Larky Masher Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 whatever works for the correct explanation. flex either way as long as we get what we want. history and titles - same club. debt and all the bad stuff, club (or company) is deid. That's nonsense, the bottom line is football club/team goes beyond a simple legal entity ask supporters of teams like Halifax Town, Chester City, Portsmouth, Dundee, Coventry City, AFC Wimbledon is their club has an unbroken history and I'm 99.999999999999% certain they say yes. Football teams as much a cultural phenomenon and a source of social identity as they are about the legal entity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 People seem to be missing the point of the Livi program. It was done to cause trouble. We all know the type of knuckledraggers that exist amongst the Rangers away support. What did the idiot who wrote this think would happen? He got his sad wee jollies writing guff and other folk like the Police and decent fans have to deal with the trouble he caused. Totally irresponsible and quite frankly the chairman of Livi is letting his own fans down if he doesn't get rid of the clown. What will he write about Celtic if they come visiting? Or Hearts? Are you saying that there's a direct correlation between some notes in a programme and the disturbance that occurred inside the stadium? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 That's nonsense, the bottom line is football club/team goes beyond a simple legal entity ask supporters of teams like Halifax Town, Chester City, Portsmouth, Dundee, Coventry City, AFC Wimbledon is their club has an unbroken history and I'm 99.999999999999% certain they say yes. Football teams as much a cultural phenomenon and a source of social identity as they are about the legal entity. Dundee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Dundee? Ok only two receiverships but you get the point I am making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Ok only two receiverships but you get the point I am making. What that they are/were a basket case as well? Yes I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Are you saying that there's a direct correlation between some notes in a programme and the disturbance that occurred inside the stadium?No an indirect correlation. The program was always going to cause some kind of trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce778 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 whatever works for the correct explanation. flex either way as long as we get what we want. history and titles - same club. debt and all the bad stuff, club (or company) is deid.Oh come off it. Your posts are embarrassing on this topic. You have no idea what you're talking about but I'll give you this - your misplaced confidence when making incorrect sweeping comments is impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 What that they are/were a basket case as well? Yes I do. Is that the best you can do? That's rather disappointing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
France here we come Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 And that makes you a bigot. No better than the thugs burning flags in George Square. What an idiotic comment,but why change the habit of a lifetime I suppose eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 What an idiotic comment,but why change the habit of a lifetime I suppose eh? You seem to be a bit of expert with respect to making idiotic comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
France here we come Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 You seem to be a bit of expert with respect to making idiotic comments. Forgive me if I completely disregard the opinion of someone who went to the ballot box last month to declare that he wasn't Scottish yet seems to spend all his free time on a Scotland message board. Oh and then cries on that same message board that him and his mates are being driven away from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Oh come off it. Your posts are embarrassing on this topic. You have no idea what you're talking about but I'll give you this - your misplaced confidence when making incorrect sweeping comments is impressive. What? Well that made me laugh at least. What's embarrassing is that what I posted is so close to the truth for you and many like you and your response showed it. You want embarrassing ? Try your continual bleating posts as soon as anyone mentions the fact your club died trying to convince everyone it didn't. Sorry Bruce but the majority on here think your viewpoint is sh&te and attacking anyone who says otherwise won't change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Is that the best you can do? That's rather disappointing It wasn't me who tried make out Dundee were liquidated larky. Disappointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce778 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 What? Well that made me laugh at least. What's embarrassing is that what I posted is so close to the truth for you and many like you and your response showed it. You want embarrassing ? Try your continual bleating posts as soon as anyone mentions the fact your club died trying to convince everyone it didn't. Sorry Bruce but the majority on here think your viewpoint is sh&te and attacking anyone who says otherwise won't change that. Ha, forgive me if I don't take the opinion of the TAMB as authority for anything, particularly matters concerning Rangers! You have no idea what the truth is because, quite simply, you don't understand what has happened. That is clear from your posts on the subject. Using the terms 'business' and 'company' interchangeably was a fine example of that. By the way, I notice you weren't able to respond to any of the problems I identified with your 'logic'. My 'bleating posts' have identified the issues and facts here and explained why the club is the same club, ie because it was sold to the new company. Your view contains no facts or evidence whatsoever - it's just a repeated bald assertion with no rational explanation at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted October 9, 2014 Author Share Posted October 9, 2014 Ha, forgive me if I don't take the opinion of the TAMB as authority for anything, particularly matters concerning Rangers! You have no idea what the truth is because, quite simply, you don't understand what has happened. That is clear from your posts on the subject. Using the terms 'business' and 'company' interchangeably was a fine example of that. By the way, I notice you weren't able to respond to any of the problems I identified with your 'logic'. My 'bleating posts' have identified the issues and facts here and explained why the club is the same club, ie because it was sold to the new company. Your view contains no facts or evidence whatsoever - it's just a repeated bald assertion with no rational explanation at all. The club wasn't sold to the new company because it wasn't a legal entity. If club and company were separate they would both have their own, distinct officers, accounts, assets, liabilities, etc. The fact that they weren't is because they were one and the same entity. Taking the "Club" as a concept is perfectly acceptable, They're called Rangers, they play in blue, they play at Ibrox, it's understandable that fans want to consider it to be "their club", and I have no problem with that. The problem arises when people want to "prove" that the club existed as a separate legal entity which was sold on. It can't be proved because it simply isn't a fact, the club and company were one and the same and both are now being liquidated. The new club is just that, a new club. By all means consider to be your club as you are a fan. But stop browbeating anyone who dares to point out the strictly legal facts of liquidation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLAS Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 The club and the company are separate. No one on here has made a coherent argument to the contrary, which is fair enough because there isn't one. Instead, the response is to jump to incorrect conclusions and posture without any basis. I admit I've not read since this post, however let's go for some coherency. Would either the club or company exist for any reasonable time without the other? There was no money to keep either afloat. The answer is no. Would it be truthful if the club and vis-Ã -vis the company were cut at the jugular, that they would both die together? The answer is yes. They did. No matter how it's dressed up, the original Glasgow Rangers are no longer with us. This is the reason why you started at the bottom of the professional leagues. It's a new entity, new name, new paperwork, new football team. The original Glasgow Rangers cannot be resurrected and unfortunately for their fans, the history will remain, but it won't be attached to the new team. They are new fans of a new club. Of course, that doesn't mean memories have to be forgotten. But those memories will be from a different team to which they now support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce778 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 The club wasn't sold to the new company because it wasn't a legal entity. If club and company were separate they would both have their own, distinct officers, accounts, assets, liabilities, etc. The fact that they weren't is because they were one and the same entity. Taking the "Club" as a concept is perfectly acceptable, They're called Rangers, they play in blue, they play at Ibrox, it's understandable that fans want to consider it to be "their club", and I have no problem with that. The problem arises when people want to "prove" that the club existed as a separate legal entity which was sold on. It can't be proved because it simply isn't a fact, the club and company were one and the same and both are now being liquidated. The new club is just that, a new club. By all means consider to be your club as you are a fan. But stop browbeating anyone who dares to point out the strictly legal facts of liquidation. Jeez, this is like banging your head against a brick wall. Something doesn't have to be a legal entity to be sold to a new company so your first sentence makes no sense at all. I agree the club wasn't a legal entity. Your second sentence is nonsensical too. The old company was the corporate entity that operated the football club (ie the business). A business does not have directors, etc. You are mixing up clubs, like golf clubs, which have a board, Articles of Association, etc. with football clubs which are a business operated by a company. A company is a far more appropriate corporate structure for a professional football club than a 'club' like a golf club. An entity cannot be a company AND a club, it must be one or another. Your reference to the strictly legal facts of liquidation is hilarious. You have referred to no authority that supports your proposition. If it is such a slam dunk as you say it is, and given the clear eagerness for many to say Rangers is a new club, I would expect it would be easy to produce such evidence, so where is it? A few posts ago you said you couldn't buy a business without assuming its liabilities! So forgive me if I doubt your credentials to comment on the 'strictly legal facts of liquidation'. What are 'strictly legal facts' anyway? The difference of opinion appears to be whether or not the football club was the business operated by the old company. You say no it wasn't. I say, yes it was. If it wasn't the business being operated by the old company, I am not sure what the old company was doing...other than masquerading as a club, as well as a company. I think the tax man might have had something to say about that too... And the administrators of the old company would also appear to have sold a business that didn't exist.... By way of example, if I went to a law firm and said I would like to buy the business of Partick Thistle Football Club (PTFC), the two most obvious options for acquiring PTFC would be either (1) I buy the shares in the company that owns and operates PTFC and become the majority shareholder or (2) I set up a new company to buy the business and assets of PTFC. The downside of (1) is that you are liable for all of the obligations and debts of the company. That is why the new company who acquired Rangers and Sheppered and Wedderburn who acquired Tods Murray opted for option (2). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce778 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I admit I've not read since this post, however let's go for some coherency. Would either the club or company exist for any reasonable time without the other? There was no money to keep either afloat. The answer is no. Would it be truthful if the club and vis-Ã -vis the company were cut at the jugular, that they would both die together? The answer is yes. They did. No matter how it's dressed up, the original Glasgow Rangers are no longer with us. This is the reason why you started at the bottom of the professional leagues. It's a new entity, new name, new paperwork, new football team. The original Glasgow Rangers cannot be resurrected and unfortunately for their fans, the history will remain, but it won't be attached to the new team. They are new fans of a new club. Of course, that doesn't mean memories have to be forgotten. But those memories will be from a different team to which they now support. Another post of flawed logic based on assertions with no independent authority in support of it.... Oh and fyi, the club has never been called Glasgow Rangers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted October 9, 2014 Author Share Posted October 9, 2014 I think Bruce is going to spontaneously combust soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 I think Bruce is going to spontaneously combust soon. Only his body. His mind and soul will live on and restart in a new being at birth. Probably called "The Bruce". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 I agree Rangers are dead. Long live the Rangers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnie x Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Are players registered to a club? Yes Did Rangers Players have their registrations moved to a new club called Sevco Scotland? Yes ergo Deid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Ha, forgive me if I don't take the opinion of the TAMB as authority for anything, particularly matters concerning Rangers! You have no idea what the truth is because, quite simply, you don't understand what has happened. That is clear from your posts on the subject. Using the terms 'business' and 'company' interchangeably was a fine example of that. By the way, I notice you weren't able to respond to any of the problems I identified with your 'logic'. My 'bleating posts' have identified the issues and facts here and explained why the club is the same club, ie because it was sold to the new company. Your view contains no facts or evidence whatsoever - it's just a repeated bald assertion with no rational explanation at all. So you keep saying Brucie. Only you seem to understand what happened so we all need to agree with you. I notice you didnt comment on the above "facts" posted by Jonnie. How does that fit with your one club theory - do enlighten us all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) Are players registered to a club? Yes Did Rangers Players have their registrations moved to a new club called Sevco Scotland? Yes ergo Deid Johnnie , wasting your breath - its all misplaced confidence - we dont understand the facts and our posts are embarrassing - we have no idea what we are talking about. only Brucie knows and understands any of this. Edited October 10, 2014 by ShedTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaggycoo Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Airdrie - because they bought Clydebank Gretna - because no-one bought the club and no, Leeds are also in the same boat I thought Leeds went into administration not liquidation? 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.