P45 Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 The marker for 'preserving history' has changed so many times it's difficult to keep track of. First of all it was 'agreeing a CVA lets us keep our history', which would actually have been correct. Then it was 'Once the SPL share transfers to us, we keep our history.' Now it's 'If we transfer the SFA membership, we keep our history'. If the SFA membership doesn't get transferred to the new club, we can expect some new line of nonsense along the lines of "aye, but as long as we play at Ibrox, we keep our history". Some people are just living in denial that their club is snuffed. It's quite worrying, if people were to walk around claiming that Third Lanark still existed and played football, they'd get sectioned. What if the membership does get transferred? The SFA membership is what records the clubs achievements. I don't think it should be transferred. I hope that the SPL try and strip the titles and it puts Green off from trying the transfer and he applies as a completely Newco with a new membership. That for me would be the end of Rangers FC. IMO if he gets Rangers' membership then it is a continuation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomogganners Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Well I'm afraid a "purile level" is about my level of understanding I'm afraid. Apologies. The suggestion is that the history is an "asset" that can be bought or sold. Tart it up any way you want, that just doesn't really stack up. Even at a nuclear physics level of understanding. The nuclear physicists found the higgs boson and are now looking for a new challenge but they have backed out of looking for a tax return from Ibrox. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Yes, but surely one hopes said chimp would have the intellectual wherewhithal to refuse to switch on a computer for such a life form? Agreed, but the said life form would still bang away on the keys anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Why is that bizarre? Honestly, the continuation issue is a complete red herring. The Rangers fans are correct in making a division between the club and the company - but dual contracts pertains entirely to the club and therefore will have to be dealt with by Rangers FC. If anyone can explain how Rangers intend to field a team in a week or two's time... At last, I understand. Thanks, Henry (or can I call you "Savage"?). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) Man City have stars on their badge for phuck all. Who actually cares what they put on their badge? Yeah, "We don' need your steenking badges" Substituting "Bhajis" for "badges" can cause social unrest in certain restaurants Edited July 22, 2012 by cyderspaceman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgowCeltic.org Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 The SFA membership is what records the clubs achievements. Does it? So what if Rangers FC (IA) had decided to move to England and join the EPL? They would have had to resign their membership of the SFA. Would that have meant that they lost their history? What if another club was started, and applied for the now vacated SFA membership? Would that club have Rangers FC (IA) history? SFA membership carrying history is just another Campbell Ogilvie inspired piece of nonsense to dupe Sevco Scotland Ltd. fans into believing that their club isny pan breid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby_F Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I'm guessing those clubs that have earned the right to do this would? That does surprise me about Man City. Unless they're part of the design, they must be there to signify something? Whether that's been ratified by another body or not is another matter. Okay, assuming for a moment Wiki is right, the whole stars things is completely unregulated, so whatever I read before must have been written by Traynor or Burley. If Sevco don't get to buy Rangers' history, then expect 5 stars on the strip - one for every 10,000 empty seats at Ibrox. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 What if the membership does get transferred? The SFA membership is what records the clubs achievements. I don't think it should be transferred. I hope that the SPL try and strip the titles and it puts Green off from trying the transfer and he applies as a completely Newco with a new membership. That for me would be the end of Rangers FC. IMO if he gets Rangers' membership then it is a continuation. The stripping of the SPL Titles and Scottish Cups that the soon-to-be defunct club won by cheating (dual contracts) is a formality. Trying is not required. What is that cheating b*****d McCoist going to do to stop that from happening!? There is nothing that the cheating b*****d can do to stop it! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Well I'm afraid a "purile level" is about my level of understanding I'm afraid. Apologies. The suggestion is that the history is an "asset" that can be bought or sold. Tart it up any way you want, that just doesn't really stack up. Even at a nuclear physics level of understanding. Well, that certainly isn't my suggestion at all... I've no idea how one can trade history as a material asset. I certainly can forsee how the football authorities can regard a football entity as being the same entity as one which existed for X time prior, owing to it having a membership of Y age and having taken responsibilites for actions or achievements (good or bad) which occurred at Z point in the past. I can certainly forsee in turn why that makes legitimate it being "the same club". I can certainly forsee in turn again why that makes legitimate them saying that club has "history". And this has already happened in Scotland, afterall, with Clachnacuddin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoversMad Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 It's a fact. If the SFL chairmen weren't so desperate to have Sevco in their league the SPL wouldn't have them over a barrel. Emmmm I really don't think you should be criticising anybody else's chairman........ Now troll along troll! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) The stripping of the SPL Titles and Scottish Cups that the soon-to-be defunct club won by cheating (dual contracts) is a formality. Trying is not required. What is that cheating b*****d McCoist going to do to stop that from happening!? There is nothing that the cheating b*****d can do to stop it! He could walk away, therefore technically not accepting it. Otherwise known as "going in a huff" Edited July 22, 2012 by cyderspaceman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Does it? So what if Rangers FC (IA) had decided to move to England and join the EPL? They would have had to resign their membership of the SFA. Would that have meant that they lost their history? What if another club was started, and applied for the now vacated SFA membership? Would that club have Rangers FC (IA) history? SFA membership carrying history is just another Campbell Ogilvie inspired piece of nonsense to dupe Sevco Scotland Ltd. fans into believing that their club isny pan breid. Did Campbell Ogilvie also want Clydebank's history to transfer to Airdrie United? The SFL list it that way, as HibeeJibee pointed out earlier in the thread. There are not a finite number of SFA memberships. If another club wanted to join the SFA, it could do so without taking on Rangers' membership. If it wanted to transfer the membership of Rangers, then that would require the permission of the oldco, and in that case it would be considered to be a continuation of the old Rangers, and would be liable for the punishments and priveliges of the oldco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Leitch Loyal Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Real Madrid removed the cross from their badge so as not to upset Muslims. Perhaps Sevco could buy that, put it on their jerseys, then claim Real's history. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 The reality is that these things are soon forgotten (apart from by a few obsessives). The same will happen with Rangers. Whatever side of the argument you favour, the practical situation is that as long as the team plays on it will be seen as the same club and the obsessives can jump and up and down and shout, "They're deid! They're deid!" as much as they want.... Basically this is what it all comes down to. Legally Sevco are not Rangers and never will be. In a footballing sense it depends upon whether the SFA accept the transfer of Rangers' share. If you are a pedant then the law of the land takes precedence over Association laws, but if you believe that football is above the law of the land then you can believe Sevco are Rangers. What it will boil down to is who can shout their point of view the loudest. As we have seen Sevco fans humph and grumph but when it comes down to getting heard, Sevco are in division three now and all SPL clubs would have had them in the SPL with point deductions and financial penalties if it was not for the diddy shouting. As a diddy I believe Sevco obsessives can jump and up and down and shout, "We're Rangers! We're Rangers" as much as they want...... And we all know the diddies have proved to shout louder than Sevco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgowCeltic.org Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Did Campbell Ogilvie also want Clydebank's history to transfer to Airdrie United? The SFL list it that way, as HibeeJibee pointed out earlier in the thread. There are not a finite number of SFA memberships. If another club wanted to join the SFA, it could do so without taking on Rangers' membership. If it wanted to transfer the membership of Rangers, then that would require the permission of the oldco, and in that case it would be considered to be a continuation of the old Rangers, and would be liable for the punishments and priveliges of the oldco. Why would it be considered a continuation of the now defunct club? The sanctions would apply to any club which chose to take on the membership of the now defunct Rangers FC (IA). If they want to keep their history, all they have to do is to get the shares from Craig Whyte, and either pay off the clubs debts, or come to some arrangement with their creditors. There's really no other option. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) Okay, assuming for a moment Wiki is right, the whole stars things is completely unregulated, so whatever I read before must have been written by Traynor or Burley. If Sevco don't get to buy Rangers' history, then expect 5 stars on the strip - one for every 10,000 empty seats at Ibrox. Whatever the final outcome, I think every club in the league should put 5 stars on their shirts and make up some cock and bull story to justify it. NO, 6 stars! Edited July 22, 2012 by cyderspaceman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Why would it be considered a continuation of the now defunct club? The sanctions would apply to any club which chose to take on the membership of the now defunct Rangers FC (IA). If they want to keep their history, all they have to do is to get the shares from Craig Whyte, and either pay off the clubs debts, or come to some arrangement with their creditors. There's really no other option. For the same reason that Airdrie United appear to be a continuation of Clydebank (as per the SFL website). A transfer of membership appears to lead to a continuation in the eyes of the authorities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Yeah, "We don' need your steenking badges" Substituting "Bhajis" for "badges" can cause social unrest in certain restaurants We've enough trouble with the cowboys, don't want to upset the Indians too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wings Over Scotland Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 For the same reason that Airdrie United appear to be a continuation of Clydebank (as per the SFL website). A transfer of membership appears to lead to a continuation in the eyes of the authorities. No membership transfer took place in the case of Airdrie Utd and Clydebank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Why would it be considered a continuation of the now defunct club? The sanctions would apply to any club which chose to take on the membership of the now defunct Rangers FC (IA). If they want to keep their history, all they have to do is to get the shares from Craig Whyte, and either pay off the clubs debts, or come to some arrangement with their creditors. There's really no other option. That would be the ideal situation, yes. It's not how things work though. 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.