Huistrinho Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Just took The Delorean to 88mph: Bloody Sun.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgowCeltic.org Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 So demonstrating that a club's existence has nothing to do with its PLC status. I assume you trace your history back to 1888 and not to 1897. You're not getting this at all are you? A club doesn't even have to be a plc. In the case of the now defunct Rangers FC (IA), they were. Incorporation of a currently existing club doesn't extinguish the club, and neither would de-incorporation. Is any of this making any sense at all? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlideRulePass Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Thesaurus alert Though it was more a Pishtalkasaurus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huistrinho Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Its a game of who blinks first. Green has to get that license no matter what, without it there is no ST money !! or sponsorship deals but the overheads would be very much still hanging over them. The transfer embargo is probably not that big a deal for him as he can say there is nothing he can do to strengthen the squad. I would say the main stumbling block is the disclosure and the finances to satisfy the SFA, can that possibly be an explanation to the influx of people like Mathers and Stretford. Fat Sally can posture as much as he likes the guys with the money will decide this is small potatoes , the major obstacle is satisfying the SFA of the fit and proper persons I don't think you're far off the money. I expect media rights are also playing a larger component in this than we might think. Arguably, the SFL have the strongest hand in this, as they're no worse off without Rangers. Every other player stands to lose. Ally's posturing does himself or the club no credit whatsoever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Incorporation of a currently existing club doesn't extinguish the club, and neither would de-incorporation. That makes perfect sense. Thanks. We both agree: a club and its associated corporation exist independently. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 So demonstrating that a club's existence has nothing to do with its PLC status. I assume you trace your history back to 1888 and not to 1897. Kindly demonstrate which 'big words' I didn't understand. You are the one who vaunted the fact the Celtic's history wasn't coterminous with its current legal entity. The fact that you believe it to be "coterminous" is the proof. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgowCeltic.org Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 That makes perfect sense. Thanks. We both agree: a club and its associated corporation exist independently. See when I said that a club doesn't even have to be a plc, which part of that sentence didn't you understand? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Kindly spare us the revisionism please. It's Sevco until they die (again). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akredz Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Regardless of any legal status, the labels of any owning companies or their trading names, this, public and footballing perception, is the most important factor. I expect that in 20 years, Scottish society will consist of two groups of people: 99% of the population who will accept and view Rangers and Sevco as the one and same thing, or have no idea anyone thinks differently. 1% of the population who will take pleasure in in pointing venomously at young children in their replica shirts while shouting "Rangers are DEAD! You support SEVCO! You've never won anything!" Not very optimistic, are you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) The greatest thing about those who desire to hold on to the history of the cheating b*****d of a football club that played at Ibrox Stadium from 1899 to 2012 is that the history books will clearly state all of the details of why that club was liquidated, that the club was caught cheating after having done so for a period of at least 12 years, along with all the other numerous negative incidents and events that are attached to that cheating b*****d of a football club. Why anyone would want to remain associated with all the wrongdoings of a soon-to-be defunct 'dead' liquidated cheating b*****d of a football club only they know. Edited July 24, 2012 by Itwiznaeme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huistrinho Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Not very optimistic, are you I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bite on that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) The fact that you believe it to be "coterminous" is the proof. Umm I really don't know where that came from. Actually I believe it to be the opposite. Edited to clarify: I think Celtic have been around since 1888 as a club. How long they've been a PLC makes no difference. I obviously do not see the club/PLC as being coterminus. Edited July 24, 2012 by Kincardine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 See when I said that a club doesn't even have to be a plc, which part of that sentence didn't you understand? I don't recall that exact sentence but I entirely agree with you. Glad to see, again, that you separate a club from its PLC. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgowCeltic.org Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I don't recall that exact sentence but I entirely agree with you. Glad to see, again, that you separate a club from its PLC. The plc which owned Rangers was called Wavetower. Wavetower owned Rangers FC by virtue of buying the shares from MIH. The shares in Ranges FC are what denotes its existence. If you want to buy the club, you buy the shares in the club. No-one was able to buy the shares in the club from Craig Whyte, therefore those shares will soon be liquidated, and the club will cease to exist. To pre-empt what will undobtedly be coming next, the holding company for Rangers FC (IA) was Wavetower. A holding company is one which holds shares in another. Rangers FC (IA) is not a holding company for anything, it is the club. I can't really think of any way to simplify this any further. If you don't get it, well, sorry, but you are failing to understand basic logic. I'll reverse this around and ask you, under what set of circumstances would Rangers FC (IA) cease to exist? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I don't recall that exact sentence but I entirely agree with you. Glad to see, again, that you separate a club from its PLC. It isn't. A club can trade as a PLC or any other form of company. Clubs can become different forms of company as their corporate structure changes. Once the company (in whichever form it is) ceases to exist then so does the club. Rangers PLC did not become Sevco Scotland (or whatever the call themselves). Sevco merely purchased the assets of the old company/club as it awaits liquidation. Rangers PLC ceased trading as a football club and Sevco have started trading as a football club. The only relationship between the two is the transfer of the assets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgowCeltic.org Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 See when I said that a club doesn't even have to be a plc, which part of that sentence didn't you understand? I don't recall that exact sentence A club doesn't even have to be a plc. Scary. Genuinely scary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I'll reverse this around and ask you, under what set of circumstances would Rangers FC (IA) cease to exist? Quote Wavetower and whatever name you want. Also makes comments like, "The shares in Ranges FC are what denotes its existence" all you like. Do you really believe this? So a club doesn't exist without its shares? Would you apply the same logic to Celtic? If you link existence of a club with publicly available shares then you'll have to jump through some 'hoops' in charting your club back to 1888. I'll stick with what you said: "Incorporation of a currently existing club doesn't extinguish the club, and neither would de-incorporation." I'll also agree with your fellow Celtic-fan on this thread: a club and its PLC status aren't linked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) Quote Wavetower and whatever name you want. Also makes comments like, "The shares in Ranges FC are what denotes its existence" all you like. Do you really believe this? So a club doesn't exist without its shares? Would you apply the same logic to Celtic? If you link existence of a club with publicly available shares then you'll have to jump through some 'hoops' in charting your club back to 1888. Nobody said anything about "publicly available shares". I'll stick with what you said:"Incorporation of a currently existing club doesn't extinguish the club, and neither would de-incorporation." I'll also agree with your fellow Celtic-fan on this thread: a club and its PLC status aren't linked. Rangers have neither been incorporated or de-incorporated. They have been liquidated. There is a MASSIVE difference. Liquidation is not just a change of corporate structure. It it the end of the company. Edited July 24, 2012 by Todders 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgowCeltic.org Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) Quote Wavetower and whatever name you want. Also makes comments like, "The shares in Ranges FC are what denotes its existence" all you like. Do you really believe this? So a club doesn't exist without its shares? Would you apply the same logic to Celtic? If you link existence of a club with publicly available shares then you'll have to jump through some 'hoops' in charting your club back to 1888. I'll stick with what you said: "Incorporation of a currently existing club doesn't extinguish the club, and neither would de-incorporation." I'll also agree with your fellow Celtic-fan on this thread: a club and its PLC status aren't linked. Take 2. A club can start out as a private organisation, as in the case of Rangers FC. After a while, the people who own that club can decide to incorporate that club, as in the case of Rangers FC. The owners of the club exchange their shares in the club as a private organisation, into those of a ltd co. This is called incorporation, as happened to Rangers FC. The club hasn't changed, it hasn't gone out of existence, it has changed the format in which it is structured. The only way to exit this plc status is via unincorporation, or liquidation. Can you guess which of these happened to Rangers FC (IA)? I'll give you a clue, no-one bought their shares. Seriously, this has all been explained dozens of times. Do you even understand that a club can exist without having any relationship to any ltd co, public or private, as a privately owned organisation, a charity, a voluntary group, or dozens of other formats, and can freely change between them without changing the club? Edit to add, before I have to explain this in intricate detail using diagrams: Changing from one form to another is only possible if the original entity is not extinguished. In the case of liquidation of a plc, it ceases to exist and cannot change into any other format. Edited July 24, 2012 by GlasgowCeltic.org 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Nobody said anything about "publicly available shares". The word 'shares' was mentioned. I added 'publicly available' for clarification. The context was, "The shares in Ranges FC are what denotes its existence". This just isn't true. A club can exist without shares. This was true of most Scottish clubs in their early history. We existed as a club before shares were issued. The same is true of many senior teams. We existed before we were a PLC. The same is true of many senior teams. It seems we can apply this logic historically but not contemporarily. If you link a club's existence to its share capital and/or its exitence as a PLC then you'd have to re-write the history of many of our clubs. 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.