Bbc and rangers

[chrisski33]

Bbc referred to the rangers as 54x champions and back into the top flight since 2012 but that aint right surely as the current rangera club is a new club!!!

[CropleyWasGod]

Bbc referred to the rangers as 54x champions and back into the top flight since 2012 but that aint right surely as the current rangera club is a new club!!!

:fishin:

[Callum7]

They also said 'Glasgow Rangers are returning to the top flight' sorry but when were this club in the top flight?

[Weststandwanab]

Bbc referred to the rangers as 54x champions and back into the top flight since 2012 but that aint right surely as the current rangera club is a new club!!!

I think that is about to be tested in the courts.

[Hibs Class]

Sloppy journalism from what is normally the most reliable source for news. Can only imagine that bbc Scotland wrote the story and so bbc UK didn't think they needed to verify it.

[Hi Heid Yin]

[QUOTE=chrisski33;4638106]Bbc referred to the rangers as 54x champions and back into the top flight since 2012 but that aint right surely as the current rangera club is a new club!!![

The "The Rangers" obsession with claiming a defunct clubs history is bizarre.
Self-delusion and an inability to accept reality affects a legion of them.
Mind-boggling stuff.

[Bostonhibby]

Had Mark hateley on BBC radio down here praising what the current board had achieved, not a mention of past tax irregularities.

[Sergey]

In the name of God, Allah, and all that is holy in all religions including all nine million deities of Shinto, couldn't you have censored the title? Normally this forum is crap at best, but I nearly had a coronary when I saw this!


The club in question basically only exists to promote religious bile.

THEY ARE NOT RANGERS

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Are the BBC not banned from Ibrox?

[Carheenlea]

To be honest, I'm bored with the whole Rangers "old club/new club" stuff. Rangers were a vile club in 2006 and they are a vile club in 2016 regardless whether they are a new club or not.

[Frazerbob]

Radio 5 Live and Sky Sports News been banging on all day about them returning to the premier for the first time since being relegated to the bottom tier. Now we all know the BBC likes to tell lies but surely everyone know they DID NOT GET ****ING RELEGATED!!!! :brickwall

[bod]

Bbc referred to the rangers as 54x champions and back into the top flight since 2012 but that aint right surely as the current rangera club is a new club!!!

why don't you email the bbc & ask them why they said that

[emerald green]

Why the need to single out the BBC for this? (Although I can guess).

Every single TV channel or Company - STV, Alba, Sky etc etc, newspaper, magazine, comic, refer to the Ibrox club as "Rangers".

Just like the OP. :rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

To be honest, I'm bored with the whole Rangers "old club/new club" stuff. Rangers were a vile club in 2006 and they are a vile club in 2016 regardless whether they are a new club or not.

The absorption of the vileness is, of course, one of the reasons why I'm swimming against the overwhelming tide of this thread. :cb

Bit narked at the suggestion of mental heath issues, mind.....

[emerald green]

Radio 5 Live and Sky Sports News been banging on all day about them returning to the premier for the first time since being relegated to the bottom tier. Now we all know the BBC likes to tell lies but surely everyone know they DID NOT GET ****ING RELEGATED!!!! :brickwall

The bit in bold - no we don't all know.

[bigwheel]

is that the best we've got to moan about...old club/new club...they have done what we set out to do (and failed)...won the league, and at a canter tbh. fair play to them. despise the club, but can't take away from their consistency. They've deserved it.

[Lago]

To be honest, I'm bored with the whole Rangers "old club/new club" stuff. Rangers were a vile club in 2006 and they are a vile club in 2016 regardless whether they are a new club or not.
Agree, it's pointless getting upset about it because nothing will change.

[Sir David Gray]

Every Sevco fan knows the truth, whether they'll admit it or not.

Hope they enjoy their first season in the Premiership, it's not often a club is playing top flight football within four years of being formed.

[Conj]

There was a Rangers fan on 5Live who claimed starting from the bottom division was what every Rangers fan wanted as it was the right thing to do. He did also start the sentence by saying they were dumped in the bottom division because of the sheer hatred of the rest of Scottish football towards them.

[Callum7]

Did anyone else see the Rangers fan on BBC talk about how great getting back into the top flight was. Only problem is is that it was shot in broad daylight before the match.

[KeithTheHibby]

**** the BBC and **** Rangers. That is all.

[Hi Heid Yin]

The absorption of the vileness is, of course, one of the reasons why I'm swimming against the overwhelming tide of this thread. :cb

Bit narked at the suggestion of mental heath issues, mind.....

Ted Heath the Tory, according to some in the know, was linked to paedophilia! So, this might suggest that he really did have issues.

This aside, and to the main pint of my reply to your comments, I have removed the offending "mental Health issues" wording from my post.

[marinello59]

To be honest, I'm bored with the whole Rangers "old club/new club" stuff. Rangers were a vile club in 2006 and they are a vile club in 2016 regardless whether they are a new club or not.

Aye. They look like the same club and act like the same club. I dislike them as much as I always have. Sadly they are the same club.

[blackpoolhibs]

Aye. They look like the same club and act like the same club. I dislike them as much as I always have. Sadly they are the same club.

Not here in Blackpool, i take great delight in telling every one of the pricks i meet here that it was fantastic that you found a new club to support so quickly after the last one was LIQUIDISED.

I will never let them forget what happened, mainly because it annoys the **** out of them.

[ALF TUPPER]

Bbc referred to the rangers as 54x champions and back into the top flight since 2012 but that aint right surely as the current rangera club is a new club!!!

Indeed , not possible to return to a place you have never been to. 😳

[Bostonhibby]

Indeed , not possible to return to a place you have never been to. 😳
[emoji106] abysmal reporting by BBC down here this morning. They speak about the "return" after administration. No liquidation after all it seems.

[Pete]

I heard someone on five live this morning (with a Scottish accent) say that Rangers were back meaning Celtic will sell more season tickets and they will re-establish the oldest rivalry in club football.

I'm sick of it already.

[SaulGoodman]

is that the best we've got to moan about...old club/new club...they have done what we set out to do (and failed)...won the league, and at a canter tbh. fair play to them. despise the club, but can't take away from their consistency. They've deserved it.


Yep well done to the team with by far the second biggest budget in Scotland win the second tier at the second time of asking. Absolutely brilliant achievement.

[The Spaceman]

Nice to see they uploaded the Hibs highlights at midnight with the Rangers G....oh wait :rolleyes:

[Holmesdale Hibs]

Bbc referred to the rangers as 54x champions and back into the top flight since 2012 but that aint right surely as the current rangera club is a new club!!!

To be fair, there are some similarities between the clubs. Glasgow Rangers wore similar colours, had the ****miest and most bigoted fans in the country and were run by a crook. Easy to see how the bbc could confuse this. The Rangers have done well in reaching the SPL so quickly, a fair achievement for a new club. It will be a few years before they're competing for their first ever title though.

[ALF TUPPER]

[emoji106] abysmal reporting by BBC down here this morning. They speak about the "return" after administration. No liquidation after all it seems.

Sickening the way so many are already looking forward to the vile sectarian bile spewing down from the stands from Sevco and Rantic next season. It's going to be awful ( worse ?) and nothing to be proud of.

( obviously I don't include Hibbies in that. I think I know what we think of Glasgow's ugly sisters)

#GGTTH

[MB62]

As described by the Collins English dictionary

LIQUIDATE - PAY (Debt); arrange affairs of, and dissolve (company) WIPE OUT, KILL.

[Ronniekirk]

Sickening the way so many are already looking forward to the vile sectarian bile spewing down from the stands from Sevco and Rantic next season. It's going to be awful ( worse ?) and nothing to be proud of.

( obviously I don't include Hibbies in that. I think I know what we think of Glasgow's ugly sisters)

#GGTTH

Cant remember what station it was on but Archie McPherson was interviewed and was giving it the past is in the past and Rangers would make the top league more competitive.
Clearly Celtic no matter what they have publicly said have missed the old firm rivalry and it has impacted on their attendances and Finances
So clearly it will be business as usual and the Hibs result wasn't even mentioned

[lyonhibs]

To be honest, I'm bored with the whole Rangers "old club/new club" stuff. Rangers were a vile club in 2006 and they are a vile club in 2016 regardless whether they are a new club or not.

This :agree::agree:

If they are a brand new club that hasn't won 54 titles etc etc, then are we as opposition fans doing away with all the bile, hatred and indeed great memories of humping the "Old" club?? No, of course not.

And the tax irregularities/financial shenanigans were all/mostly with the old club no? So this incarnation is shiny and new and untainted, no more offensive and foul than Spartans or Alloa right??

Bollocks. They're Rangers and I reserve the right to continue to despise them as much as I did pre 2012. Therefore, it bothers me not one bit if they keep chuntering on about their "history".

[CropleyWasGod]

As described by the Collins English dictionary

LIQUIDATE - PAY (Debt); arrange affairs of, and dissolve (company) WIPE OUT, KILL.

The important word.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Who gives a stuff in the end ........... they are gone, I'll bother what Sevco get up to when we are in the same league as them.

Having said that .... They now have a much bigger platform to spew their bile on which perhaps will bring them to the attention of UEFA coz its pretty clear that the folk who run our game will do SFA about it.

[Joe6-2]

I can't stand the coverage these cheating B******s are getting!

[GreenOnions]

If a person (or even a company) owns a piece of fruit (an apple let's say) and that person dies/goes bankrupt (or the company is liquidated) the apple will probably then become the property of another person (or company). Is it possible for the apple to still be an apple? Yes - I'd think so. Is it possible for the apple to still be the same apple as it was before - again - yes.

This is because an apple is an asset whose ownership can change whilst its being does not. That is the same for a football club IMHO.

(Have I been slightly naughty in choosing a perishable asset? Maybe :wink: )

Can we not just forget about this? Whatever anyone thinks is of no particular consequence on either side of the debate.

I'll be happy to tease TRFC about them being established in 2012 but only because it annoys them - not because I either believe that or think it matters.

[Jim44]

The morning phone in on Radio Scotland is currently asking "Do you welcome the return of Rangers Football Club"? The usual crud. One guy set them straight by having a real go at the Sevco fiasco, their cheating, being run by on loans by dodgy businessmen and making the legitimate point about their new status. The stupid BBC woman running the programme hurriedly said "Don't raise all that here. They're the same club and they have returned." So much for the BBC going by the facts.

[marinello59]

The morning phone in on Radio Scotland is currently asking "Do you welcome the return of Rangers Football Club"? The usual crud. One guy set them straight by having a real go at the Sevco fiasco, their cheating, being run by on loans by dodgy businessmen and making the legitimate point about their new status. The stupid BBC woman running the programme hurriedly said "Don't raise all that here. They're the same club and they have returned." So much for the BBC going by the facts.

The 'stupid' BBC women was only trying to get the guy to stick to the actual question rather than going off on a tangential rant. Plenty of people making the point about bigotry etc. To be honest the constant calls about it not being the same club are coming across as a bit whiney.

[hibsbollah]

I don't care about ze Rangers.

[GreenOnions]

I don't care about ze Rangers.

:tee hee:

[CropleyWasGod]

It's been said many times (probably mainly by me...) that the new club/old club debate is one that has no right or wrong answers, and will not be settled until there is a specific Court case about it.

Until then, it can only be opinions.

[easty]

If a person (or even a company) owns a piece of fruit (an apple let's say) and that person dies/goes bankrupt (or the company is liquidated) the apple will probably then become the property of another person (or company). Is it possible for the apple to still be an apple? Yes - I'd think so. Is it possible for the apple to still be the same apple as it was before - again - yes.

This is because an apple is an asset whose ownership can change whilst its being does not. That is the same for a football club IMHO.

(Have I been slightly naughty in choosing a perishable asset? Maybe :wink: )

Can we not just forget about this? Whatever anyone thinks is of no particular consequence on either side of the debate.

I'll be happy to tease TRFC about them being established in 2012 but only because it annoys them - not because I either believe that or think it matters.

You're comparing apples to oranges....:greengrin

[GreenOnions]

You're comparing apples to oranges....:greengrin

Oranges have a thick skin ............... oh - wait a minute :hmmm:

[monarch]

Jeez-I can't believe BBC Scotland have allocated the early portion of their morning phone in radio programme to " Do we welcome "Rangers" return (?) to the Premier League?"

This programme normally deals with politics (there's an election looming by the way) or some serious aspect of Scottish society but today we're supposed to be delighted about a new club being promoted.

To be fair a number of the earlier contributors have been very critical of them while also querying the same club issue but the anchor person (Louise White) has obviously been well schooled by the BBC hierarchy - "No! They are the same club" she replied snappily to callers who opined differently.

The overall message however is that we've to welcome them due to the untold riches that their fans will bring to other clubs and never mind the sectarian baggage carried by a "tiny minority" of their support.

So well done BBC Glasgow, I now look forward to a morning phone in dedicated to our promotion (OK even Falkirk or Raith Rovers!) when it happens.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Jeez-I can't believe BBC Scotland have allocated the early portion of their morning phone in radio programme to " Do we welcome "Rangers" return (?) to the Premier League?"

This programme normally deals with politics (there's an election looming by the way) or some serious aspect of Scottish society but today we're supposed to be delighted about a new club being promoted.

To be fair a number of the earlier contributors have been very critical of them while also querying the same club issue but the anchor person (Louise White) has obviously been well schooled by the BBC hierarchy - "No! They are the same club" she replied snappily to callers who opined differently.

The overall message however is that we've to welcome them due to the untold riches that their fans will bring to other clubs and never mind the sectarian baggage carried by a "tiny minority" of their support.

So well done BBC Glasgow, I now look forward to a morning phone in dedicated to our promotion (OK even Falkirk or Raith Rovers!) when it happens.

The nice lady from Kilmarnock summed it up............. In a nutshell she got to the root of the problem by pointing out that instead of being afraid to take her kids to the game twice a season now it will be four times, if Killie stay up.

[lapsedhibee]

If a person (or even a company) owns a piece of fruit (an apple let's say) and that person dies/goes bankrupt (or the company is liquidated) the apple will probably then become the property of another person (or company). Is it possible for the apple to still be an apple? Yes - I'd think so. Is it possible for the apple to still be the same apple as it was before - again - yes.

This is because an apple is an asset whose ownership can change whilst its being does not. That is the same for a football club IMHO.


But but but in the beautiful game that is Scottish fitba, unlike the real world you describe, penalties are imposed on apples whose owners get up to no good. Think of Craig Whyte (let's say) as a bad apple who causes the actual apple he (or his company) owns to rot. This newly rotten apple is heaved oot the Scottish fitba barrel. For good. Only a shiny new apple can be allowed in to the barrel, for fear of contaminating the existing decent fruit.

Ah don care about ze beh beh cee.

[BH Hibs]

**** the BBC and **** Rangers. That is all.

This 100%

[ballengeich]

It's been said many times (probably mainly by me...) that the new club/old club debate is one that has no right or wrong answers, and will not be settled until there is a specific Court case about it.

Until then, it can only be opinions.

As I've said before:greengrin, the debate has no right or wrong answers because club has different meanings in different contexts.

In Charles Green's attempt to get his defence expenses paid, I thought that the judges made it clear that in law the existence of a club which survives operating companies is a metaphysical concept which the courts are not concerned with. The law deals only with companies and physical assets.

However, as a fan, I don't support a company, so I have sympathy with the concept of a continuing club. If anyone finds themselves talking to a Sevcoite, ask them what the club is. Not many are trained in metaphysics.

[banarc7062]

To be honest, I'm bored with the whole Rangers "old club/new club" stuff. Rangers were a vile club in 2006 and they are a vile club in 2016 regardless whether they are a new club or not.
Yes I would agree with this sentiment. GGTTH

[Spike Mandela]

To be honest, I'm bored with the whole Rangers "old club/new club" stuff. Rangers were a vile club in 2006 and they are a vile club in 2016 regardless whether they are a new club or not.


The 'stupid' BBC women was only trying to get the guy to stick to the actual question rather than going off on a tangential rant. Plenty of people making the point about bigotry etc. To be honest the constant calls about it not being the same club are coming across as a bit whiney.

The war of attrition is winning then with people. The Daily Record and the BBC winning with their agenda of repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. People get tired of the argument and just give up.

Rangers the football club abused the tax system and the whole company was liquidated. The miraculous and relatively new phoenix club agenda rises from the ashes along with grey areas and confusion about licenses, SPFL shares, conditional SFA memberships (where the **** did that come from?) , five way agreements, oldco/newco fines, glib and shameless lying tax cheats as fit and proper people and history that remains history without need to pay historic debt.

They were never relegated. They were a new club that had to apply to enter the league. They were banned from European football as they did not have 3 years of audited accounts.

Don't get bored of this...., along with their Gorgie chums.......NEVER LET THE *******S FORGET.

[CropleyWasGod]

As I've said before:greengrin, the debate has no right or wrong answers because club has different meanings in different contexts.

In Charles Green's attempt to get his defence expenses paid, I thought that the judges made it clear that in law the existence of a club which survives operating companies is a metaphysical concept which the courts are not concerned with. The law deals only with companies and physical assets.

However, as a fan, I don't support a company, so I have sympathy with the concept of a continuing club. If anyone finds themselves talking to a Sevcoite, ask them what the club is. Not many are trained in metaphysics.

May I also quote that Professor of Metaphysics, Dr. Patrick Stanton, GGTTH, who said only the other week " a club belongs to its fans".

Moan the metaphysicians :greengrin

[marinello59]

The war of attrition is winning then with people. The Daily Record and the BBC winning with their agenda of repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. People get tired of the argument and just give up.

Rangers the football club abused the tax system and the whole company was liquidated. The miraculous and relatively new phoenix club agenda rises from the ashes along with grey areas and confusion about licenses, SPFL shares, conditional SFA memberships (where the **** did that come from?) , five way agreements, oldco/newco fines, glib and shameless lying tax cheats as fit and proper people and history that remains history without need to pay historic debt.

They were never relegated. They were a new club that had to apply to enter the league. They were banned from European football as they did not have 3 years of audited accounts.

Don't get bored of this...., along with their Gorgie chums.......NEVER LET THE *******S FORGET.

Just to be clear I have said the whole way through this saga that as far as I am concerned iits the same club. Same stadium, same jerseys, same supporters.

[21.05.2016]

The media ****fest over the bigot brothers meeting again is embarrassing. Can't wait for Scotland to once again be shamed and disgraced to the world :rolleyes:

[hibsbollah]

As far as I'm concerned it's just an amusing way of winding them up. 'Congratulations on your first piece of silverware. It's always nice to see a new club winning things' is my standard response to the ridiculous self congratulatory Facebook posts I've been reading from hun acquaintances this morning.

[lyonhibs]

Just to be clear I have said the whole way through this saga that as far as I am concerned if its the same club. Same stadium, same jerseys, same supporters.

I join you in this steadfast commitment. Apart from when needling some rather reactive Hun mates around about the "Big Hoose must stay open" era :greengrin

[Bostonhibby]

Sickening the way so many are already looking forward to the vile sectarian bile spewing down from the stands from Sevco and Rantic next season. It's going to be awful ( worse ?) and nothing to be proud of.

( obviously I don't include Hibbies in that. I think I know what we think of Glasgow's ugly sisters)

#GGTTH
Was a bit surprised to hear Nicky Campbell perpetuate some of the myth whilst patronizing McLaughlin on the radio this morning. He seemed to recover the position a bit by referring to the identity issue only for McLaughlin to suggest it was better not to go there, or words to that effect.

[Kato]

Aside from the new/old club debate there are those in the press/bbc still talking about how "the club" were relegated and even "unfairly punished with relegation".

Whether it's a new or old club they were never relegated. Their liquidation (of the business) meant they lost their place in Scottish Football and had to start again in the lowest League tier.

The fact that they can't get that right shows a definate cowtowing to the stickies in case they anger their fans. Its' not sloppy, it's not poor journalism it's tailoring the facts due to fear.

[The Falcon]

Not here in Blackpool, i take great delight in telling every one of the pricks i meet here that it was fantastic that you found a new club to support so quickly after the last one was LIQUIDISED.

I will never let them forget what happened, mainly because it annoys the **** out of them.

And on this point I agree 100% :aok:

[marinello59]

I join you in this steadfast commitment. Apart from when needling some rather reactive Hun mates around about the "Big Hoose must stay open" era :greengrin

:greengrin
Which is my position. I'll happily use it to wind any of their more loud mouthed follow followers up.

[Bishop Hibee]

Aside from the new/old club debate there are those in the press/bbc still talking about how "the club" were relegated and even "unfairly punished with relegation".

Whether it's a new or old club they were never relegated. Their liquidation (of the business) meant they lost their place in Scottish Football and had to start again in the lowest League tier.

The fact that they can't get that right shows a definate cowtowing to the stickies in case they anger their fans. Its' not sloppy, it's not poor journalism it's tailoring the facts due to fear.

Totally agree. It was all down to their mismanagement. As for the old club/new club debate, it's the same bigoted supporters.

[Lago]

It's been said many times (probably mainly by me...) that the new club/old club debate is one that has no right or wrong answers, and will not be settled until there is a specific Court case about it.

Until then, it can only be opinions.
But will there ever be said specific court case?

[CropleyWasGod]

But will there ever be said specific court case?

Can't see why there would be, TBH.

So the arguments and the wind-ups will continue, until we're bored of them.

[KeithTheHibby]

It will be interesting to see the calibre of player Sevco bring in next season.

So far the glib and shameless liar has provided the bread man with some lower league english cast offs - plus they have a couple of Accrington Stanley players to come in the summer.

You watch the tide turn when King provides them with diddly squat transfer kitty. This will be the most pleasing aspect in all this.

[Moulin Yarns]

Cant remember what station it was on but Archie McPherson was interviewed and was giving it the past is in the past and Rangers would make the top league more competitive.
Clearly Celtic no matter what they have publicly said have missed the old firm rivalry and it has impacted on their attendances and Finances
So clearly it will be business as usual and the Hibs result wasn't even mentioned

It was on the BBC, and my wife asked if he was a The Rangers supporter. :rolleyes:

[easty]

It will be interesting to see the calibre of player Sevco bring in next season.

So far the glib and shameless liar has provided the bread man with some lower league english cast offs - plus they have a couple of Accrington Stanley players to come in the summer.

You watch the tide turn when King provides them with diddly squat transfer kitty. This will be the most pleasing aspect in all this.

But...as Aberdeen, and to a lesser extent Hearts, have shown this season, you don't need to throw silly money at a half decent squad to get up and challenging with a piss poor Celtc team.

[Shrekko]

Can't see why there would be, TBH.

So the arguments and the wind-ups will continue, until we're bored of them.

Got bored of it 3/4 years ago. Who cares?

UEFA FWIW seem to have decided they are still the same club. It can however be a nice wee wind up if you happen to have Rangers supporting mates but why do folk get so uptight?

Most important thing is that their past achievements are completely tarnished and many of their fans probably dont feel quite the same about them.

[Bad Martini]

There is no debate here. There is no legal challenge here surely?

"Glasgow Rangers" or whatever the **** they used to be called, went bust...
>>> so they lost any remaining debts and liabilities
>>> they lost all their "history" in the process
>>> which includes titles, cups and anything else they "won" (fairly or not)

Start a new club with a similar name...
>>> they get new debts and liabilities
>>> they start with **** all, in the third division or whatever its called just now
>>> when they done that, unless I am going mad, they started with nothing - a clean slate
>>> which means no history, cups, leagues or **** all (and debt
>>> they are called "the Rangers"
?????

Where is the confusion.

The company once known as "glasgow rangers" won whatever they won.
The company known as "the rangers" have won some ****ty lower league titles.

Err, thats it?

If not, whats stopping me from setting up a new company of any name and trading on the past successes and achievements of a now defunct company? Exactly.

The point around them being the same shower of biggots singing the same biggoted songs is correct tho. Some things never change.

ENDOF

[Monts]

Got bored of it 3/4 years ago. Who cares?

UEFA FWIW seem to have decided they are still the same club. It can however be a nice wee wind up if you happen to have Rangers supporting mates but why do folk get so uptight?

Most important thing is that their past achievements are completely tarnished and many of their fans probably dont feel quite the same about them.

Have they? I thought they were one of the few not saying that. What with them not being able to compete in europe without 3 years accounts (or something along those lines).

[CropleyWasGod]

Have they? I thought they were one of the few not saying that. What with them not being able to compete in europe without 3 years accounts (or something along those lines).

They do have 3 years accounts. 13,14,15.

The problem, though, is the fact that the latest audit report wasn't clean. That might prevent them being granted a UEFA licence if they win the Cup, although that's not certain.

[Monts]

They do have 3 years accounts. 13,14,15.

The problem, though, is the fact that the latest audit report wasn't clean. That might prevent them being granted a UEFA licence if they win the Cup, although that's not certain.

But when they first came back from the dead, was there not something from UEFA saying they wouldnt be eligible to play in Europe if they had won the cup back then?

[CropleyWasGod]

But when they first came back from the dead, was there not something from UEFA saying they wouldnt be eligible to play in Europe if they had won the cup back then?

Think you're right, but they didn't have 3 years' accounts then. That was the issue.

IIRC, the 3-year rule applies in situations where there has been an insolvency event (although that may just apply to liquidation). Don't think it necessarily means that UEFA do or do not see them as the same club.

[Mikey09]

Wonder if the BBC Sportsound people will dare to mention Halliday's wee sing song, whipping the mass hordes of bigots into a rendition of "**** the Pope and the Vatican?"
Mmm... Let me think...

[marinello59]

Wonder if the BBC Sportsound people will dare to mention Halliday's wee sing song, whipping the mass hordes of bigots into a rendition of "**** the Pope and the Vatican?"
Mmm... Let me think...

Is there any footage of this then? He sang a few words of Follow Follow which doesn't break any rules. I'm all for throwing the book at anybody who sings the lines you mention. There is no evidence that he did though.

[Mikey09]

Is there any footage of this then? He sang a few words of Follow Follow which doesn't break any rules. I'm all for throwing the book at anybody who sings the lines you mention. There is no evidence that he did though.


Its all over Twitter. He's "Rangers daft" as the media have told us. He knew exactly what he was doing. Do you think he would sing the first line and then the bigots wouldn't continue?! I didn't say HE sang the offensive words, I said he started the song and whatever anyone says he knew the rest of the song would be sung by the "Ibrox loyal."

[BoomtownHibees]

Just to add to the old club/new club debate:

When every club had a vote on whether to allow The Rangers (new club) in to the top division, Glasgow Rangers (old club) were allowed to vote. There were 2 separate league licenses held by both at the same time. Surely licenses are held by the "clubs" rather than any "company?"

Can anybody that says it's the same club explain how the above would be possible if they are indeed the same club?

[CropleyWasGod]

Just to add to the old club/new club debate:

When every club had a vote on whether to allow The Rangers (new club) in to the top division, Glasgow Rangers (old club) were allowed to vote. There were 2 separate league licenses held by both at the same time. Surely licenses are held by the "clubs" rather than any "company?"

Can anybody that says it's the same club explain how the above would be possible if they are indeed the same club?

IIRC, they were both represented at the meeting, (IMO, they were entitled to, for a variety of reasons) but there was only 1 vote available. Each company has a share (rather than a licence) in the SPFL, therefore there were 12 votes.

At that point, the share in the SPFL had been sold by Oldco to Newco (as part of the £5 for "intangibles" to which I keep returning :greengrin). In their eyes, Newco had the share. However, the rest of the clubs, effectively, told them that it wasn't within their power to transfer the share; that's why Oldco took part in the vote. Hence, after the vote, Newco had to pass the share on to Dundee. For nowt.... and they never did get their money back.... :cb

[Lago]

Can't see why there would be, TBH.

So the arguments and the wind-ups will continue, until we're bored of them.
I'm pretty much bored of it now, because it just reminds me of how things never change in Scottish football.

[number9dream]

Sloppy journalism from what is normally the most reliable source for news. Can only imagine that bbc Scotland wrote the story and so bbc UK didn't think they needed to verify it.

The BBC Trust ruled against BBC Scotland for their new club, old club distinction, so that pretty much ties their hands...
BBC 5 Live were all over the place this morning - Rangers recovering from their "financial difficulties", being "demoted" and now "back" at the top and, of course, all "for the good of Scottish football"...
I wonder if they'll get anything like the complaints flooding into BBC Glasgow?

[MileHighBees]

I don't care about ze Rangers.


It's been said many times (probably mainly by me...) that the new club/old club debate is one that has no right or wrong answers, and will not be settled until there is a specific Court case about it.

Until then, it can only be opinions.

I think there's a fairly simple solution to this issue.
They are not exactly the same club but not completely new either.

[1] The original Rangers were liquidated.
Hence they died.
[2] There still exists a football club going by the name Rangers, playing at the same venue with the same colours, badge, fans etc
Hence they are not dead.

So, they died but they're not dead.
They are undead.
They are Zombie Rangers.

The whole 'The Rangers' thing just isn't a very good insult and probably goes way over the heads of most supporters anyway.
To me, calling them a zombie club is a fair reflection on what actually happened.

[chrisski33]

Jeez-I can't believe BBC Scotland have allocated the early portion of their morning phone in radio programme to " Do we welcome "Rangers" return (?) to the Premier League?"

This programme normally deals with politics (there's an election looming by the way) or some serious aspect of Scottish society but today we're supposed to be delighted about a new club being promoted.

To be fair a number of the earlier contributors have been very critical of them while also querying the same club issue but the anchor person (Louise White) has obviously been well schooled by the BBC hierarchy - "No! They are the same club" she replied snappily to callers who opined differently.

The overall message however is that we've to welcome them due to the untold riches that their fans will bring to other clubs and never mind the sectarian baggage carried by a "tiny minority" of their support.

So well done BBC Glasgow, I now look forward to a morning phone in dedicated to our promotion (OK even Falkirk or Raith Rovers!) when it happens.

they actually had two shows discussing rangers promotion. john beatties show discussed it too! they sadly wont discuss if hibs or falkirk or raith go up. neither did they had a phone in regarding the yams going up last yr either. Louise white was shocking in not letting callers point out relevant comments about them being a new club as such.

[silverhibee]

Is there any footage of this then? He sang a few words of Follow Follow which doesn't break any rules. I'm all for throwing the book at anybody who sings the lines you mention. There is no evidence that he did though.

He instigated it.

[silverhibee]

Is there any footage of this then? He sang a few words of Follow Follow which doesn't break any rules. I'm all for throwing the book at anybody who sings the lines you mention. There is no evidence that he did though.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=andy+hallidy+sings+with+range rs+fans+

[Albanian Hibs]

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=andy+hallidy+sings+with+range rs+fans+

How nauseating

[Golden Bear]

they actually had two shows discussing rangers promotion. john beatties show discussed it too! they sadly wont discuss if hibs or falkirk or raith go up. neither did they had a phone in regarding the yams going up last yr either. Louise white was shocking in not letting callers point out relevant comments about them being a new club as such.

:agree:

I normally like her interview style but she was away out of her depth this morning.

[marinello59]

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=andy+hallidy+sings+with+range rs+fans+

So what's he done wrong in that video? :confused:

[Betty Boop]

So what's he done wrong in that video? :confused:


Looks like he's celebrating with the fans. Cannae see much wrong with that ?

[Bighoose]

Post on Pie And Bovril by williemillersmoustache is pretty close at getting it right...

I'd like to take this opportunity to extend a warm hand of friendship, welcoming Scotland's newest club to the top flight.
To achieve back to back promotions while spending more than it would cost to put a double decker bus into orbit around the sun really would have been a remarkable achievement. So well done for not quite managing that.

http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/230064-congratulations-rangers/page-2#entry10331898

[lapsedhibee]

Post on Pie And Bovril by williemillersmoustache is pretty close at getting it right...

I'd like to take this opportunity to extend a warm hand of friendship, welcoming Scotland's newest club to the top flight.
To achieve back to back promotions while spending more than it would cost to put a double decker bus into orbit around the sun really would have been a remarkable achievement. So well done for not quite managing that.

http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/230064-congratulations-rangers/page-2#entry10331898





Quite like this one too:

Congratulations on winning the second tier title, with the second largest budget in the country, at the second time of asking.

I think I speak on behalf of most fans of lower league clubs: thank ****** they're gone. My commiserations to those supporters of Premiership clubs who are about to be burdened with the absolute ****show that follows these brain donors.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I see The Daily Record had a pullout this morning to celebrate The Championship title win by The Rangers. Did they do one for The Yams last year?

[CropleyWasGod]

I see The Daily Record had a pullout this morning to celebrate The Championship title win by The Rangers. Did they do one for The Yams last year?
No.

Yams can't read.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[martin1875]

Anyone read this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35912680


With the club mired in debt, 54-times champions Rangers entered administration and were then liquidated in 2012 under the ownership of Craig Whyte, who has since faced criminal charges owing to his stewardship at Ibrox.

Forced to re-enter the Scottish professional football pyramid in the bottom tier, Rangers - under manager Ally McCoist and controlled by a consortium led by Charles Green - won League Two by 24 points.

At least someone at the Beeb knows the difference between relegation and what actually happened.

[Bostonhibby]

Anyone read this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35912680



At least someone at the Beeb knows the difference between relegation and what actually happened.

:agree: Be sacked in the morning and banned from Ibrox - the ground where the now defunct Glasgow rangers used to play before they liquidated to avoid paying anything to their creditors.

[Callum7]

There is no debate here. There is no legal challenge here surely?

"Glasgow Rangers" or whatever the **** they used to be called, went bust...
>>> so they lost any remaining debts and liabilities
>>> they lost all their "history" in the process
>>> which includes titles, cups and anything else they "won" (fairly or not)
Start a new club with a similar name...
>>> they get new debts and liabilities
>>> they start with **** all, in the third division or whatever its called just now
>>> when they done that, unless I am going mad, they started with nothing - a clean slate
>>> which means no history, cups, leagues or **** all (and debt
>>> they are called "the Rangers"
?????

Where is the confusion.

The company once known as "glasgow rangers" won whatever they won.
The company known as "the rangers" have won some ****ty lower league titles.

Err, thats it?

If not, whats stopping me from setting up a new company of any name and trading on the past successes and achievements of a now defunct company? Exactly.

The point around them being the same shower of biggots singing the same biggoted songs is correct tho. Some things never change.

ENDOF

Good points here, explains how they're not the same club.

[CropleyWasGod]

Good points here, explains HIS OPINION AS TO how they're not the same club.

Ftfy [emoji48]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Callum7]

Ftfy [emoji48]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

It has facts in it, so it's not an opinion.:rules:

[CropleyWasGod]

It has facts in it, so it's not an opinion.:rules:
It has some facts that lead to an opinion.

Others use other facts to lead them to a different opinion.

Which is the drum I've been banging (on and on....)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[hhibs]

The bit in bold - no we don't all know.


Then those who do not, must be deaf and blind or is it just effing blind.

[hhibs]

This 100%

+1

[hhibs]

[/I]

:agree:

I normally like her interview style but she was away out of her depth this morning.


Hmm,opinions eh,a biased,self opinionated ,unprofessional "journalist"......... IMO.

[portycabbage]

I don't mind thinking of them as a re-incarnation of their former selves (not that I believe in reincarnation), but it doesn't make sense to call them the same club, unless you believe that the disembodied spirit of a football club can have financial responsibilities, hold league memberships or enter into contracts of employment with football players.

If they'd been the same club that was a member of the spl pre-liquidation, then they wouldn't have been in the position of having to apply membership. The only way a club could have membership was by being part of it when the league was formed, or by being promoted from the league below - the new company/club were neither, which is why the vote happened.

Similarly, when players left under freedom of contract and didn't transfer to Sevco. If they were Rangers players, then it makes sense to say they were employed by the club. But being employed by a club means having a contract with a company, and they weren't obliged to transfer over.

If the club and company are separate entities, then the club isn't the league member, the employer, or the thing that people buy shares in. There is definitely an essential part of a club which is not just a company, but football clubs at the same time have to be businesses to do what they do.

[lapsedhibee]

Anyone read this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35912680

At least someone at the Beeb knows the difference between relegation and what actually happened.

Yes, though I'd have preferred 'entered' to 're-entered'.

[greenginger]

I see the Breadman has entered the betting on the Aston Villa gig.


http://www.oddschecker.com/football/football-specials/aston-villa/next-permanent-manager


I wonder if this new Villa board with ex-chief executives at the table will be impressed by a city-trader ?

[Bad Martini]

Good points here, explains how they're not the same club.

cheers :thumbsup:


Ftfy [emoji48]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

???


It has facts in it, so it's not an opinion.:rules:

:thumbsup:


It has some facts that lead to an opinion.

Others use other facts to lead them to a different opinion.

Which is the drum I've been banging (on and on....)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Where did I suggest ANY opinion? What I said was facts and added some question marks to ask "am I wrong and if so, please do correct me".

If the company went bust (which they did, and ****ing delighted we were to see it) they lose ALL their history no? Good and bad. Or is something in there an opinion? Thats the facts as I understand it, unless its now possible to be liquidated and lose all your debt but keep your "good bits" such as success, achivements (cups, leagues etc)!


Hmm,opinions eh,a biased,self opinionated ,unprofessional "journalist"......... IMO.

Just so am clear, you are calling me biased, self-opinionated and a journaist are ye???

Biased = DUH! :na na::rolleyes:
Self opinionated = Hmm...I post my own opinion, on a forum - thats what its for no?
Journalist = Well thatd be braw. I'd love to share my thoughts on the rangers, yams and rest of scottish fitba in such a way....however, Im not a **** so that rules me out.
:na na::aok::rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

cheers :thumbsup:



???



:thumbsup:



Where did I suggest ANY opinion? What I said was facts and added some question marks to ask "am I wrong and if so, please do correct me".

If the company went bust (which they did, and ****ing delighted we were to see it) they lose ALL their history no? Good and bad. Or is something in there an opinion? Thats the facts as I understand it, unless its now possible to be liquidated and lose all your debt but keep your "good bits" such as success, achivements (cups, leagues etc)!



Just so am clear, you are calling me biased, self-opinionated and a journaist are ye???

Biased = DUH! :na na::rolleyes:
Self opinionated = Hmm...I post my own opinion, on a forum - thats what its for no?
Journalist = Well thatd be braw. I'd love to share my thoughts on the rangers, yams and rest of scottish fitba in such a way....however, Im not a **** so that rules me out.
:na na::aok::rolleyes:

Never called you any of those things.

As for the rest, you posted some facts, which lead you to your opinion. And that's fine, of course.

Others have used other facts, which have led to a different opinion. That's also fine, which was the point of my post.

[Bad Martini]

Never called you any of those things.

As for the rest, you posted some facts, which lead you to your opinion. And that's fine, of course.

Others have used other facts, which have led to a different opinion. That's also fine, which was the point of my post.

It wasn't you I quoted on those things though mate? :aok:

As fir the rest, I agree. But I didnt post an opinion; I just posted the facts and said those were the facts :greengrin (in my opinion) :greengrin ......now, if someone tells me the facts are wrong (and I believe them :greengrin), that would change my opinion on the facts. Sooooo, company goes bust - they're feked aye? That means no history (debts or success). Is that a fact or an opinion and takin that further, that is what happened to rangers no? (old co)....

However, opinions on facts are generally bollocks as facts speak for themselves no? I mean, if I told you the Lothian Buses are still painted in maroon, that would be a fact no? If I said manky maroon, that would be an opinion (and confusingly, also a fact :greengrin).

:thumbsup:

[CropleyWasGod]

It wasn't you I quoted on those things though mate? :aok:

As fir the rest, I agree. But I didnt post an opinion; I just posted the facts and said those were the facts :greengrin (in my opinion) :greengrin ......now, if someone tells me the facts are wrong (and I believe them :greengrin), that would change my opinion on the facts. Sooooo, company goes bust - they're feked aye? That means no history (debts or success). Is that a fact or an opinion and takin that further, that is what happened to rangers no? (old co)....

However, opinions on facts are generally bollocks as facts speak for themselves no? I mean, if I told you the Lothian Buses are still painted in maroon, that would be a fact no? If I said manky maroon, that would be an opinion (and confusingly, also a fact :greengrin).

:thumbsup:

Sorry, I misread you.

Okay, here's my take on the history thing. I've posted it a few times on the main thread on the Rangers saga, so apologies to the sad gets who are still reading that :greengrin

If the McDonalds franchise down the road goes bust, the assets (not the company that owns it) are up for sale. That's not just the physical assets, the building, fryers etc, but also what's called the intangible assets. In boring accountant-speak, it's often called "goodwill". In the McDonald's scenario, that would mean the name, the brand, the reputation (good and bad) and, yes, the history of McDonald's as an entity. So, assets are bought, and the debt stays with the old company.

(By the way, you could substitute the local chippy for McDonald's in this scenario.)

When Green bought the assets of Oldco, £5 was allocated to intangibles. Amongst those were the badges and the brand. The latter is enough to suggest, IMO, that the history of Rangers as an entity (good AND bad, and I stress that) was also bought. So, along with the titles etc, they also bought a reputation for bigotry and fud-ism.

An opinion..... based on facts, and experience.....but still to be tested in Court :greengrin

[cabbageandribs1875]

Quite like this one too:

Congratulations on winning the second tier title, with the second largest budget in the country, at the second time of asking.

I think I speak on behalf of most fans of lower league clubs: thank ****** they're gone. My commiserations to those supporters of Premiership clubs who are about to be burdened with the absolute ****show that follows these brain donors.



gets my vote

[Bad Martini]

Sorry, I misread you.

Okay, here's my take on the history thing. I've posted it a few times on the main thread on the Rangers saga, so apologies to the sad gets who are still reading that :greengrin

If the McDonalds franchise down the road goes bust, the assets (not the company that owns it) are up for sale. That's not just the physical assets, the building, fryers etc, but also what's called the intangible assets. In boring accountant-speak, it's often called "goodwill". In the McDonald's scenario, that would mean the name, the brand, the reputation (good and bad) and, yes, the history of McDonald's as an entity. So, assets are bought, and the debt stays with the old company.

(By the way, you could substitute the local chippy for McDonald's in this scenario.)

When Green bought the assets of Oldco, £5 was allocated to intangibles. Amongst those were the badges and the brand. The latter is enough to suggest, IMO, that the history of Rangers as an entity (good AND bad, and I stress that) was also bought.

An opinion..... based on facts, and experience.....but still to be tested in Court :greengrin

:aok:

Now, I wasnt privy to this fiver bit on three counts:
1) I hate the huns and all their pish and have avoided the threads now in the main on account of the need to wash to an almost OCD level after reading anything with them in it
2) I missed it totally :greengrin
3) Err, the above two :aok:

Fair dues mate. On the basis of your post, you're more likely spot on. Now my opinion based on your opinion based on your unproven but experienced opinion which is close to fact til the courts say otherwise, is far closer to your opinion, based on unproven but experienced opinion and all of which you should have known and I wouldnt have owing to your experience, thus making it your fault and in some way me right and you wrong. :greengrin:aok::thumbsup:

Lets hope the court decides against them then....and THEN we can all laugh collectively and with great vigour. Fekers :aok:

[CropleyWasGod]

:aok:

Now, I wasnt privy to this fiver bit on three counts:
1) I hate the huns and all their pish and have avoided the threads now in the main on account of the need to wash to an almost OCD level after reading anything with them in it
2) I missed it totally :greengrin
3) Err, the above two :aok:

Fair dues mate. On the basis of your post, you're more likely spot on. Now my opinion based on your opinion based on your unproven but experienced opinion which is close to fact til the courts say otherwise, is far closer to your opinion, based on unproven but experienced opinion and all of which you should have known and I wouldnt have owing to your experience, thus making it your fault and in some way me right and you wrong. :greengrin:aok::thumbsup:

Lets hope the court decides against them then....and THEN we can all laugh collectively and with great vigour. Fekers :aok:

May I say, Sir Humphrey, **** OFF :greengrin

[portycabbage]

Sorry, I misread you.

Okay, here's my take on the history thing. I've posted it a few times on the main thread on the Rangers saga, so apologies to the sad gets who are still reading that :greengrin

If the McDonalds franchise down the road goes bust, the assets (not the company that owns it) are up for sale. That's not just the physical assets, the building, fryers etc, but also what's called the intangible assets. In boring accountant-speak, it's often called "goodwill". In the McDonald's scenario, that would mean the name, the brand, the reputation (good and bad) and, yes, the history of McDonald's as an entity. So, assets are bought, and the debt stays with the old company.

(By the way, you could substitute the local chippy for McDonald's in this scenario.)

When Green bought the assets of Oldco, £5 was allocated to intangibles. Amongst those were the badges and the brand. The latter is enough to suggest, IMO, that the history of Rangers as an entity (good AND bad, and I stress that) was also bought. So, along with the titles etc, they also bought a reputation for bigotry and fud-ism.

An opinion..... based on facts, and experience.....but still to be tested in Court :greengrin

If your definition of a club is merely "assets" or "intangibles" and the financial parts (the "company") are outwith that definition, how can a club be an employer, hold membership of a league, or experience financial difficulties? And if history and titles are assets, what would stop Hibs buying them for a fiver and organising an open-topped bus to celebrate our 54 titles?

Also if the whole company of McDonalds went bust (I think this is a better analogy than just a franchise), would someone else be able to revive the brand without a name change?

[CropleyWasGod]

If your definition of a club is merely "assets" or "intangibles" and the financial parts (the "company") are outwith that definition, how can a club be an employer, hold membership of a league, or experience financial difficulties? And if history and titles are assets, what would stop Hibs buying them for a fiver and organising an open-topped bus to celebrate our 54 titles?

Also if the whole company of McDonalds went bust (I think this is a better analogy than just a franchise), would someone else be able to revive the brand without a name change?

We've been here before. :greengrin

The company is the employer, with all the attendant assets and responsibilities. The "club", and this is the bit that causes the debate, is the "metaphysical" part that has yet to be defined... as may on here have suggested, the emotional bit that "belongs to the supporters" (Stanton, P.)

The history and titles are PART of the goodwill, they're not all of it. I'd sugges that they're not easily separable from the brand.... so, in that light, why would anyone else want to buy a brand like that?

On the McDonalds question, yes of course they would. Brands are valuable parts of company's valuations, and I'd wager that a new buyer of the McDonalds' assets would pay a fortune for that brand. More than a fiver, that's for sure.

[portycabbage]

We've been here before. :greengrin

The company is the employer, with all the attendant assets and responsibilities. The "club", and this is the bit that causes the debate, is the "metaphysical" part that has yet to be defined... as may on here have suggested, the emotional bit that "belongs to the supporters" (Stanton, P.)

The history and titles are PART of the goodwill, they're not all of it. I'd sugges that they're not easily separable from the brand.... so, in that light, why would anyone else want to buy a brand like that?

On the McDonalds question, yes of course they would. Brands are valuable parts of company's valuations, and I'd wager that a new buyer of the McDonalds' assets would pay a fortune for that brand. More than a fiver, that's for sure.

We've definitely been here before!

And as previously stated, nobody would say that a purely metaphysical entity can be an employer etc, but we still talk of clubs being employers, league members, being owned by someone etc (that is, owned in a legal and literal way, rather than a metaphorical one), which is why the definition of club has to include the corporate aspect. I'm not sure a legal ruling would be able to satisfy, once and for all, a definition of a metaphysical entity in any case!

The titles and history,I agree, are not all of the "goodwill", but they are the parts it sounds most odd to speak of being sold off separately. But if they are assets to be bought and sold, then why not? I think even the terms "goodwill" or "brand" don't really grasp the "intangible" part of a club, as they are trying to make something intangible and unsaleable into the opposite of those things.

[CropleyWasGod]

We've definitely been here before!

And as previously stated, nobody would say that a purely metaphysical entity can be an employer etc, but we still talk of clubs being employers, league members, being owned by someone etc (that is, owned in a legal and literal way, rather than a metaphorical one), which is why the definition of club has to include the corporate aspect. I'm not sure a legal ruling would be able to satisfy, once and for all, a definition of a metaphysical entity in any case!

The titles and history,I agree, are not all of the "goodwill", but they are the parts it sounds most odd to speak of being sold off separately. But if they are assets to be bought and sold, then why not? I think even the terms "goodwill" or "brand" don't really grasp the "intangible" part of a club, as they are trying to make something intangible and unsaleable into the opposite of those things.

We "talk" of that, because IMO it's simpler to use the word than, say "the company". It's factually incorrect, but no-one (even pedantic me...) is going to suggest that we start talking about "the company" signing so-and-so (which, legally, it does) or that we start singing "Glory glory to The Hibernian Football Club Limited".

You may be right about a legal ruling being inconclusive, but it's the only way I can see for the question to be settled. Even at that, what good would it actually serve, other than to give one-half of the OF some sort of moral bragging rights over the other? :rolleyes:

[portycabbage]

We "talk" of that, because IMO it's simpler to use the word than, say "the company". It's factually incorrect, but no-one (even pedantic me...) is going to suggest that we start talking about "the company" signing so-and-so (which, legally, it does) or that we start singing "Glory glory to The Hibernian Football Club Limited".

You may be right about a legal ruling being inconclusive, but it's the only way I can see for the question to be settled. Even at that, what good would it actually serve, other than to give one-half of the OF some sort of moral bragging rights over the other? :rolleyes:

I don't think anyone actually means "the holding company has signed a player" when they talk about the club's new signing, which is the problem with the argument that people are speaking in shorthand/simpler terms. The "company" is just the club as it is seen in corporate terms.

If the club is already owned by the fans (Prof P Stanton), then why are people buying shares? I would argue because people are buying part of the club as a concrete (corporate) entity which has all the history, assets etc, and which is the club itself which they love and is part of their identity. Most of the shares in HFC are owned by the holding company, rather than being shares IN the holding company, but you can't call the holding company or the shares it owns "the club". I just think the whole idea of various separate entities is a smokescreen. I don't think anyone would baulk at describing McDonalds as a multi-million pound business as well as a brand. The separate entities thing is akin IMO to various blind guys holding different parts of the elephant and arguing the elephant is various different things, when actually they are all parts of the same thing - ie clubs are partly metaphysical and partly corporate elephants! (I'm not implying you're blind btw!)

[hhibs]

cheers :thumbsup:



???



:thumbsup:



Where did I suggest ANY opinion? What I said was facts and added some question marks to ask "am I wrong and if so, please do correct me".

If the company went bust (which they did, and ****ing delighted we were to see it) they lose ALL their history no? Good and bad. Or is something in there an opinion? Thats the facts as I understand it, unless its now possible to be liquidated and lose all your debt but keep your "good bits" such as success, achivements (cups, leagues etc)!



Just so am clear, you are calling me biased, self-opinionated and a journaist are ye???

Biased = DUH! :na na::rolleyes:
Self opinionated = Hmm...I post my own opinion, on a forum - thats what its for no?
Journalist = Well thatd be braw. I'd love to share my thoughts on the rangers, yams and rest of scottish fitba in such a way....however, Im not a **** so that rules me out.
:na na::aok::rolleyes:

Not you, the bbc female journalist !

[Bad Martini]

Not you, the bbc female journalist !

Sorry mate. My bad. I take the grumpy ******* of the day award.

As for the BBC journalist, I must concur. They are however, all the same when it comes to the quality.

Glad we dont pay their wages or anything :green grin

GGTTH

[Iain G]

I feel like the BBC and the SFA and SPFL are missing a really big feelgood story here.

Plucky lower league new boys, pull together and work their way up through the divisions to get to the pinnacle of Scottish Football for the first time in their short history...

Its like Gretna all over again, hopefully :greengrin