Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.third-lanark.co.uk/

I once answered something on that site, and ended up on an email list. Buggers wouldn't leave me alone after that.

Wish they'd hurry up and die.

[Hibs Class]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Rangers Football Club Limited (not David Murray) was the owner of the "club". It was that owner (company) that went into administration, not the club, and the legal process then took its course on that company.

There's not really a legal definition of what the "club" is, which is what I'm trying to say. For that reason, unless it's tested in Court, this argument will run on.

Of course, you are completely right - it will run on and I will argue that oldco died and newco is a new co with no history beyond a D2 and a D1 title. Well aware that oldco fans will argue the opposite, but then of course they would

[portycabbage]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Rangers Football Club Limited (not David Murray) was the owner of the "club". It was that owner (company) that went into administration, not the club, and the legal process then took its course on that company.

There's not really a legal definition of what the "club" is, which is what I'm trying to say. For that reason, unless it's tested in Court, this argument will run on.

I understand the point about Murray owning RFC Ltd, which owned the "club". I'm saying it appears in the eyes of the law that the ''club" is (or was) RFC Ltd - based on the current RFC not being liable for previous debt, or able to hold the likes of Naismith to a contract.

I also think that it seems odd to say that the "club" isn't, at least in part, a company or business - given that most people would say that Murray owned Rangers, or Rangers were in Admin, or Rangers had employees, and (were meant to have) paid tax.

I don't feel comfortable myself with the definition of "club" as just a company, but I don't think the two can be separated entirely.

[portycabbage]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I once answered something on that site, and ended up on an email list. Buggers wouldn't leave me alone after that.

Wish they'd hurry up and die.

You can't kill an idea man!

Actually there appears to be about three of them currently in existence, as if the RFC identity conundrum wasn't enough.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I understand the point about Murray owning RFC Ltd, which owned the "club". I'm saying it appears in the eyes of the law that the ''club" is (or was) RFC Ltd - based on the current RFC not being liable for previous debt, or able to hold the likes of Naismith to a contract.

I also think that it seems odd to say that the "club" isn't, at least in part, a company or business - given that most people would say that Murray owned Rangers, or Rangers were in Admin, or Rangers had employees, and (were meant to have) paid tax.

I don't feel comfortable myself with the definition of "club" as just a company, but I don't think the two can be separated entirely.

That's just it, though. That's not what the law says. The law doesn't have a view on what the "club " is. It has a view, however, on which company is liable for the debt.

When BH were asked what they mean when they say they want to buy the "club", they mentioned the football licence. That's probably as close as we can get to a legal definition.

[portycabbage]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's just it, though. That's not what the law says. The law doesn't have a view on what the "club " is. It has a view, however, on which company is liable for the debt.

When BH were asked what they mean when they say they want to buy the "club", they mentioned the football licence. That's probably as close as we can get to a legal definition.

I think I'm saying the same thing in essence - the law's view only extends to "RFC = a Ltd company which is liable for x". I suppose it's whether people generally (rather than the law) think that the business side of a club is all/part of/separate to their definition of the "club".

I'm not that up on football licences, or the BH bid, but some of these type of things seem less transferable than others - I'm thinking league and SFA membership for instance.

[southsider]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's just it, though. That's not what the law says. The law doesn't have a view on what the "club " is. It has a view, however, on which company is liable for the debt.

When BH were asked what they mean when they say they want to buy the "club", they mentioned the football licence. That's probably as close as we can get to a legal definition.

Chelsea fans own the pitch and the name Chelsea F.C. Perhaps BH could do the same with our club. ????

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Chelsea fans own the pitch and the name Chelsea F.C. Perhaps BH could do the same with our club. ????

It's not what they propose, but it's a possibility. A messy one, though, IMO.

[Billy Whizz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not what they propose, but it's a possibility. A messy one, though, IMO.

Leeann actually spoke about this at one of the fans forums if I can remember correctly

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Leeann actually spoke about this at one of the fans forums if I can remember correctly

The pitch?

Do you mean the ground?

[Billy Whizz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The pitch?

Do you mean the ground?

She mentioned the pitch. Seemingly Chelsea fans one the pitch, which is linked to something, which means Romab can't move Chelsea from Stamford bridge without their permission?

http://www.chelseafc.com/fans/chelsea-pitch-owners.html

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

She mentioned the pitch. Seemingly Chelsea fans one the pitch, which is linked to something, which means Romab can't move Chelsea from Stamford bridge without their permission?

http://www.chelseafc.com/fans/chelsea-pitch-owners.html

Ah didn't know that. Cheers.

Not sure that the 2 situations are similar, mind you. STF'S ownership comes from a more philanthropic angle than Abramovich. In any event, as I understand the suggestion that the club and ER as a whole are to be separated, the reasoning is the same ie to prevent ER being sold off.

[Cropley10]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Rangers Football Club Limited (not David Murray) was the owner of the "club". It was that owner (company) that went into administration, not the club, and the legal process then took its course on that company.

There's not really a legal definition of what the "club" is, which is what I'm trying to say. For that reason, unless it's tested in Court, this argument will run on.

Ah yes the old Holding Company Vehicle fantasy. Except you can't be a Club without being a Company - a legal entity. Rangers the club was incorporated in to the Company in eighteen oatcake, the two were synonymous and indivisible.

Only after the Company went bust did the Club suddenly become an ethereal body.

The name of the Company and the Club is written in to its wrought iron gates at Ibrox. The Clumpany went bust and The Rangers, a new Club, was born.

End of.

Only a subservient and fearful media refuses to accept this.

[Cropley10]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

She mentioned the pitch. Seemingly Chelsea fans one the pitch, which is linked to something, which means Romab can't move Chelsea from Stamford bridge without their permission?

http://www.chelseafc.com/fans/chelsea-pitch-owners.html

Its a great solution - it creates a check and balance.

[grunt]

Craig Whyte:

Whyte: Rangers were doomed BEFORE I took over
FORMER Rangers owner Craig Whyte has spoken out about his Rangers takeover, claiming the club was ‘already bankrupt’ by the time he bought it for £1.
Speaking to The Sun, Whyte - who was arrested in Mexico last month - claimed that administration was on the cards for Rangers before he came on the scene.
He said: “Rangers would have gone into administration, before I came along, they were taking insolvency advice.”
And Whyte maintains he is innocent of any crime, adding: “I know that I have done absolutely nothing wrong.
“What everyone forgets is I’m the only person in recent years who hasn’t taken a penny out of Rangers.
“All I did was step in to try to rescue a situation that was already way beyond. It was my intention to take it forward as a business and not to see it in the sorry state it is in at the moment.” (The Sun)

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ah yes the old Holding Company Vehicle fantasy. Except you can't be a Club without being a Company - a legal entity. Rangers the club was incorporated in to the Company in eighteen oatcake, the two were synonymous and indivisible.

Only after the Company went bust did the Club suddenly become an ethereal body.

The name of the Company and the Club is written in to its wrought iron gates at Ibrox. The Clumpany went bust and The Rangers, a new Club, was born.

End of.

Only a subservient and fearful media refuses to accept this.

And those of us who think differently :)

For the record, you don't have to be a company to be a member club of the SFA.

[Cropley10]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And those of us who think differently :)

For the record, you don't have to be a company to be a member club of the SFA.

Tell me what happened to Gretna FC. How come they're a new club now?

Why couldn't their unbroken history and honours be transferred to the new Gretna.

Likewise Airdrieonians?

Don't forget that when TRFC played their first ever game there were TWO 'Rangers' CLUBS. Players in that game were registered as trialists.

The reason for all this? The SFA and SPL were unable to comprehend that RFC the Clumpany; the combination of players and thing that paid their wages, ran the stadium etc went BUST. It ran out of credit and had to cease trading.

Do you deny that the SFA - as part of the secret 5 way agreement made up rules & memberships to allow 'continuity' Rangers to exist?

[Weststandwanab]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ah yes the old Holding Company Vehicle fantasy. Except you can't be a Club without being a Company - a legal entity. Rangers the club was incorporated in to the Company in eighteen oatcake, the two were synonymous and indivisible.

Only after the Company went bust did the Club suddenly become an ethereal body.

The name of the Company and the Club is written in to its wrought iron gates at Ibrox. The Clumpany went bust and The Rangers, a new Club, was born.

End of.

Only a subservient and fearful media refuses to accept this.

I would say you have hit the bull's eye there 180 !

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Tell me what happened to Gretna FC. How come they're a new club now?

Why couldn't their unbroken history and honours be transferred to the new Gretna.

Likewise Airdrieonians?

Don't forget that when TRFC played their first ever game there were TWO 'Rangers' CLUBS. Players in that game were registered as trialists.

The reason for all this? The SFA and SPL were unable to comprehend that RFC the Clumpany; the combination of players and thing that paid their wages, ran the stadium etc went BUST. It ran out of credit and had to cease trading.

Do you deny that the SFA - as part of the secret 5 way agreement made up rules & memberships to allow 'continuity' Rangers to exist?

Ditto again !

[Glory Lurker]

I can see the "same club" argument both ways, but let's face it where's the fun in saying that RFC did not die stone cold dead in 2012? It's only football, and if it lets us wind up that bunch of arrogant knuckle draggers, I'm quite happy to overlook any reasoned, informed views suggesting the contrary.

Rangers Football Club. Deid.

[Mr White]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would say you have hit the bull's eye there 180 !

50.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Tell me what happened to Gretna FC. How come they're a new club now?

Why couldn't their unbroken history and honours be transferred to the new Gretna.

Likewise Airdrieonians?

Don't forget that when TRFC played their first ever game there were TWO 'Rangers' CLUBS. Players in that game were registered as trialists.

The reason for all this? The SFA and SPL were unable to comprehend that RFC the Clumpany; the combination of players and thing that paid their wages, ran the stadium etc went BUST. It ran out of credit and had to cease trading.

Do you deny that the SFA - as part of the secret 5 way agreement made up rules & memberships to allow 'continuity' Rangers to exist?

Taking Airdrie first, do their support think that they are following the same team as before? If they do, that supports my argument about the emotional thing. If not, it doesn't.

Likewise Gretna.

As.for the 5 way agreement. ...I have no idea what was arranged. As you say, it was secret. I'm sure that we'd all like to know. However, I'm not sure whether we'd be any closer to settling the old club/new club argument.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would say you have hit the bull's eye there 180 !



Ditto again !

Where did you learn to play darts?😕

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Taking Airdrie first, do their support think that they are following the same team as before? If they do, that supports my argument about the emotional thing. If not, it doesn't.

Likewise Gretna.

As.for the 5 way agreement. ...I have no idea what was arranged. As you say, it was secret. I'm sure that we'd all like to know. However, I'm not sure whether we'd be any closer to settling the old club/new club argument.

Maybe some of the secret agreement is about to spill and people are leaving town.


https://twitter.com/BBCSport/status/...147393/photo/1

[Greencore]

Well are we the same club? We were called Hibernians, formed in 1875. Played at Hibernians park. Went out of business in 1891 due to celtic taking half our team and heavy mismanagement and formed back again in 1892. Changed our name to Hibernian and moved to easter road. Why do we say we were formed in 1875 and not 1892? Does that mean we have only one the Scottish cup once in 1901-1902 season and not the 1886-1887 season?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hibernian_F.C.

[BroxburnHibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well are we the same club? We were called Hibernians, formed in 1875. Played at Hibernians park. Went out of business in 1891 due to celtic taking half our team and heavy mismanagement and formed back again in 1892. Changed our name to Hibernian and moved to easter road. Why do we say we were formed in 1875 and not 1892? Does that mean we have only one the Scottish cup once in 1901-1902 season and not the 1886-1887 season?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hibernian_F.C.

I've had this argument thrown at me from Rangers fans and I just say 'ok I'll take the 1 Scottish cup and you lot accept you're a new club'

Shuts them up every time

[Peevemor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well are we the same club? We were called Hibernians, formed in 1875. Played at Hibernians park. Went out of business in 1891 due to celtic taking half our team and heavy mismanagement and formed back again in 1892. Changed our name to Hibernian and moved to easter road. Why do we say we were formed in 1875 and not 1892? Does that mean we have only one the Scottish cup once in 1901-1902 season and not the 1886-1887 season?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hibernian_F.C.

There's a huge difference between reforming a dormant/defunct club and starting a new company specifically to dodge millions of pounds of debt accumulated by the old one.

[Scorrie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Maybe some of the secret agreement is about to spill and people are leaving town.


https://twitter.com/BBCSport/status/...147393/photo/1

Hope he gets the job and takes that numpty Doncaster with him

[Scottie]

Been confirmed on Talk Sport fat Sally away.

Announced on the London Stock Exchange.

[jodjam]

His wages now rise to 750k after he triggered the 12 month to go clause. Hats off to the agent that negotiated that

[Spike Mandela]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Been confirmed on Talk Sport fat Sally away.

Announced on the London Stock Exchange.

Nope he's still working his 12 months notice according to BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30475395