GlasgowCeltic.org Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 The context was, "The shares in Ranges FC are what denotes its existence". This just isn't true. In the case of Rangers FC (IA) as a plc, then yes it is, just as the accumulated individual share of each owner prior to it being a ltd co. had was the club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 The context was, "The shares in Ranges FC are what denotes its existence". This just isn't true. If you're trading as a PLC then it absolutely is true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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. Two points: 1. You said earlier, "Incorporation of a currently existing club doesn't extinguish the club, and neither would de-incorporation." At least one of your statements has to be wrong. 2. When did Hibs begin as a club? How do you account for their disappearance? How many Scottish Cups have they won? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 If you're trading as a PLC then it absolutely is true. So can clubs only chart their history from when they traded as a PLC? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgowCeltic.org Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 How the f**k does this c**t manage to breathe and type at the same time? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 What 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 So can clubs only chart their history from when they traded as a PLC? No but their history stops when they stop trading all together (which is what is happening with Rangers PLC). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 How the f**k does this c**t manage to breathe and type at the same time? I'm not sure whether he's being deliberately obtuse or whether he really is that stupid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I'm not sure whether he's being deliberately obtuse or whether he really is that stupid. The Rangers football club that played at Ibrox since 1872 will cease to be and will trade no more. Green's Sevco Scotland has bought the assets only at the moment and has moved them into a company he wants to call "The Rangers football club" now note here the absence of Ltd or PLC and the inclusion and use of the word "THE" at the beginning of the name Green wants to trade under.This is Green applying to use part of another companies name as things stand as the oldco still possesses the trading name "Rangers football club PLC". Rangers football club PLC established 1872 as a trading company as we know it will DIE and that's a dead cert. When the oldco changes it's name to RFC 2012 Green will then apply to use "The Rangers football club" for his newco football team now note the word THE it is specifically placed to emphasise the probable change.His argument will be that the name has been changed enough to differentiate from the oldco's former trading names as a different trading name for Green's newco because the word THE will be the defining change.I'm sure he will use to establish we are now "THE RANGERS" and the oldco was just "RANGERS". He isn't applying to use the oldcos name from the oldco or buying it,he is asking to call his newco "The Rangers Football Club" and whether he is able to trade under that name. There will I'm certain be a Rangers team playing at Ibrox in the future but it will be "THE RANGERS" trading company team formed 2012 and not "RANGERS" as "RANGERS" the 1872 club which is about to be liquidated. As for the SFA licence ! Green could have easily asked the SFA for a new shiny licence and got it no problem,so why does he have or need to acquire the oldco's licence which now comes with penalties,sanctions and fines ?. Does obtaining and having the oldco's licence automatically contain & be all the former Rangers 1872 history intact and will be a continuation of the SFA member club according to the SFA but won't be seen as a new trading company as the licence will be a continuation of an SFA member club called Rangers playing at Ibrox since 1872 according to the SFA ?.A new licence would mean he has a new football club completely which can't be punished. The company that owns the SFA licence just now is "Rangers Football Club PLC" is most certainly going bust and will be as dead as a dodo and even Rangers fans will agree to that,but is the SFA licence the key to saving the clubs history as a club called Rangers playing at Ibrox since 1872 ? as the licence may be as old as the formation of the SFA association (correct me if I'm wrong there !) and when members first joined and will be that actual licence and a continuation of the licence itself to a team named Rangers at Ibrox eventually ?. Is this the main reason why Charles Green is very keen to obtain the oldco's licence ? will this be proof of a continuation of an SFA member club called Rangers in name to the SFA because the licence comes with the oldco's history when the association formed and why the SFA wants to have penalties and sanctions in place before transferring it to Green's newco ?. I actually now think that Charles Green is really fighting for the history with titles and cups of Rangers now,the SFA licence is not a company HMRC or any other can block and comes with the old Rangers history PERHAPS !. I'm I wrong there . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Pretty much agree with all of that except for: As for the SFA licence ! Green could have easily asked the SFA for a new shiny licence and got it no problem Not without the prerequisite 3 years audited accounts they couldn't have. That is the main reason Green is desperate to have the license transferred. I doubt he gives a flying fup about Rangers' history. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Isn't the audited accounts thingy a bit if a myth - in that its not an actual 'rule' at all ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgowCeltic.org Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Is this the main reason why Charles Green is very keen to obtain the oldco's licence ? will this be proof of a continuation of an SFA member club called Rangers in name to the SFA because the licence comes with the oldco's history when the association formed and why the SFA wants to have penalties and sanctions in place before transferring it to Green's newco ?. I actually now think that Charles Green is really fighting for the history with titles and cups of Rangers now,the SFA licence is not a company HMRC or any other can block and comes with the old Rangers history PERHAPS !. I'm I wrong there . Why would a history transfer from one club to another because the membership had? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Isn't the audited accounts thingy a bit if a myth - in that its not an actual 'rule' at all ? My understanding is that it's not needed for a membership transfer but is for a completely new membership. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Isn't the audited accounts thingy a bit if a myth - in that its not an actual 'rule' at all ? From the SFA website: Sevco Scotland Ltd bought Rangers Football Club PLC’s share in the SPL and membership of the Scottish FA as part of their acquisition of assets. Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements. That is it in a nutshell. Were Charlie one suit to apply as a newco he would fail to meet the criteria. If the SFA were to change this rule there would be a number of smaller clubs who have been waiting to get in and are compliant with it, who would be more than happy to take legal action, which the SFA know they (the clubs) would win. This is not about history or stars on badges. Apart from doing as Airdrie United did and buying a club and changing its name, this is the only other way back into football for Sevco. Charlie one suit has NO interest in the history, and any discussions about that are a diversion. Who gives a rats ass how many times Celtic have changed their identity and whether they go back to 1888. Complete nonsense. To reiterate: This is not about history or stars on badges! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Isn't the audited accounts thingy a bit if a myth - in that its not an actual 'rule' at all ? Yes it is. Even for a brand new membership it is at the whim of the SFA if they choose to demand it. For transfer of membership it has never been necessary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 From the SFA website: That is it in a nutshell. Were Charlie one suit to apply as a newco he would fail to meet the criteria. If the SFA were to change this rule there would be a number of smaller clubs who have been waiting to get in and are compliant with it, who would be more than happy to take legal action, which the SFA know they (the clubs) would win. This is not about history or stars on badges. Apart from doing as Airdrie United did and buying a club and changing its name, this is the only other way back into football for Sevco. Charlie one suit has NO interest in the history, and any discussions about that are a diversion. Who gives a rats ass how many times Celtic have changed their identity and whether they go back to 1888. Complete nonsense. To reiterate: This is not about history or stars on badges! Even then it's discretionary. The only reason Rangers haven't taken that route is that there simply isn't time, they might lose and it wouldn't help with the continuation process, a case they are struggling to make lite there being a lot of grounds to support it. To that end, history is precisely what this is about at this stage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third Son from the Rock Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 In 1900 due to financial and other problems, Dumbarton FC ceased to be and their membership of the Scottish League lapsed. In 1908 a completely new Dumbarton FC was formed and applied successfully for membership of the Scottish League. The new club had no business connection with the old one. However they played at the same ground, used the same crest and colours and assumed the honours (including two league championships and a Scottish Cup win) and history of the old club. People appear to have just kind of accepted that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tam1314 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Muddy Waters 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Bump Latest rants from Gio......... 8h GIOVANNI DI STEFANO @DEVILSADVOKAT Craig Whyte is in big big trouble with the Monaco Police boy oh boy they have him in their sights big time His worries in the UK gonna seem tadpoles to what he is facing Why the Fxxxx does all stuff happen this time of night when I must sleep as have early morning uffa Everyone knows that insider dealing and money laundering you don't do when the US is involved cos they get extradition and it's big big Prison time unlike in Europe where a couple years maybe four out half time is really not harsh but in US you get clobbered 99 years etc I mean what a ruddy fool absolute fool he is NOT under arrest but now a marked man and his troubles in uk are sweet FA now in comparison Tomorrow evening I hope to post up the charges and investigation pre report there are others involved too so need to be carefull All are innocent until proven guilty that must be the opening shot pls but it looks grim cos paper trails hard to alibi Sorry I have to sleep early morning call good night I post up all tomorrow god bless 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Though it was more a Pishtalkasaurus. Are we back in armageddon / asteroid / dinosaur territiory again? 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.