The_Kincardine Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 It's also interesting to note here that clubs apply to companies house to have a "Ltd Company status",notice how the club gets a Ltd status ?,it is not that the club acquired a company to run the club and then it's company was a Ltd company but the club but receives a status that protects them should someone decide to sue the company and not the owners as would have happened if it were still a sole trading company the status the club had before becoming a Ltd company. Another good, if badly punctuated, point HBQC. May I then infer that a club's existence is coterminous with its registration with Companies House? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Between 18-88 weird choice. I'd have gone for, "Between 19-67" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain kirk Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 https://www.duedil.com/company/05764000/rotherham-united-fc-limited 12 Feb 2009 Appointment of Liquidator Creditors (Gazette) 04 Feb 2009 Move from Administration to Liquidation Rotherham formed in 2006? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Another good, if badly punctuated, point HBQC. May I then infer that a club's existence is coterminous with its registration with Companies House? If that club wishes to operate as company then surely this is assumed as self-evidential and not an inference. However to implicate "a club's existence" as dependent on registration as "a company" would be an erroneous departure from logic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Another good, if badly punctuated, point HBQC. May I then infer that a club's existence is coterminous with its registration with Companies House? Naw ye cannae right,clubs go bust all the time without any sort of company status. Rangers FC went bust and were consigned to liquidation and were REFORMED again !,what's so hard to understand about that ?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Naw ye cannae right,clubs go bust all the time without any sort of company status. Rangers FC went bust and were consigned to liquidation and were REFORMED again !,what's so hard to understand about that ?. The hard bit is you bumping your gums about Company's House and then saying it has no meaning.. You are confusing me here (and probably yourself). I ask again, "May I then infer that a club's existence is coterminous with its registration with Companies House?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 I ask again, "May I then infer that a club's existence is coterminous with its registration with Companies House?" I refer you to the answer I gave some moments ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 The hard bit is you bumping your gums about Company's House and then saying it has no meaning.. You are confusing me here (and probably yourself). I ask again, "May I then infer that a club's existence is coterminous with its registration with Companies House?" I'll counter that by upping the stakes and say it existed out with the SFA's inception in 1873 so why should getting the dead clubs SFA licence be the prove that it is apparently the same club when the SFA didn't exist until after Rangers were formed as a club in 1872 ?. Also you are at it as well The_ ,we have established already that the club itself applied to Companies House for Ltd company status and didn't buy a mythical company to run it.The club ran it's own affairs and always has,so therefore the club killed itself off as well as liquidating it's legal company status into the bargain . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 And yet Middlesborough are still recognised as the same club with history intact since 1876. That's incorrect. They are recognised as being associated with the old club. Which is why they have "reformed" in their name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 That's just your interpretation, shite of course, but you are welcome to it. Thats what "reformed" means which is a fairly honest way of acknowledging the break in their clubs continuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 And yet Middlesborough are still recognised as the same club with history intact since 1876 Lets have a week look at some of the other things that Mark said, I mean what is the point in cherrypicking if you are not going to do it properly. He put a real imprint right the way through the club and delivered the first trophy in 128 years. (128 years eh, new club then) Some might say that bringing the club back from the brink and just making them exist was arguably the most important moment in the club's history. (oh look there is that word that the WKR loves BACK) When you are born half-a-mile from Ayresome Park, have followed the club from the early 70s, have trooped and stood in the rain at places like Sutton, you want to make sure that you are at the final. (Eh followed the club since the 70`s, oh aye this club was so fooking new) Another idiotic contribution from Hellish. FFS !,you claim I cherry picked only what I wanted too eh ? .Then why did I post the link containing all his column ?. I showed you he doesn't dismiss the liquidation of the club and acknowledges that the club went through massive changes by an insolvency event ie LIQUIDATION of the club and he clearly mentions it TWICE. You ignore the fact that is self evident from 1986 that the club that has now incorporated the old clubs history into it was reformed into a completely different club with different logos and identity for 20 fucking years before Mark now would have you believe now is Middlesbrough FC he says he has always followed just because the club now sports 1876 on it's jersey and claims to be the club before liquidation and it's not even the pre-liquidation logo either because it did not have 1876 on it. And as you posted he then goes off on a whim to rewrite his beloved clubs history the way he now views the club,just like your mob !,you want to believe so much that it is the very same club but is in fact a cloned version of the previous incarnation the club used to be ie Ver2 Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Bollocks The self evident thing is that he sees it as the same club and that liquidation just an event in the clubs history. When he says back from the brink then yes I think its self evident what he believes, despite liquidation / newcos / oldcos and all the rest of the stuff you yahoos constantly regurgitate, he believes that his club Boro are still Boro and of course he his right to think this, nobody in England has ever disputed it, the only reason you and the rest of the nutjobs on here dispute it is through sheer desperation to have Rangers history declared deid, its never going to happen, live with it. Another shite effort from Hellish. You miss the BRALT so much fud that you will latch onto anything and then proceed with your usual style of posting pish and links that eventually prove you wrong. Thanks for the red dots I will duly oblige at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain kirk Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Actually, the BRALT is nothing but a fckin abortion of a thread now, so mission was a roaring success. Mission? You spent a year n a half as the largest contributor on it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain kirk Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 and you think I am sad that it is FUBAR? I know you're sad, you resigned from the BRALT ,only to carry on dishing out dots on it! Now you're spouting the exact same shit you supposedly ,had enough of, So I will leave you with this ,lifted from the HMRC tax case ..last paragraph . So, Rangers now are the same as Rangers before? It seems not, but then we all knew that. An extract from here http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2013/B6.pdf 4.One of the Murray Group companies was Rangers Football Club plc (“RFC”), whose financial stability was known to be threatened by (among other things) tax debts,or at least claimed tax debts. As is well known, RFC collapsed into administration in March 2012, followed by liquidation in October 2012. It has been re-named RFC 2012 plc. The greater part of its business,and with it most of its assets, were purchased from the administrators in June 2012 by Sevco Scotland Ltd, which has since been re-named The Rangers Football Club Ltd. Although the professional football team known as Rangers had played in the Scottish Premier League until 2012, the collapse led to the ejection of the team from that league, and a team known as Rangers now plays in the Scottish Third Division Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain kirk Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Think he a held press conference when he resigned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Another plastic upset by dots, how tragic. Sorry, I'm not on very often. Tend to have a wee burst at it for a few days and then cannae be arsed for ages, but I have to ask......did you resign from the BRALT? I mean, actually announce that you would no longer be posting on it? Because if you feel you are so important as to actually merit an announcement of non-participation, well you really really really need to get some offline time, because that is the behaviour of someone losing their grip on reality. In short it is really nutbag fucking crazy. You seem like a decent fellow to me. Slightly arrogant and a bit too quick to dismiss things without providing reasons, but these are small potatoes whem compared with rabid all stars like magoo & bennett & AWRA/BP. But to actually announce a resignation!?.........Come on man! Go do something real, something that actually means something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain kirk Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 No point in slagging of Bennet,Magoo and the like, they're probably his aliases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain kirk Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Don't be to hard on Tedi liar the BRALT is his life ,he'll be back on it soon enough his inner rage to bore anyone who disagrees with him is too strong... Nearly 5000 posts in a year ?!..does he have a life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Don't be to hard on Tedi liar the BRALT is his life ,he'll be back on it soon enough his inner rage to bore anyone who disagrees with him is too strong... Nearly 5000 posts in a year ?!..does he have a life? ImageUploadedByPie & Bovril1379081680.745222.jpg Nearly 2,000 more posts than me and he called me obsessed . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 You are, lets face it we are both obsessed about Rangers. Naw Tedi being obsessed at laughing at your clubs predicament because it is damn well funny is completely different and is highly amusing . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.