Bad Day Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I'm not so much blaming Rangers, as the the people who 'follow' them at the expense of their local team. Without wishing to go over it all again, I've decided I'm more readily prepared to miss Queens games than before, following the way my club voted last summer. The reality is though that I've still attended the majority of games. Anyway, the point isn't about me, or even Queens. It's about the fact that too few people, in my view, would see themselves as fans of their local diddy outfit. Of those who do though, most are pretty committed. The same would not be said of those who call themselves Rangers (or Celtic) fans. Utter nonsense. Why are you blaming people for not supporting their local team to defend your own team? Teams like your own should make themselves more appealing rather than bitching and moaning that nobody supports your team. "Aye they would be QOS fans but they support Rangers instead" - shut the f**k up, what a pathetic viewpoint. You diddy team fans are worse than the **** on here. You spend all day pointing the finger at the OF rather than improving yourselves. It's obsession, which may be helped if your own team was more appealing tbf. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Why would this firm from the Isle of man be buying Greens shares when that Ch4 bloke told us that the club belongs to Whyte and the shares aren't Greens to sell? Where's Hellboy, he'll figure it all out.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Does not interest me in the slightest to be honest, was only asking about the SFA, I take it you have no opinion or answer on the SFA then? There really is no debating with you. So you spend 3 days arguing about the legaility or otherwise of contents of posts and then when you are asked a question that you cannot answer it is suddenly of no interest to you in the slightest. The SFA have a vested interest in obfuscating the issue and have done their best to do this. I would have as much chance of suing or being sued by Christianity or the notepad on my desk as I would by Rangers Football Club (note the lack of any corporate status in the name) as none of the aforementioned have a legal personality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Laxey partners were a pain in the ass to Alliance Trust. Minority shareholders seeking undue influence. Should fit in well at the Ibrox boardroom. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belfast_Tim Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Utter nonsense. Why are you blaming people for not supporting their local team to defend your own team? Teams like your own should make themselves more appealing rather than bitching and moaning that nobody supports your team. "Aye they would be QOS fans but they support Rangers instead" - shut the f**k up, what a pathetic viewpoint. You diddy team fans are worse than the **** on here. You spend all day pointing the finger at the OF rather than improving yourselves. It's obsession, which may be helped if your own team was more appealing tbf. Agree with this. The bitterness on here is unbelievable sometimes. It's not our fault people chose to support lower league teams. People can support whoever they want. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Laxey partners were a pain in the ass to Alliance Trust. Minority shareholders seeking undue influence. Should fit in well at the Ibrox boardroom. The stocks and shares expert role on here as already been filled by Hellboy. Find yourself another niche.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 The stocks and shares expert role on here as already been filled by Hellboy. Find yourself another niche.... Unfortuntely I was a shareholder in Alliance Trust at the time that these "activists" were fellow shareholders. Lets be clear, no good will come (for shareholders) from this company investing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 1% shareholding, extremely worrying. Tedi they only had 1.7% at ATST. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Day Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Agree with this. The bitterness on here is unbelievable sometimes. It's not our fault people chose to support lower league teams. People can support whoever they want. My post was written in a red mist so couldn't imagine it being legible let alone agreeable You are spot on though, most people don't have that much of say in who they support, it's how they're raised. With my dad being a Rangers fan i was always going to be a Rangers fan, i've lived in numerous different places all with different football teams, what should i do then, change the team i support every time i move house? They deny it but it's quite simply jealousy, they don't like the OF as we win everything, they deny the jealousy and say it's because of a monopoly, a monopoly which started from both clubs being the most attractive and supported teams in Scotland. They bleat on and on about how unfair this is and accuse OF fans of not properly supporting their teams, supporting our clubs due to bigotry rather than a love of football. From my viewpoint they spend most of their time obsessing, bleating and crying over how successful the OF teams are, moaning about bigotry and basically anything other than supporting their own football teams. If they stopped trying to play the poor wee downtrodden victim card and started supporting their teams then maybe, just maybe they might be able to compete and become a successful football club. Bitterness and jealousy turns people into horrible creatures and i think there are just as many "diddy" team fans that get caught up in "All OF are bigoted c***s, yadda yadda" than there are OF fans that get caught up in sectarianism. I love diddy team fans that couldn't care less about the OF because they support their own teams. Others should learn from them. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Canny argue with that or the substitute stocks and shares expert. FFS, surely super-sub. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) Is isle of man classed as "offshore" financially tedi ? And the news breaks the stagnation of the share price....down it goes http://www.taxcafe.co.uk/isleofmantax.html http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/category/isle-of-man/ http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/category/isle-of-man/ Tax dodgers can run but they can't hide forever. It will be like lifting a rock and watching the insects and spiders panicking, all running about looking for cover anywhere. Will be interesting to see if any others have connection past and present with Rangers. Edited June 5, 2013 by CityDave 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Of course you are offended by it, if not you would just side step it, and as for being childish then scoring out names without any attempt to give reasons why and pretending they do not exist is pretty childish but then I already told you this and you demonstrated your ability to side step the issue. The gif you provided does nothing to counteract the questions I put forward it is simply an option, LNS said a club can clearly be bought and sold, he was referring to Rangers when he made this statement, the SFA said that Sevco Scotland are the new owners of the Rangers Football club, are you arguing that these statements are incorrect and illegal? can you provide evidence that proves that it is illegal? and if it is illegal then why given all the outcry from the east end of Glasgow has nobody actually raised a legal challenge given that the position of the SFA and every other footballing authority clearly states that it was possible? do not pretend that there is no appetite for such a challenge. The SFA do get to define a club as a separate entity, they have already done this and have faced no legal challenge, you do not agree with the SFA? Yes I know the name of my football club is known as Rangers, Glennie knew it too. “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")” Complete and utter bollocks Tedi as usual yes clubs can be bought and sold but in Rangers case the assets were sold off and there's a huge fucking difference there.Nowhere will you find that Rangers FC the club was sold to Chucky ! absolutely nowhere. Rangers FC was cloned by the action of receiving the dead clubs SFA licence and in that statement the club is in fact a piece of paper only that the SFA can pass around like a scud mag in the jail to anyone they see fit to call a club by giving out pieces of paper that says this is said club. So post a legal document that the SFA or SPL did not concoct that says Rangers FC the club was sold ? you won't find any because Rangers is in fact a piece of paper that says Green is now the owner or operator of said club.I suppose you could argue that Rangers once again was sold for a pound by the SFA for that legal document called an SFA licence but then that means how could Green buy the club from the administrators when in fact the club itself is defined as a licence by the SFA. Rangers the club was not sold EVER it was reformed under the guise of procuring an SFA licence and the assets of a dead club . THE CLONE RANGERS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 So you think the SFA are incorrect and Strichner from Peterhead is correct? This is the very same organisation the Rangers fans call corrupt to core and marched upon it to demonstrate how corrupt the SFA is against Rangers ? Straws Tedi plenty of straws you are clutching onto . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Why would this firm from the Isle of man be buying Greens shares when that Ch4 bloke told us that the club belongs to Whyte and the shares aren't Greens to sell? Where's Hellboy, he'll figure it all out.... Just shows how fucking thick you can be Benny Whyte is contesting the ownership of the assets ! not the club . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) They deny it but it's quite simply jealousy, they don't like the OF as we win everything, they deny the jealousy and say it's because of a monopoly, a monopoly which started from both clubs being the most attractive and supported teams in Scotland. They bleat on and on about how unfair this is and accuse OF fans of not properly supporting their teams, supporting our clubs due to bigotry rather than a love of football. From my viewpoint they spend most of their time obsessing, bleating and crying over how successful the OF teams are, moaning about bigotry and basically anything other than supporting their own football teams. If they stopped trying to play the poor wee downtrodden victim card and started supporting their teams then maybe, just maybe they might be able to compete and become a successful football club. Bitterness and jealousy turns people into horrible creatures and i think there are just as many "diddy" team fans that get caught up in "All OF are bigoted c***s, yadda yadda" than there are OF fans that get caught up in sectarianism. I love diddy team fans that couldn't care less about the OF because they support their own teams. Others should learn from them. This is typical OF reasoning, and I'm afraid you have much to learn. Some of the real reasons have been mentioned by OF fans within the "Old Firm in England thread". Edited June 5, 2013 by Fotbawmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 This would be the same Celtic fans masquerading as failed social workers and failed lawyers? not obsessed then? I thought they were failed social workers and failed lawyers, now they are just masquerading as them. Which is it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 There really is no debating with you. So you spend 3 days arguing about the legaility or otherwise of contents of posts and then when you are asked a question that you cannot answer it is suddenly of no interest to you in the slightest. The SFA have a vested interest in obfuscating the issue and have done their best to do this. I would have as much chance of suing or being sued by Christianity or the notepad on my desk as I would by Rangers Football Club (note the lack of any corporate status in the name) as none of the aforementioned have a legal personality. 3 days ? he's been spending months contesting it and has had many a meltdown on the subject,he has changed his opinion many times as events have unfolded just because it either suited his agenda or his team or company got a favourable outcome. If you actually read all of the SFA's rules & regulations you will find they do not actually distinguish between club and company and in it's rules they call clubs members but in their insolvency rules it is still possible to liquidate a club/member and do not call it the company at any time in this link on page 17 on insolvency events http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFApublications2011-12/Scottish%20FA%20Handbook.pdf It would appear from the SFA's own rule book that liquidators are appointed to members aKa the club but in Rangers case the liquidator has been applied to the so called mythological company ??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 3 days ? he's been spending months contesting it and has had many a meltdown on the subject,he has changed his opinion many times as events have unfolded just because it either suited his agenda or his team or company got a favourable outcome. If you actually read all of the SFA's rules & regulations you will find they do not actually distinguish between club and company and in it's rules they call clubs members but in their insolvency rules it is still possible to liquidate a club/member and do not call it the company at any time in this link on page 17 on insolvency events http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFApublications2011-12/Scottish%20FA%20Handbook.pdf It would appear from the SFA's own rule book that liquidators are appointed to members aKa the club but in Rangers case the liquidator has been applied to the so called mythological company ??? This would hold up with the current view that the club playing in D2 next season is a continuation of the old one, minus the bits they didn't want to take. As mention before - new club = no trophies and no debt, continuation of old club = room of trophies + debt, has to be either one or the other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 This would hold up with the current view that the club playing in D2 next season is a continuation of the old one, minus the bits they didn't want to take. As mention before - new club = no trophies and no debt, continuation of old club = room of trophies + debt, has to be either one or the other. It's just another Rangers team playing football at Ibrox where a Rangers team used to play until it was liquidated,it is a continuance of a team called Rangers that plays football at Ibrox and that is just about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 It's just another Rangers team playing football at Ibrox where a Rangers team used to play until it was liquidated,it is a continuance of a team called Rangers that plays football at Ibrox and that is just about it. I understand the process of liquidation of the RFC plc is still on going and probably will be for the next couple of years, much has to be unraveled such as what was Duff & Phelps role in the administration process and how does this will affect the liquidation process since the process of liquidation will be stop start likely due to future legal proceedings. It is possible that money is still tied up among the paper trails and holdings the previous company had under Craig Whyte and it could be messy and drawn out but very interesting all the same. All the same I'm sure the Rangers fans will still refer to the creditors as vultures even though that money belonged to the creditors in the first place. It was those creditors money that was misused by the likes of David Murray and Craig Whyte .......and got to laugh at this, Rangers fans money that was misused as well. Well you can't put a price on loyalty can you? 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.