Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Liam.]

Ah so Dunfermline only played 1 cup game then? I do not think so.

Perhaps you also missed the Rangers squad was updated in the 8th of Decemeber, the same day we were celebrating 140 years of glorious history, obviously UEFA agreed.

So are pages like these only reliable when they support your argument?

Like I said in my earlier post, using club info pages on the UEFA website to support either side of the argument is nothing more than straw grasping.

I trust that as you haven't responded to my other points you now accept them as correct?

[johncolegrady]

Who Are Tedi's Parents?

Who ate the pies?

[youngsy]

http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=53034/profile/index.html

Maybe you should have done a bit more research on this. UEFA don't put up any clubs history who play outwith the top division of the relevant country. So seeing as you're so adamant find the history of these clubs on the UEFA website, they all play outside the top tier of the respective country.

SFL; Partick Thistle, Morton, Falkirk, Ayr Utd, East Fife.

Serie B; Empoli, Brescia, Bari, Sassuolo.

Bundesliga 2; Hertha Berlin, Kaiserslautern, F.C.Cologne.

Spanish 2nd div A; Villareal, Sporting Gijon.

Ligue 2; Monaco, Auxerre, Lens, Caen.

English Championship; Nottingham Forest, Leeds Utd, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Blackburn Rovers.

Now as you're so adamant about this, show any on the above clubs history on the UEFA website, they all play outwith their respective countrys' top tier. Indeed show any clubs history on the UEFA website that plays outwith the top tier of thier country. Then after you do that have a look at SCC Napoli who went through the same process as Rangers and tell us all if UEFA recognise their history on the UEFA website.

[captain kirk]

Unbelievable people like Charlotte and the tax case blogger are believed so easily by so many. I suppose these people are just so desperate they will believe anything in the hope there is some truth in it.

^^^^from the fans who gave their cash to , Murray, Whyte,Green, and now enemy killer Mather

[Liam.]

Now as you're so adamant about this, show any on the above clubs history on the UEFA website, they all play outwith their respective countrys' top tier. Indeed show any clubs history on the UEFA website that plays outwith the top tier of thier country. Then after you do that have a look at SCC Napoli who went through the same process as Rangers and tell us all if UEFA recognise their history on the UEFA website.

I'm not adamant that this is proof Sevco is a new club, quite the opposite actually.

And youngsy, as I've told you many times no other club has ever went through the same process as Rangers with their history intact. That process being forced liquidation under the Insolvency Act 1986.

[youngsy]

http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/index.html There you go Liam, i've even put up the link for you.

[youngsy]

I'm not adamant that this is proof Sevco is a new club, quite the opposite actually.

And youngsy, as I've told you many times no other club has ever went through the same process as Rangers with their history intact. That process being forced liquidation under the Insolvency Act 1986.

Read the UEFA website and further to that point out to everyone what official body has ever stated that this was a different club. I'd like to see that. Now i've asked where clubs outwith the respective top division has their history shown on that website, you haven't done that, quite simply because it does not show them but still you will labour the point. In a football context UEFA recognise SCC Napolis' full history, they went through the process of liquidation, like to argue that UEFA don't recognise that club as one and the same before liquidation.

[Liam.]

You edited my post while quoting it, you were the one that started bitching about insults that were not really insults but facts, I stand by what I said.

You completely misunderstand what LNS meant, I really have no reason to convince you otherwise, as I have said what Liam (a nobody ) from P & B thinks is of little relevance, along with the rest of the obsessed tic fans that share your opinion, deep down you all know this, why else to you keep writing to the likes of the ASA and trading standards in some hopeless attempt to get things changed, so far none of these attempts have had any success whatsoever and I mean zero, in fact they have the complete opposite effect they confirm that continuation is the clear cold reality.

Lord Glennies interpretation was crystal clear, he clearly defines club and company as separate things when he uses the word operates, Liam does not agree, oh well then.

As for UEFA, you completely failed to answer the point I put to you, predictable.

Still really gutted you think I'm a nobody.

Seriously though, do you even read what you type before you post. Your accusation I'm obsessed and that I've written to ASA or Trading Standards is absurd. I post in here once in a blue moon, don't post on other sites and despite spending almost all day yesterday and most of today in front of my laptop took over a day to respond to your last reply from Sunday. Never mind obsession, that's only one or two steps above indifference. You may want to sit down for the following statement: not every one with a different opinion is a crazed Rangers hating obsessive out for confrontation. For goodness sake Tedi, you're a grown man but you're acting like an upset child here. Can you not even try to act civil?

We're not discussing Lord Glennies interpretation of the law, we're discussing your interpretation of Lord Glennies ruling. I am not arguing against Lord Glennie, I am arguing against you. If you lack the skill or the will to defend your view point that's fine, however don't expect me (a nobody) to never question it.

My view on the UEFA club info pages has been clear since this post. Due to the numerous errors I put absolutely no stock in them validating the argument one way or the other. You meanwhile pointed out a clear error on one page before immediately using another as definitive proof of your argument, the only conclusion I can come to is that you deem them reliable when it supports your viewpoint. If you have another reason though, I'm all ears.

[No8.]

As far as I know none of what the tax case blogger presented as facts has been called into question. Just his opinions on what these facts mean. Am I incorrect or are you just that desperate to bury your head in the sand?

I didn't read his site for a while but others said i should at least have a look at it...Against my better judgement i did go on and the first 2 articles were absolute nonsense and factually completely inaccurate. I never bothered after that. I did read some of the links on that were put on Pie and Bovril....I think it is fair to say i was far more accurate than that clown. Rangers are in the 3rd and Rangers were cleared in the big tax case..Rangers had no titles stripped and Green and Whyte were never business partners.

But hey you believe Charlotte and the Blogger but don't come greeting on here when Rangers are cleared yet again in the appeal against the original FTTT

[Liam.]

Read the UEFA website and further to that point out to everyone what official body has ever stated that this was a different club. I'd like to see that. Now i've asked where clubs outwith the respective top division has their history shown on that website, you haven't done that, quite simply because it does not show them but still you will labour the point. In a football context UEFA recognise SCC Napolis' full history, they went through the process of liquidation, like to argue that UEFA don't recognise that club as one and the same before liquidation.

Still I will labour what point? The point I've been making all along that the club info pages are not reliable. Do you dispute that statement? If not, why are you wanting me to find a page that has no bearing on the argument at hand?

I'm not talking about a footballing context. I'm talking about the UK's legal definition of a club which clearly states newco = newclub, so the Napoli comparison is moot.

[No8.]

Oh dear not a good day for those in the east end with more fingers than teeth.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4954314/Official-Rangers-are-most-successful.html

http://m.thedrum.com/news/2013/06/04/rangers-claims-be-scotlands-most-successful-football-club-reportedly-upheld-asa

Looks like they just got Tangoed again.

When will they learn that just because Phil macwhateva and The corrupt thieving lawyer say something .... It doesn't make it true.

[CityDave]

I think the comparison between Pacific Shelf 595 Limited changed to The Celtic Football and Athletic Club http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/the-celtic-football-and-athletic-company and Sevco Scotland Ltd changed to Rangers Football Club Ltd http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/the-rangers-football-club is a valid one, but with the obvious differences we are already aware of.

The point I'm making is that both clubs are assets and could be bought and sold by the company that owns it.

An interesting thing I noticed about that site is how many companies there are involved with Rangers such as the media company http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/rangers-media-investmentsand the retail company (previously listed as SDI Newco No. 1 Limited) which Charles Green is still listed as a director.

Typed in Craig Whyte as well and came up with Sevco 5088 Limited with Charles Green still listed as a director. http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/sevco-5088

Its old rope, but interesting all the same since the information is in the one place. Advise to copy the interesting bits in case they are removed, happy reading.

Edited June 4, 2013 by CityDave

[youngsy]

Still I will labour what point? The point I've been making all along that the club info pages are not reliable. Do you dispute that statement? If not, why are you wanting me to find a page that has no bearing on the argument at hand?

I'm not talking about a footballing context. I'm talking about the UK's legal definition of a club which clearly states newco = newclub, so the Napoli comparison is moot.

Liam you first referred to the UEFA website trying to point out that Rangers weren't recognised, whereas Dunfermline wre. It was pointed out to you that UEFA do not record lower league clubs history on the website, that was shown as being correct to.

You were then asked what official body has ever stated that this was a new club, once again you failed to address that question, quite simply because this has never been stated.

Then you were asked,under a football context do UEFA recognise the history and continuation of SCC Napoli, a club that has went through the liquidation process. Once again you declined to answer the question,again simply because you know that UEFA recognise that clubs continuation, as it does every member club that has went through the same or similar process. Get used to it, Rangers Football Club is recognised by all official bodies as one and the same football club from 1872.

[No8.]

You were then asked what official body has ever stated that this was a new club, once again you failed to address that question, quite simply because this has never been stated.

Are you trying to tell me that Pie and Bovril is not an official body?

[~British Patriot~]

^{Anyone seen this?}

Rangers signings can't play as trialists if league reconstruction approved

By Grant Russell 4 June 2013 16:33 BST

FacebookTweetGoogle
Signings such as Jon Daly will have to wait to make their first league appearance for Rangers.SNS Group


Rangers will be unable to field any of their summer signings as trialists for as many as six games if league reconstruction plans are voted through on June 12.
STV has obtained a copy of the proposed rules for the Scottish Professional Football League as already voted upon by SPL sides.
The regulations forbid the use of unregistered players in any league match across all four divisions or in League Cup matches.
Rangers have completed pre-contract agreements with Cammy Bell, Nicky Clark, Nicky Law, Arnold Peralta and Jon Daly and had hoped to field them on a rotational basis under current SFL rules, prior to their registration embargo being lifted on September 1.
If league reconstruction fails to go through then current rules will apply.
That means Ally McCoist will be able to field two trialists per game, with each player eligible to feature in a maximum of three fixtures.
Should the vote pass, the club will only be able to play their future signings in the Challenge Cup, reserve games or in non-competitive matches.
That means the players would have to sit out four league fixtures and at least one League Cup game, potentially two if Rangers advance to the second round.
Rule 88 of the proposed rulebook states: "Trialists are not under any circumstances eligible to play for a club in a league match or League Cup match."
The rulebook says trialists are eligible to play in "official matches" but goes on to say: "For the purposes of this rule, official matches do not include league matches or League Cup matches."
Scottish Football League clubs will have their final say on the creation of the new SPFL on June 12. 22 from 29 clubs must vote in favour of the plans.
With Scottish Premier League teams having already unanimously backed the proposal, a successful ballot will lead to the implementation of the SPFL rulebook in time for the 2013/14 season.
The new SPFL rules have no restriction on the number of players aged over 21 in squads. Current SFL regulations forbid more than 22 being registered by a club at any given time.

It actually doesn't even surprise me.

[kildog]

Rangers cheated, then they died.

[youngsy]

Are you trying to tell me that Pie and Bovril is not an official body?

Do you mean along with McGillivan, McConville, Thomson and RTC they're not?

[Liam.]

Liam you first referred to the UEFA website trying to point out that Rangers weren't recognised, whereas Dunfermline wre. It was pointed out to you that UEFA do not record lower league clubs history on the website, that was shown as being correct to.

You were then asked what official body has ever stated that this was a new club, once again you failed to address that question, quite simply because this has never been stated.

Then you were asked,under a football context do UEFA recognise the history and continuation of SCC Napoli, a club that has went through the liquidation process. Once again you declined to answer the question,again simply because you know that UEFA recognise that clubs continuation, as it does every member club that has went through the same or similar process. Get used to it, Rangers Football Club is recognised by all official bodies as one and the same football club from 1872.

No, Tedi first referred to Dunfermline. In the last paragraph of my first post I called the pages insignificant and not valid proof for either side of the argument. You seem to be expecting me to argue something I don't believe, that the UEFA.com proves Sevco are a new club. You don't have to believe it proves they're a new club to believe it doesn't prove they're the same club.

I don't know of any footballing body that has said they're a new club but my argument has never been about the football authorities My argument was these pages are insignificant and do not constitute proof UEFA have given their blessing to the newco. I doubt UEFA will make a definitive statement one way or the other until they absolutely have to

UEFA recognise Napoli as a continuation, that I can't dispute (not that I want to). As they play in Naples this is not related to my argument which is entirely reliant on the UKs legal definition of club.

As I see it, there are three ways you can disprove my argument (and covert me round to your side) :

* prove the UKs legal definition of doesn't state that once a club incorporates a business they share one legal entity

* prove that even though it does state the above, this process can be reversed

* prove the above definition doesn't apply in this case

All this talk of UEFA, the SFA/SFL/SPL, Trading Standards etc. is meaningless because as soon as there is a legal challenge (note: there hasn't been one yet) these people will be corrected. If no legal challenge is forthcoming then you'll just have to put up with nobodies like me arguing you're a new club. Such is the price of liquidation.

[Fotbawmad]

Unbelievable people like Charlotte and the tax case blogger are believed so easily by so many. I suppose these people are just so desperate they will believe anything in the hope there is some truth in it.

Much of the facts Fakeovers has submitted is not disputed. What it means, and the significance of it is up for debate.

Oh dear not a good day for those in the east end with more fingers than teeth.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4954314/Official-Rangers-are-most-successful.html

http://m.thedrum.com/news/2013/06/04/rangers-claims-be-scotlands-most-successful-football-club-reportedly-upheld-asa

The most successful club relative to its life span might be true. After all, winning a trophy in its first year is certainly an achievement. However, you are linking a paper that has long since been disgraced, discredited and sycophantic about your team.

[williemillersmoustache]

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant1h

Worth noting current SPL rules forbid trialists. Rule essentially just copied across to SPFL. http://bit.ly/18R4j6D

True Azure

Gender:Male

Location:East Kilbride

Posted Today, 04:07 PM

Another SPL hurdle thrown up to hamper our progress. I hope Mr Mather et al are adding this to the "list".

The b*****ds, you guys have been treated so unfairly. How long is that list now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMo_HcRBnUY

Edited June 4, 2013 by williemillersmoustache