Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

OK, I can get my head round that - but the same question to you as to celticfootballclub.org... IF Charles Green overcomes the obstacles in his way, and his team takes to the field at Brechin... what will the match programmes say, what will the newspapers print the result as, what will Jeff Stelling and Soccer Saturday read out the result as being?

As I've been saying all day - IF Green overcomes the various obstacles, the team will be called "Rangers", and will to all footballing intents and purposes be Rangers, because the SFA (rather than the law of the land) will deem it to be so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely. If they play it'll be via possessing Rangers membership of SFA, they'll wear Rangers strips with Rangers crests, media will report it as Rangers, almost all people and most football fans will call them Rangers. It's Rangers.

I'm fairly sure most football fans will call them all sorts of things, Rangers will probably be quite far down the list :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I can get my head round that - but the same question to you as to celticfootballclub.org... IF Charles Green overcomes the obstacles in his way, and his team takes to the field at Brechin... what will the match programmes say, what will the newspapers print the result as, what will Jeff Stelling and Soccer Saturday read out the result as being?

If it's as per the ticket that I posted, it'll most likely be Rangers. Doesn't make it right or correct though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodwill refers to the value which the company enjoys from its perception, not from any nonsensical idea that history, in terms of sporting achievements, is an asset which can be traded.

So what makes up the perception of a company to the public? Its trading history.................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it is called, and what image rights it owns are irrelevant to the fact that it is not, and never can be, the club which was set up in 1872.

Do you agree though that, for example, all newspapers will print the result as Brechin City v Rangers.... the Brechin programme will say Brechin City v Rangers, and the TV announcers will read the result out as Brechin City v Rangers?

If you agree, then the image rights it owns and the way it portrays itself are far from irrelevant. It will, to all intents and purposes be Rangers.... the fact that Scottish football fans of other clubs who followed the tale on P&B think differently won't really matter in another 10, 20, 140 years.

My problem isn't with any Charlie Green team being portrayed as Rangers - it's the fact that both Charlie and Ally seem to want all the benefits of not being Rangers, plus all the benefit of being a continuation of Rangers too. In the words of Freddie Mercury, or whichever member of Queen actually wrote this one, maybe Brian May.... they want it all, and they want it now.

In my simple world, they can continue to be Rangers if they want - but they cannot be allowed to act like an unrelated newco when it suits them... IE, they want to leave all the toxic bits behind, cos' that was the fault of a couple of crooked individuals, nothing to do with 'Rangers'. Aye, right ye' are boys.

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you agree though that, for example, all newspapers will print the result as Brechin City v Rangers.... the Brechin programme will say Brechin City v Rangers, and the TV announcers will read the result out as Brechin City v Rangers?

If you agree, then the image rights it owns and the way it portrays itself are far from irrelevant. It will, to all intents and purposes be Rangers.... the fact that Scottish football fans of other clubs who followed the tale on P&B think differently won't really matter in anoother 10, 20, 140 years.

My problem isn't with any Charlie Green team being portrayed as Rangers - it's the fact that both Charlie and Ally seem to want all the benefits of not being Rangers, plus all the benefit of being a continuation of Rangers too. In the words of Freddie Mercury, or whichever member of Quen actually wrote this one, maybe Brian May.... they want it all, and they want it now.

In my simple world, they can continue to be Rangers if they want - but they cannot be allowed to act like an unrelated newco when it suits them... IE, they want to leave all the toxic bits behind, cos' that was the fault of a couple of crooked individuals, nothing to do with 'Rangers'. Aye, right ye' are boys.

Yes, both sides of this debate seem to be wanting to have their cake and eat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhow.... if he can get over all of these obstacles, including his manager's ineptitude, I see no reason why he cannot carry on as 'Rangers'... just as we knew them before, but probably minus 5 league titles and 4 Scottish Cups, oh, and minus 40,000 fans at every home game... but it'll still be Rangers.

The only way I can see him not managing to carry on as 'Rangers' is if the whole set of obstacles is simply too much, and it implodes in a big puff of smoke that rises up into the Govan sky and spells out the words 'Third Lanark' before wafting off on the breeze. Even then, Brian fcuking Kennedy and his smurfs will emerge to pick up the shattered pieces, and they'll attempt to carry on as 'Rangers'....

In short, I see no way that there simply won't be a continuation of Rangers at some level. If Charlie boy crashes and burns on the launch pad and fails to lift-off, it still won't spell the end.

Have I got any of this even half right? :rolleyes:

I agree with you they can continue as a Rangers at Ibrox ! BUT the company registered that won all those titles and trophies over 140 years is about to go bust with the final part of liquidation.

In steps Charles Green and buys everything apparently although the oldco still has the trading name "The Rangers football club PLC and was the Ltd company too" registered at companies house.He has moved all the former clubs assets to a new holding company with a different registration under sevco Scotland.We now have two separate companies do we not ? one with 140 years history and one with history beginning June 2012 but has all the assets of the 140 year old club ! .

It's the keeping of history bit that's the main debate me thinks ! is it a new club completely NO HISTORY ? or is it a continuation of the debt ridden company IS THE FORMER CLUB WITH DEBTS AND HISTORY ?

I've read a link somewhere earlier on the thread that Green has incorporated "The Rangers football club Ltd" into sevco Scotland pending ?,how can he incorporate the oldco into the newco without becoming liable to the oldco's huge debt mountain ?.

The point made in many of the MSM was that 140 years of Rangers history WILL be lost forever before the CVA failed.Now it's taken a turn and it's as if nowt all happened and it's a new club but has 140 years trading history behind it !.

It's either a new Rangers or the old Rangers they can't be the one and the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what makes up the perception of a company to the public? Its trading history.................

Tell me then, what happens to this 'asset' if, for example, I buy it, proceed to snuff it, and leave everything in my will to my cat?

Will it then be my cat who could claim to have cheated its way to some SPL titles?

Absolutely ridiculous idea, which I am surprised anyone gives credence to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read a link somewhere earlier on the thread that Green has incorporated "The Rangers football club Ltd" into sevco Scotland pending ?,how can he incorporate the oldco into the newco without becoming liable to the oldco's huge debt mountain ?.

"The Rangers Football Club PLC" != "The Rangers Football Club Ltd"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you agree though that, for example, all newspapers will print the result as Brechin City v Rangers.... the Brechin programme will say Brechin City v Rangers, and the TV announcers will read the result out as Brechin City v Rangers?

If you agree, then the image rights it owns and the way it portrays itself are far from irrelevant. It will, to all intents and purposes be Rangers.... the fact that Scottish football fans of other clubs who followed the tale on P&B think differently won't really matter in another 10, 20, 140 years.

My problem isn't with any Charlie Green team being portrayed as Rangers - it's the fact that both Charlie and Ally seem to want all the benefits of not being Rangers, plus all the benefit of being a continuation of Rangers too. In the words of Freddie Mercury, or whichever member of Quen actually wrote this one, maybe Brian May.... they want it all, and they want it now.

In my simple world, they can continue to be Rangers if they want - but they cannot be allowed to act like an unrelated newco when it suits them... IE, they want to leave all the toxic bits behind, cos' that was the fault of a couple of crooked individuals, nothing to do with 'Rangers'. Aye, right ye' are boys.

I believe that the vast majority of broadcasters will use the terminology employed by the SFL, and refer to them as 'The Rangers', to distinguish them from 'Rangers'.

It makes absolutely bugger all difference, without the shares in the club from Craig Whyte, they are not, and cannot ever be, the club which was set up in 1872.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that the vast majority of broadcasters will use the terminology employed by the SFL, and refer to them as 'The Rangers', to distinguish them from 'Rangers'.

It makes absolutely bugger all difference, without the shares in the club from Craig Whyte, they are not, and cannot ever be, the club which was set up in 1872.

With respect, that's entirely the way you want to see it as a Celtic fan. In three years time, or whatever, the Celtic vs Rangers game will still have the same importance. There's no way anyone's going to refer to Celtic vs The Rangers, surely?

Edited by Savage Henry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. I believe the value attached to goodwill when the assets were sold to Green was £1.

He also gave Whyte another quid for the hell of it. That means Whyte made a 200% profit laugh.gif.

That still cracks me up, the blunder and that The Times and The Guardian quoted him as saying 100%.

Edited by Invalid Probe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect, that's entirely the way you want to see it as a Celtic fan. In three years time, or whatever, the Celtic vs Rangers game will still have the same importance. There's no way anyone's going to refer to Celtic vs The Rangers, surely?

I have no idea what name the newly formed club known as Sevco Scotland Ltd. will be using at that time.

It makes bugger all difference to me, they're nothing to do with Celtic FC, no matter how much others might wish to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...