Doink Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Dave King 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Rangers fans wanted to avoid liquidation for obvious reasons – losing players, possibility of relegation down the divisions etc. but most were aware that the club would survive as there were buyers in place for it as the evidence shows. 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. http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/277115-what-happens-when-a-club-in-administration-sets-up-a-phoenix-company/ duff and phelps in april 2012 "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." lord glennie may 2012 "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"). http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html cva not agreed 12th june 2012 - hope that clears it up for you, another new club myth busted FFP rules kicked in in 2011. The STV article must have been based on old info. Duff and Phelps stuff is dubious. Their dealings in the affair have been brought into question many times. There was even a quote saying that the only time Craig Whyte looked worried going into administration was when HMRC objected to his choice of administrators. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Kenny Miller 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Mr. Custard 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) Rangers fans wanted to avoid liquidation for obvious reasons – losing players, possibility of relegation down the divisions etc. but most were aware that the club would survive as there were buyers in place for it as the evidence shows. 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. http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/277115-what-happens-when-a-club-in-administration-sets-up-a-phoenix-company/ duff and phelps in april 2012 "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." lord glennie may 2012 "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"). http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html cva not agreed 12th june 2012 - hope that clears it up for you, another new club myth busted FFP rules kicked in in 2011. The STV article must have been based on old info. Duff and Phelps stuff is dubious. Their dealings in the affair have been brought into question many times. There was even a quote saying that the only time Craig Whyte looked worried going into administration was when HMRC objected to his choice of administrators. I just read the STV article. This piece from the last part is the most important. If a “phoenix” club is created though, entry into European competition the following season would be affected. Transferring a membership is forbidden. UEFA regulations state that a club must have been a member for three consecutive years in order to be eligible for a license. Any “phoenix” club would be considered as a new entity and would begin a three year wait from its inception before being eligible to play in Europe. in·cep·tion inˈsepSH(ə)n/ noun the establishment or starting point of an institution or activity. "she has been on the board since its inception two years ago" synonyms: beginning, commencement, start, birth, dawn, genesis, origin, outset; So as you can see, no seamless history. No history intact. A shattered historical timeline. New club, a phoenix club, with little more than a legacy. The transfer of membership was forbidden, a new membership with old membership number created. Edited March 7, 2016 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) ken you continue to come out with this pish time and time again without providing any supporting evidence that this means we are a new club, all the evidence contradiacts you as all the footballing, legal and business experts who have commented say we are the same club, you are denying reality when you claim we are a similar club with zero credible evidence to back you up Charles Green could have called the bundle of assets he purchased anything he liked. Govan Gazelles FC, Broomloan Bankrupts FC, Pension Fund United FC etc etc. We all watched the Old Club die. What supporting evidence does anyone need? Wriggle and stamp your feet all you want. 'Similar Club' is actually better for you than 'New Club'. I'd stick with it. Edited March 7, 2016 by Ken Fitlike 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 You seem to be the only one on here that goes on about blogs. Tiresome bigot is tiresome. he hasn't been the same since Leggo's blog ceased in a mess of tears, pish and snotters... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 In the case of "we're the same club" rangers fans call their first witness... Duff n Phelps. The brass neck on you rangers fans is hilarious. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Rangers fans wanted to avoid liquidation for obvious reasons losing players, possibility of relegation down the divisions etc. but most were aware that the club would survive as there were buyers in place for it as the evidence shows. Truck off! -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Truck off! Can you sell a business without it's debt, I thought you could only sell assets debt free? Seems hugely open for abuse. Could I theoretically buy ICT and Ross County, Sell County debt free and leave ICT fooked? Pretty sure Nacho seems to be talking as though rangers were sold in a stock sale as opposed to an asset sale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 They've still never explained why they had to form a company (Sevco Scotland) to allegedly "hold" the club (PS what is a club, please expand), and form ANOTHER "holding company", Rangers International Football Club, to "hold" that. It's almost as if Sevco was the club, and RIFC is the holding company. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 They've still never explained why they had to form a company (Sevco Scotland) to allegedly "hold" the club (PS what is a club, please expand), and form ANOTHER "holding company", Rangers International Football Club, to "hold" that. It's almost as if Sevco was the club, and RIFC is the holding company. On the bright side, their insistence that it's the same club causes much spluttered indignation when you point it that that means they support cheats. They deny it of course - breaking rules for financial advantage is only cheating in insidious celtic propaganda rags - like dictionaries. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 nope not something i have previously said, that is the role of the company, feel free to present an argument on negative goodwill and what its relevance to the new club nonsense is using sources, and i will be happy to answer you I do not have to provide an argument, I know the significance. The fact that you do not is really not my problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 They've still never explained why they had to form a company (Sevco Scotland) to allegedly "hold" the club (PS what is a club, please expand), and form ANOTHER "holding company", Rangers International Football Club, to "hold" that. It's almost as if Sevco was the club, and RIFC is the holding company. What is a club? Easily answered. Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence Definition of licence applicant and three-year rule 1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions which either: a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter: registered member); or b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football company). From the UEFA club licencing and financial fair play regulations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 I see Rangers financials are out today..so how much has uncle mike made in the last 6 months compared to the previous? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 “Clubs are not allowed to change their legal form or structure in order to obtain a licence, simply by ‘cleaning up’ their balance sheet while offloading debts – thus harming creditors (including employees and social/tax authorities) as well as threatening the integrity of sporting competition. Any such alteration of a club’s legal form or structure is deemed to be an interruption to its membership of a UEFA member association..." You see, this bit pretty much confirms my reading of things. Any continuation has not been seamless. This "interruption" idea counters the claims to an unbroken history. Call yourselves the same club if you like, but don't pretend it's been seamless because it's not been. Rangers have the same right to consider themselves 'the same', as have Gretna. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 You see, this bit pretty much confirms my reading of things. Any continuation has not been seamless. This "interruption" idea counters the claims to an unbroken history. Call yourselves the same club if you like, but don't pretend it's been seamless because it's not been. Rangers have the same right to consider themselves 'the same', as have Gretna. Or the dog we got as a puppy when I was 5 and the 1 and the half year old chewing machine we have now. Or the new toothbrush I bought this morning and the one I chucked in the bin that it replaces. Or the cold remains of the cup of tea I made a couple of hours ago and the fresh one brewing in the pot right now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 That says Fiorentina were refounded in 2002. A bit like Rangers were refounded in 2012. uefa recognise fiorentina as the same club despite then completely starting from scratch unlike rangers, it stands to reason uefa will recognise us as the same club when you consider that fact, added to that you can look at the numerous examples of them stating we are the same club or showing they consider us the same club as outlined in my previous post 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Or the dog we got as a puppy when I was 5 and the 1 and the half year old chewing machine we have now. Or the new toothbrush I bought this morning and the one I chucked in the bin that it replaces. Or the cold remains of the cup of tea I made a couple of hours ago and the fresh one brewing in the pot right now. No. These are clearly different things. I doubt if one dog was even a direct replacement for the other, given the length of the 'interruption'. I've no great problem with a continuation of sorts. It just hasn't been seamless as the company that was the club, bit the dust. It's messy. They're sort of old and sort of new. The problem is that it's so important to so many Rangers fans that the club they support has won a lot. Personally, I find that a startling preoccupation for adults to have, but there you are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Clubs are not allowed to change structure during an insolvency event. There is an interuption in the membership of their home FA. Rangers are on a restarted membership which belonged to another entity and ended when that entity died. Three years must pass before a club can apply again. Timişoara applied thinking they were the same club and got knocked back as a new club, they were told to reapply in three years when they had established themselves as a club. The Fiorentina argument is moot as they reformed prior to the rule changes. It's like when everyone was off their skulls on Mcat, one day you could get cunted quite legally, the next a maximum of 4 years for possession. not according to direct quotes from uefa we are not, clubs can apply again meaning they are the same club even after an insolvency event, uefa recognises sporting continuity which also means we are the same club , we have cooefficent points from five seasons showing continuation all there in black and white in my previous post as direct quotes from uefa, your arguement relies on your flawed interpretation of events which direct quotes from uefa disprove and which you cant provide any evidence to back it up so stop talking drivel 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.