Come on Rangers

[antrin]

Fyi

I just found this unbiased, neutral article…

…laying out the facts that I outlined above.

 

https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/the-curious-case-of-the-cancelled-kelty-hearts-testimonial-and-why-it-blows-open-the-rangers-continuity-myth/

[faraway saint]

^^^^^ I just found. 🤣

[Rascal]

4 hours ago, antrin said:

Fyi

I just found this unbiased, neutral article…

…laying out the facts that I outlined above.

 

https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/the-curious-case-of-the-cancelled-kelty-hearts-testimonial-and-why-it-blows-open-the-rangers-continuity-myth/

Very unbiased. 

[Rascal]

Trouble follows them like a rash. https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-official-cryptocurrency-partner-bitci-27186424

[Slarti]

Nor do they need to play in preliminary rounds of the Scottish Cup
Nor do they need dispensation from SFA to permit “their players” to play in a friendly.  Sevco wasn’t allowed to use Rangers-registered players to turn out against Le Havre nor against Kelty Hearts, (aborted commitments that Rangers had made).
sevco had been invented but was not yet a football club. Rangers was no more.
Sevco had to do its next magic act of renaming as 2 entities: Rangers International Football Club (a holding company, for…) The Rangers.
 
And then it had to be privilegedly/sleekitly catapulted - high over the existing rules and conditions - directly into Division 4.
 
None of this is my opinion.  Simply facts, dear boy…. [emoji4]

When oldco went into administration, the club was deducted 10 points. There was no argument from the company/club/supporters then that they shouldn't have been as they were different entities. Why not? Because even they saw them as the same thing? It was only when they faced the prospect of Rangers no longer existing and to make it worse Celtic being the most successful Scottish club, that they started coming out with that pish.

[Rascal]

30 minutes ago, Slarti said:

9 hours ago, antrin said:

Nor do they need to play in preliminary rounds of the Scottish Cup
Nor do they need dispensation from SFA to permit “their players” to play in a friendly.  Sevco wasn’t allowed to use Rangers-registered players to turn out against Le Havre nor against Kelty Hearts, (aborted commitments that Rangers had made).
sevco had been invented but was not yet a football club. Rangers was no more.
Sevco had to do its next magic act of renaming as 2 entities: Rangers International Football Club (a holding company, for…) The Rangers.
 
And then it had to be privilegedly/sleekitly catapulted - high over the existing rules and conditions - directly into Division 4.
 
None of this is my opinion.  Simply facts, dear boy….

When oldco went into administration, the club was deducted 10 points. There was no argument from the company/club/supporters then that they shouldn't have been as they were different entities. Why not? Because even they saw them as the same thing? It was only when they faced the prospect of Rangers no longer existing and to make it worse Celtic being the most successful Scottish club, that they started coming out with that pish.

Administrators is completely different. In that case the company continued to exist. Liquidation changed that and the issue became a sporting one

[faraway saint]

This thread. 🙉

Gies piece. 😴

[Rascal]

19 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

This thread. 🙉

Gies piece. 😴

Piece of bread? Piece of cheese?

[faraway saint]

1 hour ago, Rascal said:

Piece of bread? Piece of cheese?

😴

[Rascal]

34 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

😴

Peace be with you.

[Slarti]

Administrators is completely different. In that case the company continued to exist. Liquidation changed that and the issue became a sporting one

I'm quite aware that administration is different to liquidation - I spoke about both.

The argument about club and company being separate entities should have applied to both issues, if it was a valid argument. If they were separate entities then the club did not go into administration (the company did) and therefore shouldn't have been docked 10 points. However, at the time, that argument wasn't (and AFAIK, still has never been) made, even though they were still in with a chance of the title at the time. So, as far as I can see, they (Rangers) either (1) couldn't afford to challenge it (though, being unable to afford it never stopped them spending money they never had on other things), or (2) never drew a distinction between club and company at that time (but only did a few weeks later when liquidation happened).

Why you would think docking a team 10 points isn't a "sporting issue", I have no idea.

[Rascal]

2 minutes ago, Slarti said:

 

 

I'm quite aware that administration is different to liquidation - I spoke about both.

The argument about club and company being separate entities should have applied to both issues, if it was a valid argument. If they were separate entities then the club did not go into administration (the company did) and therefore shouldn't have been docked 10 points. However, at the time, that argument wasn't (and AFAIK, still has never been) made, even though they were still in with a chance of the title at the time. So, as far as I can see, they (Rangers) either (1) couldn't afford to challenge it (though, being unable to afford it never stopped them spending money they never had on other things), or (2) never drew a distinction between club and company at that time (but only did a few weeks later when liquidation happened).

Why you would think docking a team 10 points isn't a "sporting issue", I have no idea.

 

Let me keep this simple.Administration is same company, same club. The club was docked 10 points. Clear and simple. A sporting penalty.

liquidation, new company and asset purchase which included the club for which a licence to operate is needed from the SFA. A licence was granted which some argue meant the “club”were the old rangers, the club being an asset of the business which had been passed from one owner to another. These arguments are red herrings and frankly I don’t care whether or not Rangers are the sake club or not. What I found astonishing that there were no leagues or cups forefeited. Poor decision by SFA etc and legally. Sporting advantage had been obtained.

[Slarti]

Let me keep this simple.Administration is same company, same club. The club was docked 10 points. Clear and simple. A sporting penalty.
liquidation, new company and asset purchase which included the club for which a licence to operate is needed from the SFA. A licence was granted which some argue meant the “club”were the old rangers, the club being an asset of the business which had been passed from one owner to another. These arguments are red herrings and frankly I don’t care whether or not Rangers are the sake club or not. What I found astonishing that there were no leagues or cups forefeited. Poor decision by SFA etc and legally. Sporting advantage had been obtained.

Oh, FFS, here we go again.

If administration was same club and company then so was liquidation. The liquidators sold the assets, not the administrators. Not appealing the 10 point deduction for going into administration was tacit acceptance (by Rangers) that club and company were one. Nothing, in that respect, changed before liquidation.

[Rascal]

10 minutes ago, Slarti said:

Oh, FFS, here we go again.

If administration was same club and company then so was liquidation. The liquidators sold the assets, not the administrators. Not appealing the 10 point deduction for going into administration was tacit acceptance (by Rangers) that club and company were one. Nothing, in that respect, changed before liquidation.

No. After administration the business returns to trading. After liquidation the company does not exist—some of its assets can be bought by another and a similar name adopted. That’s what happened at rangers.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Rascal

[antrin]

10 hours ago, Rascal said:

No. After administration the business returns to trading. After liquidation the company does not exist—some of its assets can be bought by another and a similar name adopted. That’s what happened at rangers.

No.  The business that was Rangers NEVER returns to trading.  NEVER.

After administration comes the process of liquidation - a forever death.

(In truth, this process is STILL incomplete.  Rangers is still languishing in a kind of purgatory, which is apt, given the severity of its cheating, tax avoidance and rule-bending! Liquidation has still not been completed.)

Tangible assets still exist, but who knows who owns/owned them? Such as stadium, training ground etc  They are up for grabs, if anyone thinks they’re worthy. 

 

Perhaps spivs who think the past club’s fans are gullible enough to swallow lies… and their pride… would think it worth a punt?

Intangible assets also may exist, such as fan loyalty. (Eg all those diehards who let their club die)

Edited June 10, 2022 by antrin

[Slarti]

No. After administration the business returns to trading. After liquidation the company does not exist—some of its assets can be bought by another and a similar name adopted. That’s what happened at rangers.

You're talking about something completely different. All my reply to antrin talked about was the linking of club and company. By accepting the 10 point deduction for the CLUB because the COMPANY went into administration, Rangers (club, company and fans) tacitly accepted that club and company were one therefore, when liquidation happened they were still one.

The assets (stadium, name, etc) is a completely different matter but one thing you can't sell once yer deid is a continuing history. It would be like Faraway buying all your stuff once you're deid and then claiming he's you.

Airdrieonians accepted that fact up until the Rangers situation and then said, "well, if they can do it, so can we", and now claim the past honours of the original Airdrieonians.

[Rascal]

45 minutes ago, antrin said:

No.  The business that was Rangers NEVER returns to trading.  NEVER.

After administration comes the process of liquidation - a forever death.

(In truth, this process is STILL incomplete.  Rangers is still languishing in a kind of purgatory, which is apt, given the severity of its cheating, tax avoidance and rule-bending! Liquidation has still not been completed.)

Tangible assets still exist, but who knows who owns/owned them? Such as stadium, training ground etc  They are up for grabs, if anyone thinks they’re worthy. 

 

Perhaps spivs who think the past club’s fans are gullible enough to swallow lies… and their pride… would think it worth a punt?

Intangible assets also may exist, such as fan loyalty. (Eg all those diehards who let their club die)

Correct. There is life after Administration but NOT after Liquidation. Just as I said.

Edited June 10, 2022 by Rascal

[Rascal]

59 minutes ago, antrin said:

No.  The business that was Rangers NEVER returns to trading.  NEVER.

After administration comes the process of liquidation - a forever death.

(In truth, this process is STILL incomplete.  Rangers is still languishing in a kind of purgatory, which is apt, given the severity of its cheating, tax avoidance and rule-bending! Liquidation has still not been completed.)

Tangible assets still exist, but who knows who owns/owned them? Such as stadium, training ground etc  They are up for grabs, if anyone thinks they’re worthy. 

 

Perhaps spivs who think the past club’s fans are gullible enough to swallow lies… and their pride… would think it worth a punt?

Intangible assets also may exist, such as fan loyalty. (Eg all those diehards who let their club die)

I am in complete agreement. After Administration - Same Company. After Liquidation - Can’t be as original company is struck off / dead / kaput.

The rest is a fiction viewed as fact by those who choose to believe or those who wish others to believe in order that they might profit from it.

My take. Football Authorities ultimately to blame for lending credibility by recognising a continuity that did not and could not exist. Did they know better? Yes. They were complicit. As for that ninny of a sherif who said that Rangers got no Sporting Advantage from signing better players on @illegal terms , words fail me. 
 

I would have admitted the new club into Scottish Football at or about the level they did but insisted on Rangers New Club starting from scratch with no past honours.

[Rascal]

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/8990907/rangers-150th-anniversary-government-reception-michael-gove-uefa-gift/

[Callum Gilhooley]

1 hour ago, Rascal said:

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/8990907/rangers-150th-anniversary-government-reception-michael-gove-uefa-gift/

Headline should read 

“Total c**t congratulates c**t of a Club for fake achievement”

I’ve missed my true vocation 😎 

[antrin]

4 hours ago, Rascal said:

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/8990907/rangers-150th-anniversary-government-reception-michael-gove-uefa-gift/

Evidence, if ever it was needed, that The Sun is proud to print lies.  

 

[antrin]

4 hours ago, Rascal said:

I am in complete agreement. After Administration - Same Company. After Liquidation - Can’t be as original company is struck off / dead / kaput.

The rest is a fiction viewed as fact by those who choose to believe or those who wish others to believe in order that they might profit from it.

My take. Football Authorities ultimately to blame for lending credibility by recognising a continuity that did not and could not exist. Did they know better? Yes. They were complicit. As for that ninny of a sherif who said that Rangers got no Sporting Advantage from signing better players on @illegal terms , words fail me. 
 

I would have admitted the new club into Scottish Football at or about the level they did but insisted on Rangers New Club starting from scratch with no past honours.

I’m not sure that you DID understand it.

This… “I am in complete agreement. After Administration - Same Company.” …. Is incorrect.  Unless…

unless….

…it can only be the same company if it comes out of Administration… if it pays its bills, settles its debts etc.  Rangers has never done that and so has never come out of Admin.  It is still in the end process of going into liquidation.

sevco’s one time boss, the “glib and shameless liar” Dave King, once made another his “promises”: that under his leadership ideally they would settle all Rangers debts and in that way rid Rangers of that burden, make the club live again.

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/13713563.dave-king-sets-out-vision-to-pay-off-rangers-oldco-creditors/

 

he failed to deliver, surprisingly….  

[Rascal]

11 minutes ago, antrin said:

I’m not sure that you DID understand it.

This… “I am in complete agreement. After Administration - Same Company.” …. Is incorrect.  Unless…

unless….

…it can only be the same company if it comes out of Administration… if it pays its bills, settles its debts etc.  Rangers has never done that and so has never come out of Admin.  It is still in the end process of going into liquidation.

sevco’s one time boss, the “glib and shameless liar” Dave King, once made another his “promises”: that under his leadership ideally they would settle all Rangers debts and in that way rid Rangers of that burden, make the club live again.

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/13713563.dave-king-sets-out-vision-to-pay-off-rangers-oldco-creditors/

 

he failed to deliver, surprisingly….  

Oh ….. I agree about coming out of Administration…only way to be able to trade as the Same Company. I have the same understanding.

[Rascal]

Antrin. I was working in Moscow and St Petersburg in Russia when the news first broke about Rangers. One of the people I met was a Referee and Author of books on football. He was fascinated and asked me to keep him up to date with the story as it developed with the promise of a co- author mention. No way I wanted my name involved in the story but did send him information. Also have sources in South Africa where I made around 80 visits , including the run up to and running of the World Cup, who could fill me in on Mr King. None of the story is pretty . How Dave King could have been judged a fit and proper person to be the chairman of a football club in Scotland by the SFA etc only means that there is a very low bar IMO.