically james "lying court reporter" doleman, stan gordon regarding lionbrand "To put the record straight ,i don't own lionbrand ,i am not a member of rangers trust, i am not a member of sons of struth . the only connection i have with lionbrand is that i buy the rangers legends tops from them when i have any charity games , i have done this only twice ,the fernando ricksen charity game in elgin and the help for heroes and lee rigby game at portsmouth,the fernando game in elgin, lionbrand donated the tops free of charge ,and the game in portsmouth they sold them to me at cost price. The polo shirts that we sold for the lee rigby and help for heroes had nothing to do with lionbrand all they did was help us advertise on there website, all the money we raised from the t shirts was given to lee rigby family and help for heroes,my self and lionbrand had no input in donating the money,if you go on to glasgow rangers legends v portsmouth legends facebook you can see where all the money raised was donated to. i am on holiday at the moment as soon as i get home i will be taking legal advice regarding the rubbish that's been spoken from so called rangers fans , If anyone knows the names of these people can you pm me please. as far as i have been told some guy who has a vandetta against lionbrand contacted help for heroes and asked them how much money they received from lionbrand ,when they said nothing they put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5, lion brand only allowed us to use there website ,the fundraisers donated all the money from the game ,the t shirts and everything else to help for heroes and the lee rigby family," So you blame a Celtic fan for it but post a reply from the guy involved who claims its Rangers fans?!! anyway simple question, Does the LyingBrand have permission to use the HFH trademark when flogging fake tops ? yes or no. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 8 hours ago, Ken Fitlike said: Such a deliberate guddle. Still, it helps nacho in his desperate 'same club' fantasies edit to add - as previously I am perfectly willing to accept the current version of Rangers as a 'similar' club. A guddle is indeed exactly what we're dealing with. Nacho's reply on why Rangers couldn't play in Europe or why they entered domestic cups at certain rounds is perfectly satisfactory. Part of where he struggles though is in quoting bodies who've done nothing to hide their vested interests, as if their readings represent a trump card. Such bodies are not objective and not at all independent, even of each other, where this question is concerned. His other huge difficulty of course, is his utter reliance on the divorce of club and company. He assures us that the club was purchased alongside the assets of oldco, but I don't think he ever breaks it down and tells us how much the 'club' part cost. I'm fine with continuity to be honest. The insistence that the notion is unequivocal and quite beyond question is however, as silly as it is revealing of insecurity. Rangers pretty much continued, but in a thoroughly guddly way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said: A guddle is indeed exactly what we're dealing with. Nacho's reply on why Rangers couldn't play in Europe or why they entered domestic cups at certain rounds is perfectly satisfactory. Part of where he struggles though is in quoting bodies who've done nothing to hide their vested interests, as if their readings represent a trump card. Such bodies are not objective and not at all independent, even of each other, where this question is concerned. His other huge difficulty of course, is his utter reliance on the divorce of club and company. He assures us that the club was purchased alongside the assets of oldco, but I don't think he ever breaks it down and tells us how much the 'club' part cost. I'm fine with continuity to be honest. The insistence that the notion is unequivocal and quite beyond question is however, as silly as it is revealing of insecurity. Rangers pretty much continued, but in a thoroughly guddly way. And he's backing himself into a corner should the same thing happen to the latest incarnation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 11 hours ago, Njord said: Haud it right there my boy. So,,,,,,if a company with 3 years accounts had bought the carcass, 'Rangers' would've played in Europe? That's what you are saying? nope 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 9 hours ago, forever_blue said: they've been telt numerous times, yet they keep parroting the same failed arguments, its just a cut and paste job now from something i made up about three years ago. yet they keep on making an arse of themselves 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 9 hours ago, Ken Fitlike said: the previous version of the club didn't welcome being chased by creditors. you can't add to the 54.( about 4 or 5 should actually be deducted clock wound back to zero. except it hasnt been, officially we are the same club, your unsubstantiated bullshite makes no difference to that, just gives us a good laugh at your stupidity 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 6 minutes ago, nacho said: nope Explain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 6 hours ago, THE KING said: And you need 3 years audited accounts before you can join the SPFL. So how could newco join the spfl without the 3 years accounts...but not play in europe? absolute gibberish 1. it wasnt the spfl at that time 2. there is a rule that basically gave the spl the discretion to do what they wanted, i imagine the same applies to the spfl 3. added to that we didnt need the three years accounts because according to them we werent the same club so this did not apply from us 4. the spfl and uefa are not the same organisation hope that clears it up for you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 5 hours ago, THE KING said: So you blame a Celtic fan for it but post a reply from the guy involved who claims its Rangers fans?!! anyway simple question, Does the LyingBrand have permission to use the HFH trademark when flogging fake tops ? yes or no. james doleman contacted hfh about, he is a celtic fan, so hes to blame the guy involved is on holiday so didnt know who was behind it at the time as outlined in the post above the hfh tops are nothing to do with lionbrand, the guy in the above post runs it, all the lionbrand website does is offer a platform for him to sell them ( its like holding ebay responsable for sellers selling dodgy stuff) any profit on the hfh tops goes to them 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 4 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said: A guddle is indeed exactly what we're dealing with. Nacho's reply on why Rangers couldn't play in Europe or why they entered domestic cups at certain rounds is perfectly satisfactory. Part of where he struggles though is in quoting bodies who've done nothing to hide their vested interests, as if their readings represent a trump card. Such bodies are not objective and not at all independent, even of each other, where this question is concerned. His other huge difficulty of course, is his utter reliance on the divorce of club and company. He assures us that the club was purchased alongside the assets of oldco, but I don't think he ever breaks it down and tells us how much the 'club' part cost. I'm fine with continuity to be honest. The insistence that the notion is unequivocal and quite beyond question is however, as silly as it is revealing of insecurity. Rangers pretty much continued, but in a thoroughly guddly way. There is absolutely no struggle, every single credible source states we are the same club, your attempt to claim vested interest is because you have absolutely no credible evidence supporting your position whatsoever. I suppose you deserve some credit for seeing that the out and out new clubbers on here are making a complete arse of themselves over and over again which is why you have adopted the not really the same club position. Where you fall down is that there is absolutely no credible evidence for this either. there is no difficulty on the divorce of club and company, three high court judges, legal experts have said it can and did happen in rangers case, hmrc and the two admin experts in charge of the sale of the club also backed this position along with every other credible source. you are reduced to inventing stipulations to try and support your case like your halfwitted what did the club cost argument, an argument entirely invented by you and supported by none of the experts as even requiring an answer - sheer stupidity 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 27 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: Explain. his point is nonsensical, no explanation needed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 9 hours ago, forever_blue said: If you're so easily persuaded, I have this bridge you might be nterested in... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 33 minutes ago, nacho said: absolute gibberish 1. it wasnt the spfl at that time 2. there is a rule that basically gave the spl the discretion to do what they wanted, i imagine the same applies to the spfl 3. added to that we didnt need the three years accounts because according to them we werent the same club so this did not apply from us 4. the spfl and uefa are not the same organisation hope that clears it up for you Are you absolutely sure you want to stand behind that comment? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 15 minutes ago, nacho said: There is absolutely no struggle, every single credible source states we are the same club, your attempt to claim vested interest is because you have absolutely no credible evidence supporting your position whatsoever. I suppose you deserve some credit for seeing that the out and out new clubbers on here are making a complete arse of themselves over and over again which is why you have adopted the not really the same club position. Where you fall down is that there is absolutely no credible evidence for this either. there is no difficulty on the divorce of club and company, three high court judges, legal experts have said it can and did happen in rangers case, hmrc and the two admin experts in charge of the sale of the club also backed this position along with every other credible source. you are reduced to inventing stipulations to try and support your case like your halfwitted what did the club cost argument, an argument entirely invented by you and supported by none of the experts as even requiring an answer - sheer stupidity It's simply not stupidity. If club and company can be absolutelyseparated in the way you suggest, then you must be able to define for me, what you mean by "club". If it fell into the hands of newco alongside the assets, then you'll need to explain how so. Did that necessarily happen? -1 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.