Doink Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Chic Young's Chicken Nuggets 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Hearts were liquidated in 1905 with a new entity slithering into the same division then?, by your own admission you just wrote half of your proper league titles (2nd division titles do not really count) But the Club kept the same Company number.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 But the Club kept the same Company number.... Also, at the time of the Hearts liquidation, there was no UEFA rule stipulating that a club shedding debt by way of changing it's legal structure is deemed to have a broken continuation of membership of it's home association. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elixir Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Comparing a football/business situation from before the First World War to one in the 21st century, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trackdaybob Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 The difference being our haul of league trophies prior to the turbulence of recent years. Irrelevant. Dead and buried. A bit like the club really. Sevco = two titles. Of lesser significance than Hearts Championship titles according to your (made up) rules. Keep enjoying the journey now won't you. Diddy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Of course it is a title, just not the big title. You think 2 Portuguese teams have 130 titles between them,yet rangers still hold the record how does that work? This interests me mildly. Who thinks, " 2 Portuguese teams have 130 titles between them"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Tedi. Were you sleeping during another of his major fukups? Oh quite possibly - but I doubt he claimed, "2 Portuguese teams have 130 titles between them". Willing to be proven wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Since I don't feel like going to bed, let's have a look at what that 20 million got you Kevin Thomson - 2 mil (A good signing that had value in terms of the player Thomson was at the time and which ultimately got value back as he went to Middlesbrough for the same price) DaMarcus Beasley - .7 mil (A relatively negligible amount of money and one that was largely repaid, even if he was injured a lot. His performance away to Lyon alone probably brought that back) Carlos Cuellar - 2.37 mil (A good signing and sold on for profit - something that Scottish clubs should do, as Celtic have done with players in recent years, it remains to be seen what would happen if Rangers did it on a regular basis. If I remember right Cuellar was one of the few that was sold on for a profit like that, and it didn't go down well) Lee McCulloch - 2.25 mil (Every penny well-spent, I'm sure everyone will agree) Steven Whittaker - 2 mil (see Thomson regarding his stature at the time, can't say much for the fee he brought in since he left after liquidation) Steven Naismith - 1.9 mil (the same, though I'd say he was better on the pitch than Whittaker) Daniel Cousin - 1.1 mil (From what I recall he probably falls into the Beasley camp in that his European performances probably paid for that - but this isn't something Rangers are going to be able to get anything out of in the next what, three years at best? five years even for the CL?) And since they only total 10 million, the shite he spent money on in 2008, since the job to rebuild the team after Le Guen got hounded out for not delivering instant success: Andy Webster - .45 mil (What an odd situation that was) Kenny Miller - 2 mil (Probably paid that back, although again, no re-sell value) Andrius Velicka - 1 mil ( ) Kyle Lafferty - 3.25 mil ( :lol: :lol:) Madjid Bougherra - 2.5 mil (a Cuellar replacement who probably could have been sold on like he was, there was some good had from him signing) Pedro Mendes - 3 mil (3 mil? really?) Steven Davis - 3 mil (was good, and could easily have commanded that and more back in transfers but for liquidation, think he falls under just being a product of a different time, a thought we'll return to later) Maurice Edu - 2.6 mil (I remember when this signing happened, there was unrest outside Ibrox over... something, it was before a game then this guy gets wheeled ut and they all shut up. Money well spent, indeed). Now in fairness, around 11.5 million of that second lot was funded by the sales of Cuellar and Cousin (he for 3.5 million as a 31 year old, somehow) and it's important to remember that there was some level of involvement in the Champions League from Rangers throughout that time, but all this does is reinforce that this is completely non-existent right now. The one player Rangers had with any sellable value was Lewis Macleod, who was out the door at the first opportunity. Potentially to keep the wolves from the door for another week. I've no doubt if Rangers were any more stable at the time they would have kept him, but they didn't. There's going to be no European income from several years, and getting to the Champions League is going to be harder than ever for all Scottish clubs. Rangers need, for their own sake, to return to some level of success. Throwing money at the team to make this happen, as was the case in the past, is not only completely unfeasible now owing to the completely different circumstances from then and now but is completely impossible in Scottish football. The money that you want and that I've no doubt countless others want in increasingly unrealistic amounts, cannot exist. There will need to be an initial investment of some sort, of course, but to rely on this as a means of instantly improving the team on the park, and then the standing of the club, misses the point of where investment is actually required so spectacularly I can't imagine any Rangers fan has ever actually been able to understand what happened to Rangers over the past twenty years. They spent money they didn't have, on maintaining the team in a way that wasn't possible, to appease a fanbase out of touch with reality (and in comparing the reaction to impending doom of Rangers and Hearts fans, a largely apathetic fanbase), and it fucked them. If I was Dave King, or someone with a better tax record or illusion of trustworthiness that didn't see my millions stand idly by while a clown car of charlatans rolled up to drain the club he loved so dearly I would sit at a press conference and say the things that would happen while I was in that position. Think Fergus McCann, only with more bored contempt for the people he was addressing. The thing that needs to happen for Rangers, that would be best for Rangers and best for Scottish footballers as far as a club with such resources should be providing Scotland with more than it has and does, is for them to be ruled with a completely non-Rangers man. A man who can see past all the bluster and shite about rightful places, about what they deserve and say, no. It can't happen. This is how to be successful, this is what we're going to do, and if you care about this club as much as you say you do you'll shut up and deal with it. This would have the added bonus of possibly driving out some knuckle dragging hangers-on of its own doing, rather than having me needing to say "and if you start singing about ******s during a game I'm pulling the team off the park myself," but I digress. We've seen various clubs the world over survive financial hardships of different sizes and types, hell we've seen how to do it properly in our own country. Yet this doesn't seem to be the most pressing thing that Rangers fans want, or think they need. And to return to the topic of this thread, that's quite funny, since I don't have any emotional investment in it. Good, but no funny. You might want to re-post in the BRALT... :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Oh quite possibly - but I doubt he claimed, "2 Portuguese teams have 130 titles between them". Willing to be proven wrong. So what did he claim then, I think you have no idea and will never tell us even if you found out what he did claim , but I am willing to be proved wrong 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 You might be right, it could have been 3 Portuguese teams with 170 titles. You're underestimating it. The first Portuguese title was awarded in 1935. I'm sure you can get a calculator that makes it more than 200 titles in the past 80 years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Good, but no funny. You might want to re-post in the BRALT... :-)Hey I closed with a joke And then there was pounds being spent on Kyle Lafferty, that was quite funny 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) It was a 'new company' and was hereinafter referred to as the new company. Incorporation date 29/04/1905 The oldco hearts was incorporated before this. Here try this permafailure...... I did some investigations into 1905 financial problems a little while back which I'm sure I documented in either the Rangers mega thread or the Rangers non existential thread. Basically it came down to Hearts having debts it couldn't pay (£1400 increasing to £1600 by the time payment was made). However the way that the club emerged from the problem was under the terms of Section 161 the Companies Act of 1862 which was the law as it stood at that time. The law allowed the company to continue as a newco subject to certain conditions. 1) all creditors were paid in full, 2) all assets were transferred from the oldco to the newco 3) no shareholder of the oldco would be disadvantaged 4) the oldco would cease trading and be wound up. In today's parlance it would be called "Solvent Reconstruction", which is permitted even in today's SFA Articles. From the Articles: SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP (7) where in respect of a member club in full or associate membership a petition is presented for its winding up or where the member club in question shall convene a meeting to pass a resolution for voluntary winding up or shall enter into any form of liquidation (other than for the purposes of a bona fide solvent reconstruction or amalgamation) or shall be deemed by virtue of Section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or any other appropriate statutory provision to be unable to pay its debts. Solvent Reconstruction under the Companies Act of 1862... From kb Edited March 23, 2015 by THE KING 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Oh dear desperate stuff from king. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Oh dear desperate stuff from king. Well Dave is Glib and Shameless we did warn you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 You copied that from a random poster on kickback They were liquidated, and a newco had to be formed, if you are in the hard of thinking camp that demands liquidation of a company = death of a football club then you believe Hearts died. Oh sorry heres a newspaper cliping just like you used.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Hearts AND Rangers dead you say? Yipee!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elixir Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 It was a voluntary winding up you fucking imbeciles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 It was a voluntary winding up you fucking imbeciles. And all old share holders got new shares. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Zombies. Diet zombies. Whatever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paramour Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Wait, Hearts fans are claiming this as a title? really? Oh well, 56 titles, we're still going strong Why do you cling to this so? Why is it so important that your deceased club held 54 league titles, and your diseased club an additional two? Do you think that it in some way makes the rest of us cower at the brilliance of your chosen team and somehow wish we were you? Are you really seeking to denigrate a team that has absolutely walked the Championship this year while celebrating your own tainted successes? The mindset of the average Rangers fan is so obtuse as to be incomprehensible by the reasonable person it would seem. 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.