Monday, 4 January 2016

"You're not Rangers any more..."

At near every ground Rangers travel to, we hear this chant. Heck, we even hear it from embittered pockets of travelling supporters at Ibrox.

Naturally it is usually followed up with “same old Rangers always cheating” which goes beyond irony.

However, this relates nicely to that good old ‘admin2’ threat every non-Rangers fan obsessive likes to preach.

This site was amused to sit back and read conspiracy comment after conspiracy comment to its articles which professed categorically that chairman Dave King was going to jail. That he would lose to Mike Ashley in court and Rangers would be in tatters.

Those comments piped down the moment Ashley got trounced, most likely sent in as they were by Phil MaGobbledigook’s cohorts. Or maybe the fantasist himself.

Consequently they have needed something new to spin, and the latest is a return to the admin2 stuff.

However, if we try to overlook the lunacy of this piffle, itself not an easy task, there is the matter of the “you’re not Rangers any more/same old Rangers always cheating” fallacy.

The people telling us Rangers are a new club are the ones talking about admin2.

Prizes to those who can tell me the flaw here…

No? Well, and this is for those who weave such nonsense; if Rangers are a new club, how can it be a second admin?

Is it not just ‘admin’?

There is a loss of logic, reason, sense and general rationality when it comes to Rangers in Scotland – with the obsessed hordes conjuring up whatever they can to try to make themselves feel better about the fact Rangers are still around and did not die.

They care not that they contradict themselves at every turn. They care not that their argument is neither valid nor sound.

All they care about is trying to attack Rangers.

Well, we are still here my friends, keep trying.

129 comments:

  1. Just wishful thinking , to be ignored!

    ReplyDelete
  2. What is incredible for me I had never heard of 3 names Phil or even Alex Thomson from ch4 until 4 years ago where were they before this just proves to me we are the only team in Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both were there before liquidation. Because you never heard of them doesn't make their opinions less real. Phil 3 names s you cal him was actually warning Rangers fans for many years about Murray Holding company not being sustainable as a guarantor anymore. To call him a crackpot for accurately describing what was happening to Rangers FC for many years before liquidation suggests that despite him trying to warn you of impending doom unless something changes, Rangers fan sites everywhere decided to internet bampot his theories which sadly all came true. Denial before death Denial before sale to Whyte. Denial whyte was charlatan. Denial that admin was coming. Denial that Liquidation was possible. Denial that Green and duff and phelps situation wasn't to be trusted. Denial that Green was taking the merde. Denial that money was hemoraging everywhere under green. Denial that Dave King was not to be trusted. Denial denial denial. King is a hero. Didn't buy club for 1pound as director. Actively asked for club to be liquid when he asked for rejection of CVA. Actively didn't buy old club assets. Actively undermined the regimes in charge to collapse share price. Actively bought control at lowest ever share price then removed club from stock markets. Actively talks about over investing as he further and further indebts the new club. Says debts actually exist. Hasn't reduced the wage bill to be sustainable so more investment will be required each season to top up the black hole that doesn't exist. Everything is going well. Nothing to see hear. Dont tell us about our clubs unhealthy business model. We don't want to hear about bad business. We just want a great team to be the best in Scotland and continue our history which didn't end when club was liquidated. Have you ever sat back and read the guff you been fed from your directors for over 20 years at past club and presnet club. Rangers new club are on death door without a massive loss to some rich dude or Business. And none of the dudes who say they can save the club are really honest people if you read your own two clubs history in last 25 years. Its sad that you think all people who warn you must be haters. My family are full of Rangers fans. And i love them all equally. I have thousands of decent Rangers fan pals and i HATE NONE OF THEM. Might occasionally rib them. But no hate. So to convince yourself its a hate crime to tell you the truth is nonsense. The real criminals are the papers and business men who tell you otherwise to make some cash out of your hard earned livings. But you don't want to believe that. You want to think Rangers are alive and anyone who points out legal case against such drivel is a hater. I don't hate Rangers or New Rangers. Both were really good teams. One was world class for many years. The other might become Scottish Champions in time. But for goodness sake listen to somebody other than what you want to hear. New Rangers are controlled by criminals still. Have been since day one back in 2012. Old Rangers were controlled by some really shifty tooth and claw business men. And they don't want to go to jail. So they will use every trick in the book to make you believe it wasn't them that murdered your club. Wake up man.

      Delete
    2. Your another one who is showing all the symptoms of being a paranoid schizophrenic. "Schizophrenics, instead of revising their beliefs in accordance with evidence, will construct elaborate fantasies in order to retain a certain belief which has no grounding in fact." I never even bothered reading your whole diatribe because it's the same drivel spouted by all your ilk,"murdered your club" "new club" blah blah which i'm afraid has absolutely no basis on the actual facts. And the actual facts are every football authority and worthwhile body have decreed Rangers to be the same the club. The SPFL,SFA,UEFA,ASA,ECA,LNS,LG even my wee red book (!),so your delusional wishful thinking ramblings are irrelevant. Rangers are no different to a Coventry City,Leeds Utd or a Middlesbrough. Indeed your own club is a newco several times over,Hearts were liquidated in 1905 and Hbs claim one of the 2 Scottish Cups they have won despite it being won by a previous Hibs.
      The offcial SPFL website together with the club's official website state Rangers FC is the same club formed in 1872. These are simple and undeniable fact. What is also a fact is that such claims,by both bodies,would be both a criminal and civil offence if untrue,and Companies House together with the creditors of oldco would have both in court pronto. Your simply a troll,obsessed about Scotland's most successful club. Carry on indulging in your fantasy that Rangers no longer exist. We'll carry on shaking our heads at your idiocy/hatred and supporting Rangers.

      Delete
    3. What a load a pish that wiz. Ur you still bevied fae the new year? Fu@k off ya mhanky ba$tard. Ever heard a Lord Nimmo Smith? He diz 'legal'. You an' yer mhanky pals dae sh!te.

      Delete
    4. The whole point of the blog post is Your not Rangers anymore. And goes into some strange one sided fantasies that suit a certain agenda. You have mentioned Schizophrenics not revising their beielfs and constructing fantasies. You have pointed out some interesting stuff about hearts liquidating in 1907. Which i at least acknowledge would help your case if true in legal sense. But again you avoid all the signs of death of club and as you yourself described have constructed an elobaborate fantasy that suits your agenda. The Fu@k off ye Mhanky Ba$tard is not an appropriate response. Kimmo Smith quite clearly points out that in legal sense their is no distinction between club and company. Read the document. He also suggests that in footballing sense its the same club. Which has never been fully understood what he was meaning. Since his expertise is legal why did he add the caveat in sporting sense to the opinion. Which whether you believe it or not has absolutely no legal weight the than the opinion of an ex judge. And he covered himself by stating that the legals ground for being same club are zero. Again you quote more opinions on a matter that covers sport opinions. With zero legal weight in courts. If your telling me in sporting sense Rangers are same club coz they have same fans stadium assets as dead club. Then thats different from actually being legally the same club. The sporting opinions of books and governing bodies hold no weight in the law of the land. If the law of the land decide that despite legal death the sporting institution can spiritually move to a new legal institution. That will open up some serious loopholes to bypass business laws. I suspect that if this case went to court that it would be crushed once and for all. but its a sporting matter for now but there are a lot of legal cases and genuine grounds for deeper investigation into fraudulent activities around the shenanigans of the last few years. Your idiocy/hatred jibe is nonsense. If its idiocy explain the legality of your case. If its hatred (which i can assure you its not) Its a genuine desire to see inside this weird world your pulling over your heads. Every accusation you fling at me can easily be cast back at you. I don't think your idiots. I think your grieving human beings. I don't think your full of hatred for all things non Rangers. But you have no addressed the issues properly therefore no-one in Scotland can properly move forward. Murray Whyte Green Ashley King are all in the game for a buck for themselves. Whyte and king are the only two with serious criminal pasts that are public. But I put it to you they are all in it for themselves. And the more guff they fill you with. the more cash they can fill their pockets with. Anyway, it seems no-one on this site can have conversation about serious issues without resorting to name calling or self analysis or actual facts. Sad reality lads. Genuinely thought I might get to bottom or at least be more informed. Instead Im an idiot for pointing out flaws in your arguments. Im full of hatred because I don't understand the way you are thinking. Brainwashed or wishful thinking akin to Schizophrenics if your definition is correct. The hanky pals is such a wonderful analysis of the situation. Thanks for your insight. At least the coventry and hearts story made some attempt to defend the situation. I will at least look up these assertions. God bless and hopefully things can get better for scottish football rather than worse.

      Delete
  3. I totally agree let them bamg on, We just keep our heads down & get on with it, just like Warburton handled the Halliday Fyvie issue, Stubbs did his usual trying to twist it Fyvie never admitted he cheated, Warburton said lets just see what happens & thats the way we have to behave!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Obsessive psychopathy is a mental condition that requires firm treatment and sensitive understanding, but don't waste time trying to reason with a Teddy-Bear denier. Life's too short.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Couldn't agree more. Psychopaths tend to ignore legal facts that do not suit their case. Have a tendency to have fascist ideology in their make up. Think some human beings are people and others are not. The legal case to prove Rangers FC was intact the company that died along with the Club in 2012 means nothing to psychopaths. They are the people and they make up the rules as the go along. Just ask Ted Bundy, Charles manson. Most CEOS of big companies or any Rangers death denier. Most of you cried the day the club died. Most of you told Bill Miller to bolt because club history was not incubatable. Charles green explained the need for CVA. Then when he bought the dead club assets convinced you of what you really want to believe. Its a tragedy that Rangers died. Not Rangers fans fault. But to insist against the legal certainty of liquidation of club and make up the nonsense about club/ company is not same thing is disable to say least. Only a Bunch of supremacist Psychopaths could ever believe such opinions. The law in Scotland is quite clear about Phoenix companies/clubs. Cant dump debts and still be same club without CVA. Thats the law folks. Sing about fascist slashers and supremacist till your heart is content. But read the law as described in the articles of association in Rangers 1872-2012. Club/company is the same thing. Thats true because its the law. From partnership to private limited to public limited to liquidation Rangers was the same club. Charles greens Frankenrangers is not the same Rangers who did awesome things to win Cup winners cup in 1972. But you want to believe they are same club. Thats right find opinions that aren't legal and pass them about. Rangers were awesome. New Rangers are not bad on pitch but look a mess of it. Hope its good Year for the new Rangers. Hope you don't expect criminals to run your club correctly though. Happy new Year lads its always a pleasure to read the thoughts of the supremacist fascits among you. mwah

      Delete
    2. Your another one who is showing all the symptoms of being a paranoid schizophrenic. "Schizophrenics, instead of revising their beliefs in accordance with evidence, will construct elaborate fantasies in order to retain a certain belief which has no grounding in fact." I never even bothered reading your whole diatribe because it's the same drivel spouted by all your ilk,"murdered your club" "new club" blah blah which i'm afraid has absolutely no basis on the actual facts. And the actual facts are every football authority and worthwhile body have decreed Rangers to be the same the club. The SPFL,SFA,UEFA,ASA,ECA,LNS,LG even my wee red book (!),so your delusional wishful thinking ramblings are irrelevant. Rangers are no different to a Coventry City,Leeds Utd or a Middlesbrough. Indeed your own club is a newco several times over,Hearts were liquidated in 1905 and Hbs claim one of the 2 Scottish Cups they have won despite it being won by a previous Hibs.
      The offcial SPFL website together with the club's official website state Rangers FC is the same club formed in 1872. These are simple and undeniable fact. What is also a fact is that such claims,by both bodies,would be both a criminal and civil offence if untrue,and Companies House together with the creditors of oldco would have both in court pronto. Your simply a troll,obsessed about Scotland's most successful club. Carry on indulging in your fantasy that Rangers no longer exist. We'll carry on shaking our heads at your idiocy/hatred and supporting Rangers.

      Delete
    3. Lay off the drink son. Your making a right ar$e of yourself."Clubs" can't form companies. That's a legal procedure. You need 'legal personality' to do that. Clubs don't have a 'legal personality'. Start a club and try opening a bank account in the club's name. You won't get far. That too requires legal personality.
      The people who started Rangers Football Club started a company (a legal procedure) NOT the club. The Rangers Football Club became a business that was operated by that then new company. The business of the company is an asset of the company. You can't 'see' a club, or 'touch' a club. only its representatives or symbols. It is an 'intangible asset' on the company's books. Intangibles are parts of the company's "Goodwill" asset.
      The "Goodwill" includes the business name (identity) and its reputation (past record/history).
      As Lord Nimmo Smith, Charles Flint QC and Nicholas Stewart QC pointed out, a football club is like any other Company undertaking or asset that can be bought or sold. It can be transferred between one owner (oldco) and another (newco).
      That, as Lord Nimmo Smith stated, is what happened with Rangers Football Club. Newco bought the business and most of the other assets of oldco, "including Rangers Football Club".
      So save your pseudo legal knowledge for your pals down the pub son. You're out of your depth.
      Also, for your own sake, please try to stay off the drink.

      Delete
    4. Im don't claim New Rangers don't exist. I clim new Rangers is not legally Old Rangers. Big difference. Its the fans here that claim they re the same club. Im here to try and understand more deeply how you came to these conclusions. Should I go to Celtic sites to get the picture? Better to come to the people who claim something that makes no sense to try and get to the bottom of what they are believing. No attacks. No hatred. Just a genuine desire to find out the thoughts of RFC fans who claim they are the same club. Pretty simple. Would you rather have more people come and say I believe than people come and say I don't believe you. If your beliefs are grounded in law. It should be quite simple to help me become a believer. But instead of attempting to show your superior knowledge and understanding you sack I'm mentally ill. Thats some defence. Maybe its the people who subscribe to the view its the same club that are mentally ill. HAs that possilbility crossed your mind?

      Delete
    5. Im quite happy for Celtic or any other club to restart from scratch with assets of previous club. Leeds got CVA. Bit dubious for sure. Never heard the cases of Coventry or middlesborough. When rangers went from partnership status to ltd status to plc status these didn't end the club. Just changed the corporate structure of same club. Same with Celtic. When Rangers the club became insolvent in 2012 and later died the transfer of assets from old club to a new club is NOT the same club. This NEWco without the Newclub is complete utter nonsense in law. And its law that matters all these cases cited talk of sportingness. No legal pronouncement. In a sporting sense you are quite entitled to believe what you want. But when it comes before a court all the sporting citations count for zero. Especially when the creditors get stiffed without a CVA. Still clinging onto name calling and whataboutery. No legal substance whatsoever. I had hoped for better considering the mess of Scottish football its caused.

      Delete
  5. Maybe they will start telling us we and they are not Scottish too ... since Scotland legal status changed in 1707. I think not !!!! Im am Scottish and Rangers are alive and well .. end of dot com.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why are you even rising to their bait and posting this?!, As per William Boyds comment, ignore them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Phil should just go back to travelling trades. Shoe shining, knife sharpening, bead rattling all suit him better than journalism. Grade A twat..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't help but be suspicious of any man who was a social worker then just gave it all up and moved to another country and pretend to be Oirish

      Delete
  8. And we will still be here long after they have gone WATP

    ReplyDelete
  9. why bother with this shit,,we are rangers and always will be and we are the people,,

    ReplyDelete
  10. I actually chuckle when I hear this monotonous and frankly ludicrous chant these days. The official SPFL website states Rangers were founded in 1872 and are the same club,indeed the SPFL Chief Executive released a crystal clear statement to this effect. UEFA (who's website does t list lower league results but DOES report Scottish Cup games) has Rangers last match listed as having taken place on the 8th of February 2015. (not 2012). On the same old UEFA Rangers page. The others are well known. The European Club Assoc,The Advertising Standards Authority (after consultaion with The SFA and UEFA) twice, Lords Nimmo Smith and Glennie,even my Wee Red Book for this season states Rangers are the same club. Indeed whenever i type "Rangers" into Google,as i do almost every day being a Gers fan it immediately comes up at the right hand side Rangers FC founded 1872. (those who embarrass themselves with the above chant should know that since they probably type "Rangers" into search engines more than we do).
    And of course they show their lunacy even further,because they fail to realise it would an offence for not only the club itself ( who's official website states it is the same club) but also the governing bodies to state Rangers as the same club if this was not the case,and not only Companies House but the creditors of oldco would have these various bodies in court before you could say "EBT". This conspiracy theory makes 9/11 and the Moon landings seem like chicken feed. The reality of course is Rangers Football Club is Scotland's most successful club and they know it. They wanted Rangers dead and gone due to a variety of reasons,jealousy,bigotry and in some cases just sheer hatred. And when it never happened they make lunatics of themselves by desperate wishful thinking. Simply wanting something to be true unfortunately won't make it true.
    So we'll go on chuckling at these simpletons idiocy...while enjoying supporting Scotland's most successful football club.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm very confident of meeting and betting that mob on Scottish cup and then the the fun really begins ....Happy new year bears

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What does 'betting that mob' mean Desmond - do you mean you want to draw Celtic and bet on them to turn youse over - you will not get much of a price for that I am afraid :(

      Delete
    2. You hurting?...bet you are.....we'll wait and see...get on you're own site. We don't want your sort on ours...

      Delete
  12. if there is no rangers scottish football is finished

    ReplyDelete
  13. I like the chant - it means they know we are coming back ...for all of them and they will never see the likes again.

    ReplyDelete
  14. after we win the spl title we will have beatin every pro team in Scotland then we will show them we are the people

    ReplyDelete
  15. I know, and usually would agree. They are better off ignored. But tbh I'm no cumputer wizard. And my Google feed, seems to throw up anything, and everything about our club.
    I don't know about the rest of you. But Mr Magobildegook and his sad case followers. Seem to appear, all too often. I'll be honest here. I have been going to Ibrox since 1970. I always knew about the rivalry. But until I read a couple of these blogs. Had no idea, it manafested it's self in such an unhealthy delusional psychosis. I've even noticed some weeks. I get more in said feed. From these bampots than our own supporters blogs.
    For such a smaller club. There's seems to be a large percentage of them, who hate us more than they enjoy their own football club.
    That's my tuppence worth. WATP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They exist simply to Rangers FC. They live for tat reason alone. An the fact Rangers survived with history inact has driven a great many of them over the edge of sanity..the poster posting multiple times on here being a case in point. The thought of Rangers surviving seems to drive them into a froth filled lather of madness. And it's pitiful to behold.

      Delete
  16. let them think what they want, it shows their hatred and it suits me "Those that don't understand don't matter ,those who do need no explanation " W.A.T.P .FURK the lot of them top to bottom , we are coming to get ye.NO SURRENDER EVER

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its not hatred to not believe a non legal opinion. Its really sad that Rangers died. Its even more horrible that the blokes who destroyed the club and all its goodwill are still roaming the land free as a bird. If Rangers fans can be convinced that their club didn't die then these people stand a good chance of not getting prison sentences. Rangers as Private Limited company were run highly efficiently. Turning from Ltd status to PLC status didn't change the club in 1986. Changing status from partnership to Ltd in 1899 didn't change the club. Same business that was set up in 1872 by the founding fathers. The great teams of the 1960s were all low paid individuals in relative terms to todays footballers. The set up for running the business by Struth was enviable across the globe. Rangers won the Cup winners cup with some unique and talented players that will live on history as true Ibrox legends. When Murray bought club in 1986 he introduced a tooth and claw capitalism into the Scottish game. And as Rangers FC grew in stature along with Murrays holding company the team appeared to be invincible both off and on the pitch. Capitalism seemed to be the way forward. Club could access massive debts due to having a Holding company go guarantor. Murray metal business was worth billions and looked like it would always be worth billions. So the credit facilities fro Rangers could hid the fact that they were getting deeper and deeper into debt as a club. The holding company hit hard times after the finical crisis of 2008. Its balance sheet collpapsed as its own debts engulfed the depleted share price. This meant Rangers the club no longer had a safe guarantor for all its debts. So from 2008 Murray tried desperately to get rid of the subsidiary business Rangers FC off his company reliance. Holding company Murray group s distinct business from Rangers FC. Rangers FC is the company and its also the club. Murray group finally got shot of Rangers and its debts in 2011 to Whyte. A bloke the Daily Record described as billionaire with wealth off the radar. His holding company which now owned Rangers FC the club/company turned out to have no money available to help Rangers Creditors. Whyte took the famous club into admin and then appointed dodgy liquadtors who liquidated the club. Interestingly the Murray holding company was still alive. The whyte holding company had no assets. So the creditors of Rangers and the fans of Rangers and the whole of Scottish football got shafted when the biggest club in our country got dissected and handed to BDO for a full investigation and try to recover something for shafted creditors. No hatred. Just bare faced truth. The EBT Scandal and the side contract scandal are totally distinct issues that had no bearing on the fact that Murray sold his share to Whyte for 1 pound to get the debt ridden club that he burdened off his balance sheet at Murray Group holdings. There is someone that needs investigating. Along with the directors who stood back and watched as he sold it to alleged fraudster Whyte. No hatred. Rangers were the greatest team Scotland ever had long before Murray came along. He made Rangers massive in Uk for a while when his business was doing well but when it turned sour he shafted Rangers fans everywhere when he let the club be handed to wolves who killed the club and fought over the assets left over. Funny you won't read these facts in any newspaper though. Get lot of non legal opinions and fog to distract the bears while the real crooks who murdered the Famous glasgow rangers get off Scott Free.

      Delete
    2. Seek help. Your ill. And multiple postings on a fans forum of a club you claim does not exist only proves your sickness. Are you seriously saying we should take the of an obsessed troll over the SPFL,UEFA,SFA,Neil Doncaster,The ASA,ECA,Lord Nimmo Smith etc etc..not to mention believe that not only are the above getting away with commiting an offence (which they would be) of an obsessed troll over the SPFL,UEFA,SFA,Neil Doncaster,The ASA,ECA,Lord Nimmo Smith etc etc..not to mention believe that not only are the above getting away with commiting an offence (which they would be) and also believe that Rangers for some reason should be treated differently from a Leeds,Coventry,Middlesbrough or indeed your own newco club. As i stated above..seek help..and concentrate on your own club which appears to be in utter disarray. You'll sleep better.

      Delete
    3. Seek help. Your ill. And multiple postings on a fans forum of a club you claim does not exist only proves your sickness. Are you seriously saying we should take the word of an obsessed troll over the SPFL,UEFA,SFA,Neil Doncaster,The ASA,ECA,Lord Nimmo Smith etc etc..not to mention believe that not only are the above getting away with commiting an offence (which they would be) but also believe that Rangers for some reason should be treated differently from a Leeds,Coventry,Middlesbrough or indeed your own newco club. As i stated above..seek help..and concentrate on your own club which appears to be in utter disarray. You'll sleep better.

      Delete
  17. Still a big team in south Africa ....
    And always will be even if administration 3 takes place in a year or five

    ReplyDelete
  18. Liquidation if final. Keep licking those windows..

    ReplyDelete
  19. Denial is wonderful isn't it? Liquidation doesn't mean death. Of course it doesn't. A proffessional football club is not a business. Rangers 1872-2012 didn't refer to themselves interchangeably as club/company in their articles of association. Bill Miller didn't really dream up the incubator theory. Charles Green didn't completely change his opinion on failed CVA. Of course loving bears you are the same club. I know I said Bill Miller was a mug. And yes you did tell him to go back to USA because you knew he was talking mince about incubators. We don't have conflict of interest at The SFA/SPFL. Integrity of the sport means nothing. Rangers never cheated. Even Dave green said that if they hadn't used dodgy EBTs he would have put the money up with other investors to buy those players. Paying player without the tax due on his wages is perfectly ok as long as instead of wages you give him a non contractual loan from a trust fund set up in some dodgy island out in middle of nowhere. Perfectly legal at the time as well. The fact that Dave King asked for CVA to be rejected means nothing. The fact that Dave King didn't buy controlling interest for 1 pound means nothing. The fact Dave King didn't buy the Assets of dead club for pittance means nothing. All is well at Ibrox. Liquidation means Rangers are the same club. The fact Walter Smith says its new Club means nothing. Fact that Gough says its a new club means nothing. Fact that QC Donald Findlay says its a new club means nothing. The fact that legally its impossible for it to be the same club means nothing. The fact that NImmo Smith said that legally its a new club means nothing. The fact that all the players had right to leave for free means nothing. The fact that Rangers were rocketed past all contenders to rejoin professional leagues at the bottom means nothing. In a Sporting sense Rangers are clearly immortal. They existed before they were even formed. This because a football club is completely distinct from its business, despite being the whole purpose of forming the club as partnership way back in 1872. One of the comments above even said that Psychopathy is a serious mental illness. So just to prove Rangers fans and their WATP supremacist agenda isn't Psychopathy. What are the legal grounds for Rangers being the same club. Not opinions. Legal facts that can be cited. Not sporting pretends. What legal facts can you produce that shows that Rangers FC the club didn't liquidate in 2012? Happy New Year. Hope the new club doesn't go the way of old club with the same directors anchorage again. that would be criminal. Oh thats right most investors these days are criminals. shhh. Better not speak facts. Its delusions that are required on this site.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. qc findley is a fanny and always will be he always thought he was mr rangers, no time for him and never will.

      Delete
  20. why are you on here.please explain.trolling gypo.go and argue with your own about kiddy fiddling.this is not the piggery.you find rangers tax issues more concerning than kiddy fiddling and how big jock knew.and the fact is you keep sweeping it under the carpet.thats a fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct....bjk and got off with it.
      Savilles deciples

      Delete
  21. Get a grip. My god. Going on a Rangers site and spending so much time writing shite u must be one sad person. Happy new year hope your doctor can help xx

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ignore the unclean, what do they know of law? Nothing. Except how to break it, by supporting illegal paramilitaries,and abuse, of course Do they not understand that even as we type there has been NO liquidation,and cannot be until the HMRC issue is resolved. What happened is that the assets, including titles, goodwill and other intangibles, were sold on, as happens every week in the UK under business law, enabling everything from pubs to substantive subsidiaries to continue trading unaltered!
    The problem is that these morons are so incredibly thick or so willfully evil, that they ignore the law the the courts the football authorities,the ASA , old uncle Tom Cobley and all!
    Presumably the Pope speaking ex-cathedra, told them otherwise!
    Braindead! And totally irrelevant!
    We are Rangers and We Are The People!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Im on here to have a debate about a blog written in good faith by a Rangers fan site. I have come to engage with you and your fellow bears. The deflection tactics about doers stuff is strange. Do you just want to hear what you want to hear? If kiddy fiddling and BJK stuff is real then thats heinous. And I agree a full investigation needs to be made into these allegations. But to use that as defence against RFC dying is bizarre. You were a big club. Your new club might become a big club. But the denial through Media and sites patting each other on the back saying its OK nothing actually happened we are the same. If you don't agree you are a RFC Hater. I don't hate RFC past entity present entity or future entity. I went along to watch numerous games prior to 2012 as a neutral. Good football is something that was on our doorstep for over 100 years. Its a tragedy what has happened to Rangers. Now if you would rather just pat yourself on the back and keep telling each other the same nonsense then fine Ill let you alone to live in delusion.

      Delete
  23. it went quiet after that 1 ^^^ lol

    ReplyDelete
  24. Do none of you read JJ'S site.

    King and his gang are in the process of liquidating TRFC to get rid of the debt and the SD deal.

    They have done a deal with the SFA to smooth what will be a bumpy ride for you.

    We all know what happened when the SFA/SPL promised Green a place in the SPL and then in the Championship

    Rangers 1, 2 or 3 is about to be hit by a 10 year Euro ban from UEFA for the fraudulent application made in 2011......it may well be worse.
    Every cheating title/ cup over the 12 year period of illegal tax schemes and the subsequent cover up will be removed, then if you are lucky start again in the Lowland League.....unless of course King thinks the Evostik league is the way forward.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The unclean, breaking laws. Very nice debate lads. Maybe you'll resort to physical violence. i also noticed you refused to address any of the very clear points that you lot seem to ignore or deflect with assumed attacks against a persons religion. Nice attitudes. Isn't it better to have a coherent argument in favour of same club that is clear and easy to understand. Club was liquidated in 2012. The offending Holding company that abandoned you in 2011 was still alive when Rangers the club/ business died. Thats not an attack. Thats just stating an uncomfortable fact in response to the blog post. I didn't bring the subject up. I am just telling you legal stuff in made easy to understand terminology that you can research if you disagree. Clubs/companies in finical peril cannot by law shaft creditors by remaining same club/comapny/ business despite the nonsense people might spout as opinions rather than legal certainties. You want to believe Rangers fc is same Rangers fc in sporting sense. Thats your right. But in legal sense its not. Kimmo smith even made certain he made that clear. But not often cited when quoting him. I repeat your notion that clubs avoid creditor debts by changing asset hands is not legal. Even if you somehow think it is. And to to suggest Im a moron or willfully evil is riseable to say the least. The paramilitary guff is also heinous no matter which paramilitary you chose to fund. I repeat I don't hate your club. Open debate in free society or is that only applicable to real people? Bizarre defence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do yourself a favour and trot on, your thinly disguised attacks whilst trying to sound intelligent and level headed are boring. Your a troll, your obsessed with Scotland's most popular,most successful and most supported football club like the rest of the Shins.....Tata mug

      Delete
    2. Also half of the so called facts you keep stating are nonsense! Please stop hovering garbage and lies from Obsessed Celtic fan sites and believing it before trying to regurgitate it as fact....It's guys like you who always have and always will demonstrate why Celtic will ALWAYS be in Rangers shadow...

      Delete
    3. Well said young fellow I only wish some of my bear friends in bonnie scotland could open the ears up .... no November

      Delete
  26. I'm surprised the cu**s can even read or write
    well enough to be on a bears site.
    They should try pacific 595 webshite? LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I actually came here to get reasoned debate. No thinly veiled attacks. I still haven't heard a single coherent argument that the club is the same club in legal sense. No trolling intended. And assuming only Celtic obsessed sites have any coherent arguments that aren't factually correct. Where on the Rangers site is the coherent argument to support the blog report that Your not Rangers anymore. Im genuinely curious. Other than back patting WATP nonsense and can't believe these idiots don't get it. Rangers then now and forever. Im asking you not in a trolling way. In an inquisitive way. What makes you believe that RFC have survived the debacle that killed them in 2012? Other than hopeful opinions of conflicted people. I laid out the case which you claim i stole from celtic obsessed sites. What is the legal case in defence of RFC being same club. Seems quite obvious they aren't to me. So Im asking what makes you so certain that Rangers are the same club in the eyes of the law?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might own a fleet of cars. You might start a wee club and call it "Paddy's Car Club" and you and all of your pals ride around in the cars every weekend.
      Later you decide that you want to turn the club into a money making business and decide that you want a company structure to operate the business.
      So you ride down to Companies House to fill in the paperwork. You tell the guy that "Paddy's Car Club" wants to become a company. The guy will inform you that "Paddy's Car Club" has no legal personality so that can't happen.
      He will inform you that you can, if you like, start a company. So you do and you call the new company "Paddy's Car Club LTD". When you fill in the forms stating the 'business operations', of your new company, you can tell them you want to cut people's hair, make dresses to sell to your pals, etc.
      Alternatively, you might tell him you want to operate a business that races cars. He'll ask you what business name you want to use and you, being a smart chap, will tell him "Paddy's Car Club".
      You'll pay your fees and off you go. You will then have a company called "Paddy's Car Club LTD" that operates a business called "Paddy's Car Club" which you might enter, if you like, in car races with other car clubs.
      Later, if you want, you can sell the company to somebody else. You can sell it as a whole or in part(s). Or if you are in financial troubles the administrators will do that for you.
      Over the years "Paddy's Car Club" might have gathered a fine reputation for winning car races and the business, "Paddy's Car Club" and its reputation (past record/history) will be a valuable asset of "Paddy's Car Club LTD". The business and its reputation will be part of "Paddy's Car Club LTD's" "Goodwill Asset".
      So when the administrators sell your assets, including your "Goodwill" the buyers will be the new owners of the same business that "Paddy's Car Club LTD" used to own. That being "Paddy's Car Club".
      You might be sad that your company no longer owns "Paddy's Car Club". However, you can always be assured that even though your company might end, "Paddy's Car Club" will continue on and the punters will continue to rock up every week to see the club compete in whatever competition the new owners enter the club in.

      Delete
  28. On the point of a second administration btw.
    "Rangers would be deducted 25 points should they be forced into administration this season – even though Hearts were given just a 15-point penalty last year.

    Under new rules introduced last summer when the SPL took over the Scottish Football League to form the SPFL, clubs which suffer more than one insolvency event in the space of five years will be hit with a 25-point penalty.The SPFL board believes that, since Lord Nimmo Smith ruled, at a hearing last February, that the current club was a continuation of the same entity which went into liquidation in October 2012 when finding them guilty of not disclosing payments to their players, Rangers should face the heavier sanction.
    Rangers are currently 23 points clear of second-placed Dunfermline at the top of League One.
    The Ibrox club first entered administration in February 2012 and former director Dave King has warned that it could happen again."
    There will be no SECOND administration...but it is funny in a way because while they desperately pray for one its a double edged sword because a second admin again proves (as shown above) we're the same club. Poor timmy. :(



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only place I've ever heard about second admin is from people who claim Rangers didn't end as club in 2012. Clearly if New club enter admin its a first offence. Nobody that I know of prays for a second administration. Must be getting that from evil Celtic fans mate.

      Delete
  29. If Arnold Clarks Co goes thits up and Reg Vardy buys all his company assets and one of these assets is a vintage car that has won many awards over the years does this mean the car is stripped of all its awards and is suddenly a new car. Me thinks not.now jog on. Watp

    ReplyDelete
  30. The vintage car one is proper lunacy. Hearts did find themselves in bother in 1905. Set up a new company and bought the entire failing company/club debts and all and avoided liquidation. So the Hearts case is quite different in Law to Rangers. The vintage car one is cracker though. Can be compared to Jim Baxter. Jim Baxter didn't do anything wrong when he left Rangers. his part in Rangers history lives on but his awards stay with him. Awards won for club stay with club. If club ends then that part of history stays with old club. When Baxter moves onto win things at other clubs Rangers don't claim those awards as their own. And why the need to jog on. Why not have an open and real debate to end the fog around nucleus/old club. Leeds got dodgy CVA. So case is different to Rangers, Cant find anything on coventry or middlesborough but will look into these cases. Since it interests me. Doest it help your case for self delusion of you find an actual legal case that has same point of law as Rangers decline leading up 2012 legal death and current liquidation of old club?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Correct Ian. That's what all the idiots don't understand. Most of them do in fairness, but go on with the nonsense anyway. like imbeciles that keep telling you the same joke over and over again. However, there is a sizeable chunk of yhem that really believe the idiotic claims.
    It never seems to dawn on them that if rangers were not the same club then BDO and the creditors would be all over newco with a ton of law suits. As would the haters of Rangers in the other clubs in Scotland. The complete absence on that front speaks the vreal truth and it speaks it in volumes.
    Rangers were a club in 1872 ran by a group of men. Later, the men who ran the club started a company to run the club. A club, having no legal personality cannot start a company or enter into any legal dealings. It is an intangible thing. You can't see a club, touch a club or smell a club even (with the possible exception of one that plays near London Road).
    The new company's business operation was Rangers Football Club. Being intangible it was part of the company's "Goodwill" asset. The "Goodwill" includes the business name (identity) and the business reputation (past record/history).
    Like any asset the Goodwill can be sold to another company and the business continues on, now operated by a different company.
    If "Desmond's Catering Services LTD" operates a business with the name "Dezzies Cafe" and "Fancy Cuisine LTD" wants to buy "DCS LTD's" business but not the company, then "DCS LTD" simply sells him the business assets. "Fancy Cuisine LTD" becomes the new owner of "Dezzies Cafe" and the business continues on as before.
    The owners can make the transfer or the administrators can make the transfer. Under the Insolvency Act, the relevant law that applies, the administrators have the power to dispose of a company as a whole, or break it up and sell off any part(s) that they deem fit.
    That's the law. That's what happened with Rangers Football Club, as confirmed by Lord Nimmo Smith who built his career on Insolvency Law.
    Those facts are lost on the half-wits from Parkhead. The fact every other official body accepts the facts means nothing to the half-wit. His delusion will go on. Like all nutters, they don't know that they're nutters. They think that it's everybody else that's mad. Pitiful really.

    Best Wishes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't seen any official statement from governing bodies about the legality of the debacle that allowed Rangers to die. They all use non legal opinions to give hope. And Rangers fan lap it up. And your right it is pitiful that despite the legal weight against it being same club. You still cling onto non legal opinions till it gets a proper day in court.. The debts are an integral part of the club. To discard that vital piece of evidence and claim its same club is not legal. The assets of the club do not make up the club wholely. the balance sheet of the club in entirety is the club. Any debts that are not paid in full or agreed to dissolve or reduce are still part of the club. Taking assets and fans to a new Company and calling it same club is not legal. Its not nutty to think that its the law.

      Delete
    2. To describe the new Company/club as same club is not legal. Might feel like same club with same fans but its not. No club in history has ever tried to make out that legally its same club other than Rangers. Some footballing sites might suggest that the history is an intangible asset that can be transferred without paying creditors that helped build that history. But that is the delusion. Its a heinous crime that has been perpetrated on RFC the real club. The new club has no legal right to call itself the real RFC. Because the real RFC has been asset stripped and is being liquidated by BDO awaiting confirmation from law how much of the money that has been recovered can be proportionately redistributed to RFC Creditors.

      Delete
    3. Cant have a dead club and at same time a living club that has avoided all its obligations as a legal entity. Therefore Rangers died when it was asset stripped and charlatans fought over the scraps and rights to delude the real RFC fans. Its kind of funny to try and help ill people see their illness only to be told that they are perfectly sane and healthy its the highlighting of the obvious that makes non believers the Psychopaths and haters and nutters. The analogy of the car dealership and the cars is not legal either, So to dream up more non legal nonsense to support a non legal situation is where the real illness lies. Like the schizophrenic allegations dude says . Your making up stuff to suit a non legal agenda by using opinions that have no weight in law. You use whataboutery to defend something that has no bearing on the facts. You perpetuate myths and put words and opinions into Governing bodies that have never been verified by the governing bodies. For instance the other day on Sky Sports it showed Rangers history as having won 2 lower league championships and thats all. I see that no-Rangers are same club defenders have cited that particular observation and opinion on Sky Sports news as legally binding. Ints not.SFA/SPFL are conflicted in this issue and even if one of their honchos decides to make a personal opinion. It hold no weight in the law. Let the law decide. Stop perpetuatng non legal positions with utterrly doctored evidence and then saying its perfectly fine because hey look this case that is not relevant to RFC debacle means its the same club. Its truly bizarre. Ask yourself did you feel sad the day the club died? I bet you were deeply depressed each and every one of you. Thats nothing to be proud about. Its deeply sad that RFC died. But to perpetuate non legal wish as real legally binding information when it suits you is a mental illness. Rangers died and despite getting preferential treatment to start a new club to fill the void created by sudden death. You are still searching for a coherent argument that is legally upright. You are actually believing the charlatans that running amok with new club. Dont take my word for it. But at least look at the case without Blue tinted spectacles and find a proper defence if one exists. I don't think one exists therefore sadly in conclusion Your not Rangers anymore has more legal weight than the contrary. If you chose to be deluded by charlatans then thats fine. But at end of the day when its confirmed by legal statute you will have no place to turn but to more charlatans. To misquote Nimmo Smith is bad enough. To imply that he didn't say RFC the club is legally dead is quite extraordinary. He states that as a caveat to his same club in sporting sense opinion. At no point am I suggesting that legally the club/comapny RFC is not the same thing. But the blog post is suggesting that opinion is backed by law of business. Which you will find every lawyer in the land who applies the law vigorously wlll find that Club/comapny is same thing. If Club liquidates company liquidates. If Company liquidates club liquidates. Selling assets is not selling club. Buying company with another company is only valid if it buys the club/comapny lock stock and barrel with debts and assets at same time. Then club hasn't liquidated its just transferred to a new company but the club/company underneath is still intact

      Delete
    4. Your Desmonds catering services lrd might own Dizzies cafe. But the bloke buying Dizzies cafe cannot say Ill have Dizzies cafes minus all the debt please. Then he is just buying assets and Desmonds catering services is still liable for those debts. If the bloke buying Dizzies cafe tried to reopen as dizzies cafe same club then those creditors who were shafted would have claim against new Dizzies. Thats the law. You either buy Dizzies lock stock and barrel debts and assets and intangible assets or Dizzies is no more. That didn't happen in th case of Rangers that died and is being liquidated as we speak. Debts were not transferred therefore club ceased to exist at this point. If they take responsibility for all the debts of RFC then and only then can they be called the same club. Thats the law in black and white, Your analogy serves to rove its not the same club. The sibsiary company RFC the club was not bought lock stock and barrel. Therefore those who claim its not same club are correct and aren't so nutterish after all. Finding loopholes to try and hide over that fact doesn't make them nutters it make people who can't see the plain truth either deliberately or through stubborness to be needing it to be spelt out. I have a feeling it will all be decided anyway in next few years through the legal battles against the new regimes since 2012. So lets wait and see what the law decides if it does decide to rule either way. Best wishes. The blog makes assertions and the contributors so far haven't help decide the case. At least both sides of the argument can get aired. But resorting to name calling and other such drivel and whataboutery is not becoming for your intellectual reasoning. Need to sharpen up your argument pronto lads to stand any chance in a court of law. Happy New and best wishes no matter what team you follow follow. All the best no matter the conclusions you garner from last couple days debates.

      Delete
    5. Just to prove your idiot theory absurd, Founding fathers et up a business as partnership in 1872. Club was business from day one with capital to run business. But partnership has personal liability. So if club went into liquidation as partnership the partners are liable for the debts of the business. So to save personal liability its better to turn partnership into a company which happened in 1899. Club same club structure of club from partnership to company is legal. In 1986 company went from private company to public company. Again club was still the business but corporate structure was now Public. This is legal as long as it takes on the debts of the entire private company as well as all the assets. When PLC of club which is still same business as one that started in 1872 finds itself in deep debts and cannot pay its creditors. It cannot stiff creditors by selling anything thats worth something and continuing the same business/ club. Assets are not the club. All balance sheet entries are the club. The intangible worth of fans can be transferred to new club. And creditors can be shafted but that means its a new club. Therefore the reason Rangers get lot of stick at away grounds and in general. Because you don't understand this doesn't make you an idiot. But it does leave you open to getting shafted by charlatans. SO wake up and stop patting people on the back who don't understand the business side of the club and assume the club is separate from the business. Its not the case in Rangers history that a for sure. Rangers were a partnership to start with which is business which is a professional football club. Hope I helped clear up your misunderstanding.

      Delete
    6. Read Nimmo smith properly. he makes it quite clear that RFC club and company in legal sense are same thing. Newspaper often latch on the controversial statement that in his opinion in sporting sense its the same club. But then qualifies that by re stating that in law. There is no difference between the club and company and liquidation ends both in law. Funny how you use Nimmo Smith personal opinion on matter he has no credibility ( sport) but then omit his legal opinion completely. Int that trying to fudge the situation?

      Delete
  32. Blank these halfwits bears.As long as it has rangers f.c.outside edmiston drive & we play in blue & sash it up we"ll always be RANGERS F.C. if they want a lecture on law they should type in PATHE- TIC SHELF 595.we won't take advice from kiddie fiddlers& unknown sources? WATP& always will be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pacific Shelf bought all the assets and liabilities from Private company that was Celtic. Therefore new company was old company with all its debts and assets. Sevco bought only the assets from PLC that died in 2012. Therefore didn't buy the club. A new club was begun pretending to be Rangers in 2012. The debts of real Rangers have still not been settled by liquidators BDO. The kiddie fidller reference and supremacist chant are both vile and disgusting. Kidd fiddler whether catholic protestant or any other religion or atheism is abhorrent. To Glorify the abuse of children is rancid. Whether it comes from state Protected Lords or Royalty masonic splinter groups catholic church or anywhere. But sadly Rangers did legally die in 2012. Your disgusting rant will not change that unless someone pays the debts accrued obtaining your glorious history. Fact.

      Delete
  33. Nobody would even know who they were if it wasn't for 1 big diddy cup won over fifty years ago. Who cares what they think
    That's the thanks ye get after letting in our country at their time of need. Ah! Bloody foreigners.LOL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Authorities have made no legal ruling therefore its all up for debate. A club when formed must have assets and liabilities. Can have 1 of four corporate structures. More if you include LLP. But 4 basic corporate structures. 1 sole trader 2 partnership structure. 3 Ltd Liability Private company. 4 PLC Public limited liability company. Someone must provide the initial capital to form the club. In case of Rangers I assume the four founding fathers. And again I assume their corporate structure was Partnership form of business to acquire assets and liabilities for the company.
      Under partnership structure the partners are personally liable for any liabilities their club might accrue if the club cannot pay its bills. Therefore a less risky from a personal capital perspective is private limited company. That way they can limit their own personal liability should the club find it self in unsustainable debt. Also encourages new investors who don't want to risk their own personal wealth in a partnership.
      In 1899 Rangers chose to go from partnership club to Limited Private company. Club was growing very nicely and it made business sense to protect partners and help grow the club even more.
      In 1986 club chose to go PLC. Which allowed even greater access to capital markets and helped creat liquid market for shareholders to sell their shares more easily.
      Point to note carefully is at every change of corporate structure the new structure took on all the assets and liabilities of the club. Therefore the club continued despite changing its corporate structure.
      In 2012 the club found itself in a bad place with debts and other shenanigans. In order to survive as the same club. It needed either 1 a cva with creditors to reduce the debts to sustainable levels. 2 a change in corporate structure that took on all the debts and liabilities as well as the assets and intangible assets. The CVA failed which was something KING approved and recommended. And no person with billions or a new company was willing to take on the debts of the club. Therefore to try and get some cash for shafted creditors the club assets ALONE were sold to a new Company. And the club was left on the autopsy room of BDO with its carcass completely decimated by the vultures of new Company. Its still lying there as we chat.
      Business law does not allow for clubs or businesses to continue as same club having shafted creditors. The Vultures want you to believe its the same club. They make more money that way. You want to believe its the same club because hey its history was second to none. But the minute you dissect a club assets from liabilities without getting business permission from the creditors of the club. You cease to be the same club.
      Now claiming you are the same club leaves you open to litigation from shafted creditors. So the minute the authorities make a decisive declaration in legal terms. Then New club is liable for old clubs debt and creditors with file lawsuits.
      The blog says people say your not Rangers anymore. And goes on to explain why that preposterous. And anyone of the view that Rangers are no more is a lunatic or evil or both. Well in response to the blogs claims. I have laid out the case quite clearly why people don't believe you are the same club. The Vultures and conflicted will tell you want you want to hear.

      Delete
  34. Nothing like this topic for bringing out Celtic-minded bampots. Quite funny the lengths they will go to tiwst reality in order to fit the narrative.

    They don't care about us? Aye right.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Why even open a forum for debate? The matter is closed; the authorities have made the rulings.

    Their is no egalitarianism when it comes to facts; something the bheasts forget.

    ReplyDelete
  36. You will take what you want to hear and disregard the rest. Rangers the club did die in 2012. therefore You aren't really Rangers anymore. The puff about always then now and forever is just puff with no legal substance.
    In conclusion Rangers the club have had at least 3 legal changes in corporate structure. The club began in 1872 and ended in 2012. Why did it not survive 2012. Because they didn't get a CVA and none stepped forward to take on the bills of the club. Not a person or a partnership or a company. The assets where handed on a plate at dirt cheap prices and the liabilities are still there in the real club waiting for final liquidation for the creditors to get some sort of monetary recompense for the death of Rangers the club. The reason the creditors have no claim on the NEW club is because its a completely New Club built on the assets of the OLD Club. It may feel like old Rangers. It may look like Old Rangers. But when the New Company took on only the assets of the OLD Club. A new Club was formed. Whether history is part of intangible assets bought is a controversial topic. But most would argue that History lives with the club. And the club did die in 2012.
    Hopefully that answers all the what about this and what about that. Nimmo Smith quite clearly said the club and the company are legally the same thing. The company died in 2012 at same time as the club.
    And on refection anyone who accuses other people of being mad, or Psychopaths, or Schizophrenics because they understand that a club cannot continue without both its assets and liabilities accrued creating their history. Or at least gets a CVA to dump their debts is intact not really looking for the truth. The psychosis within Rangers grasping at straws to try and hide the facts is quite astonishing. You all claim to be normal healthy adults. And you claim Rangers are alive and well. But your claims have no legal baring. Your deliberate avoidance of the legal truths is alarming. And its not really your fault. Its the fault of the media for keeping the truth under wraps to make money out of your anguish. Now I wish New Rangers every success. I wish all Rangers fans and non Rangers fans a happy New year. And I hope you have a team to support after all the legal stuff is finally over. God bless you all. If you chose to believe the Rangers never died. Thats up to you. But to try and force a lie on everybody else is not going to happen. Unless the laws are changed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then who the f*** did Celtic beat in the recent cup fixture if it wasn't rangers? It beggars belief.why go to all the bother if it were a new club.

      Delete
    2. If your such a smart arse why don't you take over the reigns at ibrox or better still offer your services to assist prosecuting the previous regime given your knowledge regarding everything rangers.
      R u lawless in disguise.
      54 & counting big man!

      Delete
    3. Classic case of begging the question: CVA rejection means new club only if it is true that a club cannot survive change of company. This is clearly false.

      Fallacies of reasoning 101.

      Delete
    4. Celtic Played new Rangers. First ever meeting last year legally. But in sporting sense the rivalry will last till football ends. But Im not talking sport. I agree for all intents and purposes its the same club. But legally its anew club. New history. New beginning. fresh start. That happened in 2012. New license, new team, started from the bottom of pro football worked your way up nicely to be in good position to get into Premier league for the first time ever. Might eve win a first cup this year. Old debts are gone but with the debts that bought the history gone the history is gone. Down the plug hole and transformed back into capital to fund Charles Greens Castle in France. Didn't take long for new club to rack up massive debts. Still can't afford the team without more debt each year. Not looking good for new Rangers. Maybe third Rangers same Rangers will have the same problems should the position of new Rangers not be solved by an over investing billionaire. Oh thats right the same billionaire who asked for old club to have CVA rejected. Keep up the delusions boys. Mental hospital coming your way soon.

      Delete
    5. Funny you talking about delusions.

      There are about six flat-out lies in this post.

      Delete
  37. Watching SMELLTIC must be that painful these days that all they want to talk about is a wee team from the championship .
    WE. WELCOME THE CHASE #54

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said son, couldn't have put it better...that's the whole and truthful reason for their obsession...

      Delete
  38. To all the deluded Parkhead trolls. Rangers are legally the same club. That's why they all official bodies from Companies House, BDO, football authorities, have accepted that fact. A fact confirmed by Scotland's foremost authority on the matter, Lord Nimmo Smith.
    That is why, despite all the whining from the daft mhob there has been no legal challenge, nor will there ever be one. Some are enraged that Rangers have survived and the cry out, in anguish, with stupid statements how "it can't be legal". They might be enraged, but they won't waste their money trying to back up their idiocy. Their lawyers will have advised them that the matter is settled and all legal. Rangers are the same club. Yesterday, today and forever.

    ReplyDelete
  39. to the idiot who has been posting that Rangers are not the same club and club and company are the same thing and can't be separated.

    How old are you? Are you still at school? If you are I hope it isn't business school.

    I notice that you said to a poster above that a Catering Company LTD couldn't buy another Company's business, "Dezzies Cafe" without buying the whole company, debt and all. Who taught you this? You even claimed it is "the law". Really? What law is that exactly? Section and paragraph please.
    The fact is a football club cannot become a company. It has no legal personality. It cannot own assets or acquire debts. The people who operate the club can. People have legal personality. If the people who operate the club decide to start a company to operate the club, they can. The people have the legal personality to do that, A club does not. Once set up a 'company' under law does have legal personality, unlike a club or any other 'thing'.
    A 'thing' can be tangible or intangible. Things can be owned bought or sold. A club is an intangible 'thing'. Much like an idea or a concept. It is capable of being owned, bought and sold.
    A company, being a legal personality can own, buy and sell 'things'. They are called 'assets' of the company. A company owns its business operation. When a company owns a football club (an intangible 'thing') then that is its business operation.
    Being an intangible asset it is part of the company's "goodwill asset". The "goodwill" does indeed include the business (the club) the business identity (name of the club) and the reputation that the business (the club) acquires over time (its past record or business history).
    Same applies to the "catering company LTD" business "Dezzies Cafe" given above.

    Another company can indeed buy another companies assets, at any time (without buying the other company's shares, liabilities etc) including another companies "goodwill asset".
    It happens every day, the world over.
    When the new company buys the "goodwill asset" of another company they buy the same business (football club, 'Dezzies Cafe', or whatever). It is the same business, with the same name and same history. That's why they buy it.
    If the new company does NOT buy the goodwill of the other company and then claims that they are operating the same business, using the same business name, they will be in severe trouble. Under civil and criminal law.
    You will notice, once again, that there is no legal challenge from BDO to newco over their operation of Rangers Football Club. That's because newco purchased the assets of the old company, including the "goodwill" which includes Rangers Football club, its name and its reputaion. The exact same club. In reality and in law.

    Tell your teacher, "he's a bawheid". Good luck with the studies son.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A club needs capital to exist. Its not a club until it has a balance sheet. If it starts as a sole trader the club is a business with sole trader status. If its partnership its club with partnership status. If its a company its a club with company status. The status change does not end the club and start again as anew club. But purchasing assets from a club leaves the original club intact. A business does indeed have legal personality. Depending on the structure of the club corporate status decides if creditors can come after the shareholders or not. Companies have limited liability therefore creditors have no claim on the shareholders wealth other than that which is in the business. not so for partnership or sole trader. You are correct that companies all over the world asset strip other companies. But none claim to be the same company having asset stripped it. That would bypass the law protecting creditors. You would get all companies in debt just transferring their assets to new company to avoid debts and then claiming same club as Rangers allegedly have done. Business have legal status. Read it up. And its interesting you resort to Bawheid comments.

      Delete
    2. A new club can purchase another clubs assets but does not become that club in law. Might claim to have the spirit of the club but thats not same thing. The liabilities of the club create the goodwill. Shafting the creditors decimates that goodwill. Therefore selling goodwill for a pound suggests the goodwill towards creditors was almost non existent. History can only be transferred with the acquisition of the entire club bills and assets capital and intangible assets included. History is something that can be achieved by a legal entity only. In this case the business. The business of RFC ended when it couldn't pay the creditors or continue as going concern. To try and get some sort of payment the assets where stripped from the club. The legal entity and sold to the highest bidder for a pittance including the goodwill acquired by the club. Its legally only possible to retain the acquired history of club if you buy the club. You cannot buy the history by buying the assets of a club that is no longer a going concern. Dead defunct unable to survive due to having less liquid assets compared to real liabilities.

      Delete
    3. Your nonsense about it happens every day is nonsense in that the assets represent the club. The nonsense that a club has no legal personality is again nonsense. Even not for profit clubs have legal personality. Name one case in history other than Rangers where assets stripping allowed the club to continue as a same old club. Not in sporting realm. but even then i suspect none exist. But in real business world. RFC were always business since 1872. When it acquired capital for the purpose of running a business through the businessmen founders. This rubbish about clubs being ephemeral entities with no legal status is nonsense. But again this will all be spelt out in time through the impending lawsuits that will take place if Rangers insist they are the same club. Phoenix business laws prohibit it. The new club was started with a fresh capital bases including most of the assets if not all of the dead club. The real club owned those assets. Whether it had sole trader status partnership status or company status is irrelevant. The club = the business of the club = the capital of the club with all its assets and liabilities did not survive 2012. It survived through different corporate structure unchanged through 1872-2012. But when it could no longer be a business it ended that particular business that particular club. And the assets were transferred to a new business to create a brand new club with a brand new capital (using some of the assets of the old club) base new assets and new liabilities. Think you will find that buying assets isn't buying a club. So maybe you need to go back to school Grandpa and get your brain functioning well enough to avoid being taken for a mug by vultures who want your cash. Your entitled to believe that New Rangers is old Rangers. Thats perfectly fine delusion to have. But in law its bollocks. pick up any business law book written by respectable legal people and read the corporate structure chapters and the legal entity chapters again. Clubs are legal entities they have a capital base of their own assets and liabilities of their own. Irrespective of the fact that it might itself by a subsidiary business of a bigger chain of businesses or might even be a holding company with subsidiaries of its own. No point in history has assets alone equaled a business. A business ends when it cannot meet its liabilities in timely manner. The business of Rangers football club was running a football club. It had individual legal business status and could enter contracts. When it didn't honour its legal contract that particular club/business died. I have at no point said that companies can't buy assets from other companies. I have however stated the law of our land when I say that Clubs have legal busines status which ends if the business of the club ends. did the business of RFC End. Yes or no. The fact its still lying on BDO table being forensically examined answers that question the club died when CVA was rejected and no capital could be found to continue the club. A new club was formed from the assets of dead club. Your insistence that Rangers the club isn't part of the business is complete lunacy. Seems you might need to reread the law my man.

      Delete
    4. That is complete nonsense. Companies house don't recognise you as same club. BDO don't recognise as same club. Football authorities have made no legally binding declaration either way. And Lord Nimmo Smith in a non legal opinion with no binding authority that indeed the club is the company. No cry outs about ho can it be legal. Because its clearly not legal. Only people claiming legal case is Rangera fans. And tbh they haven't really been thinking straight since Rangers died. God bless them. The only people who have said they believe its the same club are conflicted persons who want to pass the buck of pronouncing Rangers death. Nimbi Smith made it quite clear that his opinion was personal and not legally binding. And despite the fact that in law Rangers are dead. In sporting sense you could argue they were alive. No legal pronouncement till all the courts cases are finished. The case for new club is winning. the case for same club might find something that can defend its position but at the minute your grasping at straws. No hatred. Rangers were and still are the greatest team in Scottish history. But in next few years I suspect it will be legally decided one way or another if assets equal buying the club. Or if in fact its anew club with new history. But let the courts decide. I don't fancy your chances though.

      Delete
    5. goodwill is intangible the club is all tangible assets plus all tangible liabilities. Goodwill is something you pay above the difference between assets and liabilities. The difference between market price and capital base of the club. It can then be placed in new company at cost to be amortised over time in accordance with accounting standards. Liabilities were not purchased by new company buying assets alone. The asstes were valued at +£100 million in old club. Sold for 5 million in firesale to get something for creditors rather than nothing. Which is now being treated in court to ascertain if this purchase was legal or fraudulent. No goodwill was purchased hence reason new club has limited access to credit. The club was not transferrred to new club. Only assets of dead club and even that purchase may have been illegally set up. You really need to go read the truth rather than what you want to read. Best wishes in finally understanding the flaw in your arguments

      Delete
    6. Tangible assets
      Tangible assets include business furnishings, fixtures, equipment, leasehold improvements, inventory, real estate, automobiles etc. Tangible assets are ones you can see and touch.

      You cannot "see" or "touch" a club. Only its representatives and symbols.



      Intangible assets
      In businesses with well-known names, products, and reputations, up to half the business sale price often covers the purchase of intangible assets — things buyers can't hold in their hands.

      Intangible assets fall into two general categories:

      Intellectual property rights assets, including trademarks, patents, licensing agreements, and trade secrets.

      Other intangible assets, including business name and reputation, processes, strategies, and general know-how, which together contribute to business value over and above the value of tangible assets. These intangible assets compose what's called the goodwill of your business.

      Goodwill assets include

      Your business name and identity
      Loyal clientele
      Brand equity, which is the value of the competitive advantage of your name and reputation in the minds of consumers and business.

      “In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator".

      Role of administrator
      (1) While a company is under administration, the administrator

      (a) has control of the company's business, property and affairs; and

      (b) may carry on that business and manage that property and those affairs; and

      (c) may terminate or dispose of all or any part(s) of that business, and may dispose of any of that property; and

      (d) may perform any function, and exercise any power, that the company or any of its officers could perform or exercise if the company were not under administration.

      (2) Nothing in subsection (1) limits the generality of anything else in it.


      In short. The administrators can do whatever they deem fit with the company. They can sell it as a whole or any part(s) they deem fit.
      They have all the powers of the owners and then some. Even something that the former owners could not have done, eg in the 1(a), 1(b) or 1(c). Does not prevent the administrators from doing it.
      That is, although they had all the powers of the directors as in 1(d). They were not limited to those powers. If, for example, the directors might have been limited, in any way, in normal circumstances, from breaking the club up and selling of any part(s) or any assets, THE ADMINISTRATORS ARE NOT.

      Subsection 2 removed any limitations on their power. They separated Rangers Football Club from the company together with most of the assets and left the company as a 'shell entity'.

      Delete
    7. The club was transferred to a new company not a new club. Are you daft?
      Don't answer that. Youv;e made it clear enough that you are already.

      Delete
  40. Read the articles of association of RFC now deceased 1872-2012. It quite clearly states that club is the business and the business is now a company and both club/company to business. All clubs are business. Corporate structure means no difference to this fact. You can buy assets of any business. But you cannot trade as same business unless you buy the business outright. Assets alone is not outright. Therefore its a new business distinct from old business which is the club. New club formed 2012 with assets alone of old club means its a new club/business corporate structure of new club has no bearing on the viability of the new club either. Its part if the new club even if it changes back to partnership status.

    God its like talking to Brick walls. You take what you want to argue about no matter who writes it. Then call it trolling. Hahaha. Im only trying to help you get over the hurdle that you been stuck on for last 4 years. RFC is no more. New RFC are a good team but find themselves in some stuck business hole due to lack of goodwill and perhaps crooked vultures ripping the new club to pieces. I understand its big loss to admit RFC died. Its tragic. Its heinous in fact. UKs most decorated team is no more. But at least they are spiritually alive with new Club. Best wishes with that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A club can't become a company. You need legal personality to start a company and "things", like clubs, don't have legal personality.
      A club can be operated by people. They can form a company to operate the club but the club will never become a company. Once formed the company which, by law, has legal personality can own and operate the club as a business operation.
      The company can, if it wishes, sell the club to another company. The club then becomes the new company's asset to operate. Same club, different owners.
      As clubs can't acquire financial liabilities, since they have no legal personality, any debts the old company have remain with the old company. They don't follow the club.

      Simple really. Every official body understands the process. It's strange that celtic supporters can't. Maybe it's true what everyone says about them. Maybe they are thick.

      Delete
    2. The people who operated Rangers Football Club started the company that then operated the club. A club is a "thing". An "intangible thing", but a "thing" nonetheless. Things can't become a company. That's like taking your car down to Companies House and telling them that your car wants to become a company, or you want your car to become a company.
      Try it. Perhaps you'll understand a bit better on the drive home. That's if they don't get you huckled and dragged off to a home for the bewildered.

      Delete
  41. BDO haven't challenged new club because its a new club. If it was same club legally then they would just transfer the debts to the new club/same club. The only people who claim its legally same club are deluded rangers fans. Never once has anyone ever suggested that are legally the same club. Thats why they have no debts. Thats why they haven't won any major trophies. Are you suggesting that I can buy Bolts gold medal and his legal status and claim I am the fastest man alive. Thats what your nonsense claims amount to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can't sue a club. It has no legal personality. You can sue the company that owns the club if you think you can win.
      Trying to sue a club is like trying to sue a car. You can't. You could sue the owner of the car though.
      Now you know why nobody, BDO, the creditors, or any of the disgruntled haters have ever sued newco, the new owners of Rangers Football Club.

      Delete
    2. You can buy Bolt's gold. That's a "thing". Bolt is a person, with legal personality, but you can't buy a person. You can enter into a contract with him, since he's a legal personality, but you can't buy him. Buying people is not legal.
      You can buy "things" though. "Tangible things" or "intangible things".
      A football club is an "intangible thing", it has no legal personality. So any legal personality can buy or sell a club.
      The law has deemed that 'companies' have legal personality. A company can be bought or sold. It is a legal entity but it is not a person.

      Delete
  42. A club is legal entity. its corporate structure decides who is liable for the clubs debts. If club has company status has limited liability. Selling assets is legal to pay off creditors but those assets don't form the same club. They can form a new Club like in case of New RFC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A club is NOT a legal entity. Nor can it ever become one. It has no legal personality. It is a "thing" that can be owned, operated, bought or sold. The "thing" cannot own, operate, buy or sell anything.
      A person or a company has legal personality. A person can start a company and the company, by law, acquires legal personality.
      The company can then operate the "thing", the football club. The club will never have company status. You can't see a club or feel a club. Only its representatives and symbols. It is an "intangible asset". Hence it forms part of the company's "goodwill asset".
      The "goodwill" includes the business operation's name (its identity) and its reputation (its past record, its history).
      If another company buys the old company's "goodwill asset", they own and operate the same club the old company used to operate.

      Happens every day in business. A company can buy another company's business without buying the shares and taking on the liabilities of the old company. All legal.

      Ask Lord Nimmo Smith. He'll tell you that a club has no legal personality. It can be legally owned, but it can't own anything.

      Delete
  43. A Club doesn't need anything to begin with. It doesn't need capital or assets. A club cannot be or become "a sole trader", "a partnership", or a "company". A club is a "thing". It is an "intangible thing". Like an idea or a concept. A "thing" has no legal personality. It cannot enter into any sort of legal dealings.
    It cannot buy anything or sell anything. It cannot own anything and it cannot acquire debts or enter into contracts of any kind. So a Club cannot buy another clubs assets. Because the other Club doesn't have any assets and couldn't sell any if it did. That's because the other club is an "intangible thing" as well.

    The people who operate the "thing" or the club, have legal personality. They can startup a company or become a sole trader. They can own "things" (assets) and buy or sell them. If the people, who have legal personality, start a company then that company, by law, has legal personality.

    The company can own and operate "things", like a football club. That is then the business of the company. It is what the company "does". The football club gets operated. A football club, being an "intangible asset" is part of the "goodwill asset" owned by the company.
    The "goodwill" includes the club name (its identity) and its reputation (its past record, its history).
    When a new company buys the old company's "goodwill" the acquire its business operation, ie the club, and its reputation. It is the same business that he old company used to own and operate. Only the ownership has changed. Nothing else.

    Who's your teacher? Is he the plonker that tells you that "things" can become a company? Goodness me!
    You might ask your father to enrol ypu in another school son.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bheasts will never get it; they have their fantasy world and will construct a story to fit it.

      It's no use arguing with those who are not rational.

      Delete
    2. in your definition a club isn't even a thing. Its a concept its intangible. A club comes from an idea in a person or group of peoples heads. The club in case of Rangers formed by 4 founding fathers most likely was a partnership. They chucked money in to get the club some assets. The club was real the moment it had assets and liabilities. It wa no no longer a concept. Now assuming they were a partnership the partners were individually liable and severally liable for the liabilities of the club. Assuming club was set out as profit business from day one then the partners were also the recipients of any profits according to the split of the partnership. In 1899 when the partnership applied for private company status. The club became incorporated and the liability of the partners personal wealth was no longer at risk. But the club at this point became a legal entity in its own right. Instead of partners it now had shareholders and managers to run the incorporated club. Read the memorandum of RFCIL 1872/2012 and also the articles of association for the club. Club and company are now the same thing. Directors can bind the club in contracts and the sole porpuse of the club from this point was to win as much trophies while making as much money for the share holders. I spoke to my dad who is now nearly 80 and he says that the school I went to explained it correctly. Perhaps the man who doesn't undertstand the reality of tangible club assets and liabilities needs to go back to school. In your warped world. Dave King could set up a new company today transfer the intangible asset of club that is just a concept and New RFC would no longer be New RFC because the concept has been romped from the bricks and mortar. The truth is the bricks and mortar are just a pat of the club. The club is the entire balance sheet including intangible assets. But without liabilities from continuing club transferring the club ceases to exist and anew club similar to old club begins. Phoenix company laws and companies act will help you get over your 'Club in different dimension allegations. DO all Rangers fans buy into your notion that club cannot be touched.

      Delete
    3. And the Cockerham dude isn't well. Bheasts and other name calling while proposing he is rational. Nice one. Do you even see your contradictions? Is that rational not seeing your own contradictions.

      Delete
    4. Also to show how ridiculous your argument is. Club is intangible. Absolute nonsense btw. But lets just go with it. None in the world has ever watched Rangers FC play football. Paid to go watch them. Touched the wall at ibrox stadium. Been thrilled to be part of the club and its atmosphere. Because ta the end of the day a club is a concept that no-one can touch or sensually interact with. Its something that belong in goodwill. despite the fact that goodwill is the difference between Market value and capital value on balance sheet (assets minus liabilities). Goodwill is part of the club. Reputation built on treatment of customers and creditors. In your reasoning club was valued at minus millions of pounds. Your understanding of law and clubs is particularly narrow minded. Open your mind and see your misconception and the lies that are being poured into your ind by vultures. Your suggesting that the club can be bought be purchasing only intangible assets. Thats complete false. You could turn aberdeen in rangers tomorrow if thats the case.

      Delete
    5. A sole trader or a partnership can create a club with his/thier assets. That club can have legal identity if its owners form a company.Thatw that incorporated means. To become a legal body. Thats why the shareholders of company have limited liability for owning the club whereas sole trader and partnerships have individual and several liability of the club they own. Read your own clubs articles and memorandum of a asscociation when the partnership changed to company status. The club had partnership status and the partners were personally individually and severally liable for the debts they bound themselves to as a club. That became limited liability the day they incorporated the club a s private company. Nimbi Smith will confirm that for you if you read his opinion on matters Rangers. Go do some reading before quoting Nimmo Smith. None ever said a club was an intangible asset except vultures. And those who want to believe their porkies.

      Delete
    6. A club doesn't exist if it doesn't have capital base.

      Delete
    7. You can see the representatives of the club. You can see the symbols of the club. You cannot see the club. Any club. It is an "intangible thing". You can start up a company to own and operate the club. You can even include the word 'club' in the name of your company, but that is not 'the football club' that the company owns and operates.
      As LNS pointed out, "It is the club that plays in the league, not the owners". That's why he said, at the outset of the hearings when advising the newco owners to attend, 'football sanctions' are placed on 'the football club' for any breaches. They are NOT placed on the owners. Pointing out, yet again, that Rangers Football Club was not The Rangers Football Club PLC or The Rangers International Football Club PLC.
      These two companies were past and present owners of the football club but they were not and are not, the football club. One entity plays in the league (Rangers Football Club) the other 'legal entity', the owner (The Rangers Football Club PLC or The Rangers International Football Club PLC) did not, and do not, play in the league.

      Delete
  44. The thing these immigrants fail to understand & accept is that whyte & his cronies had only one intention for our club.
    While we can't deny what they did these supporters of other clubs fail to understand
    that the players & supporters as well as the club in general suffered as a result of these crooks who may eventually end up in bar- l.
    There has also no mention of the real victims in all this, the people who lost their jobs after years of service. Also the monies rangers lost in share issues, transfer fees, possible fortunes from European competition, merchandise sales I could go on & on.
    So before they come on talking shite
    about new club & debts etc they should remember to take this all into consideration.
    I truly wonder if Celtic had been unfortunate
    to suffer the same fate in the future would they still share the same view. Especially if it meant their big cup went as part of their history.I think not.If the courts decide that
    the club was bought fraudently does that
    then mean that all lost revenue & punishments be overturned, including the possibility of adding to our already impressive haul of 54 titles.
    I guess not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its a strange allegation. Immigrants. How does one immigrate from one part of the UK to another part of the UK. Most of the so called immigrants you refer to came here before Ireland left the UK. And again your wrong. Everybody understands the suffering the players and supporters have suffered. Not only at the hands of Whyte. But prior to Whyte was Murray who created the dire state Rangers found itself in. There might be a case that Murray knew exactly what he was doing when he sold club to WHYTE for a pound. Could easily have sold club to new club legend KING for a pound. But then again maybe that was always part of the long term plan for the club. Find a patsy. Make such a mess that everybody forgets who the real villains are. But thats all conjecture without proof. I feel deeply sad that Rangers fans got raw deal by trusting Murray Whyte Green and King. Lost out on lot of rich powerful investors through shenanigans of one sort or another. Your claims of lost revenues are not valid. Club was killed by the aforementioned crooks and then plundered by the others while promising lots of non existent (so far) investments. Club died on these guys watch. Hardly anybody else fault that Rangers lost potential revenues when the money men in charge of Rangers were filling their own pockets. If Celtic go bust or another team through poor stewardship egged on by the supporters then the history would be frozen in time with the club should it liquidate. History doest go up in smoke. Its history. But personally I don't think History is transferable to a new club/company. History belongs to the creators of the history. And shafting creditors without their permission means a club ends even if you buys the assets to form a new similar club. But thats debatable. Does history belong in intangible assets intertwined with Club intellectual property. Thats for more experienced law men to decide. New Rangers are a good team. Old Rangers were the best team that Scotland ever produced. But high risk stewardship took over when it became plc under Murray. High risk won 9 in a row and nearly won the champions league. But when the high risk got caught by market shock in 2008 leaving RFC with massive debts that Murray could no longer pay, it left RFC in a dangerous place which resulted in the debacle of 2012 onwards.I didn't come here to troll people or get one upmanship. I came here to debate the blog post. It claimed Rangers are same club and its beyond a joke that other people should sing songs that suggest they are not. SO I came here to put forward to reason why people sing thiose songs and believe them to be true. Its not about giruy. What happened to Rangers can and possibly will happen to other teams including Celtic Aberdeen and the rest. But when it happens to them they one be the same club either. Peace. I genuinely hope things improve for all the people who love Rangers for football. The name callers don't interest me. The Real Rangers footballing fans do. They are among the most generous kind hearted and proud people I ever met. Like Celtic they have their fair share of twats. But thats life. Cannot define a club by its twats alone. Lot of world class players played for Rangers. And i met many of them and the were all true gentlemen on and off the park. RIP Colin Jackson my old pal.

      Delete
    2. Sanctimonious sh!te. Don't come on here spewing your rubbish. You are a transparent Parkdeid fu@kwit. Off you go, back to the piggery sonny. No wandering off the mhankies reservation is allowed. Not even after your yearly 'hosing down'.
      P!ssing all over each other doesn't count as a wash.

      Delete
  45. They come on here posting all things rangers
    while forgetting to mention they themselves
    were half an hour away from existence.
    The only difference between the two clubs
    is this Mc' Can came to save the club while
    whyte cane to strip it.And before they critisise
    our club regarding dodgy deals they ought to look closer to home.we all know about their
    Secret deals with Glasgow celik council regards land & the infamous failure to grant rangers planning permission for casinos , hotels&regeneration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If your allegations are true then thats heinous. It shows the whole thing is corrupt beyond repair. Its not about slagging or having the moral superiority. Its about whether the club is legally the same club. Thats the debate of this blog page.

      Delete
    2. The question should have been how the
      f*** were they allowed to do it despite repeated warnings.This has never happened to any other club in history where they were powerless to stop it
      without any help from football authorities nationally or internationally.
      although I don't think Fifa were in a position to protect anybody.

      Delete
  46. They have some brass neck that selik mob !
    Were talking about a club that hires private investigators, forces referees to give the game up under person all attack fails to punish players for attending terrorist funerals
    Failure to punish racist chants! But most of all , talking all things rangers financially and at the same time persistently failing to pay the living wage despite boasting about their
    millions. Ironic! Fuck me. It's about time they
    spread the wealth and stop the f***ing smell.
    LOL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And remember the gers are world class and hold all the world records ... ie titles and all that old boy and even disasters .. beat that fenien bassas.

      Delete
  47. Ok lets get this straight for all the delusional dummies who think Rangers died. Rangers the club are a concept. They are part of the imagination of someones dream. They are an intangible asset that cannot physically be touched. They can win trophies and have players playing for them. But they are part of the company of the imaginary concept. Therefore at any point in history. RFC have never had debts or assets. Only the company can have assets and one of these assets is RFC the intangible asset. Now because nobody can see touch smell hear or taste the club and nobody can actually be accountable for the club it lasts forever in the hearts of the people who buy into the concept theory of club. Therefore whatever club plays whatever other club its really one intangible asset v another. Nobody can win because they are both in another dimension. Creditors can be shafted and its not the club at fault. Trophies can be won but thats is part of a concepts history. Its all just make believe. Rangers cannot die. They are the greatest team in history. Companies law doesn't apply to them. Phoenix company law doesn't apply to a club. Its purely something in peoples minds. Aye right thats the best legal defence I ever heard. Funny that defence started in 2012 by vultures who want your money. And its everybody else who is delusional who doesn't buy into this definition of a club. Can you see your delusions yet? Are you still sure its everybody else who is mentally impaired. RFC owe creditors millions of pounds. The club cannot continue as same club by law if creditors have been illegally shafted. A new similar club is permitted with all the intangible assets of the old club. But its a new similar club. Same assets same fans even same directors in certain cases. But its mostly new creditors. Old creditors got stuffed when The vultures pulled a fast one and tried to get everyone else to buy into the imaginary friend theory of club. Rangers fans are fans because the club is real. Not because its a concept that cannot be touched. Thats the same with fans of any club. You want to live in delusion that club is same thats your right. But pointing out your delusion doesn't make the other person as deluded as same club myth protagonists. It just confirms that you want to believe what you want to believe even if it means pretending your club is intangible and forever. Anyway its becoming more and more bizarre the hole your digging. Why don't rangers just ditch all the debts they have now. All contracts they have now. Start another new company and take to mythical inter dimensional club to the new company and keep up the illusion that Third Rangers is real Rangers. Davie cooper was actually an asset of the company that could do business on behalf of an intangible asset. The company can own the intangible asset it can own the right to play davie cooper on behalf of the intangible asset but Davie cooper or any fans that watched him didn't actually participate in the club because the club is a concept owned in the value between market price and capital base. What a weird theory to build your same club forever upon. Can assure you its not legal though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're in another "dimension". The business operation (the club) of the company is an "intangible asset". It is part of the company's "goodwill asset". It has no legal personality. It can be owned, bought and sold.
      An asset is a thing, tangible or intangible. Assets are owned by the company, but they are NOT the company.
      The club is operated by the company (owner/operators). The assets, including the "goodwill asset", that included the club's name, identity and reputation (past record/history) was sold to a new company by the administrators of the old company.
      In insolvency matters, the administrators have immense powers. They have all the powers of the company owners and then some. They can do whatever they deem fit with the company. Not only are they permitted to sell the company as a whole, they can break the actual company up and sell off any part(s) they deem fit, leaving a shell entity to be liquidated. They can also sell off any of the company's assets. Including the business operations of the company.
      The business operation is what the company actually operated. In this case, that was Rangers Football Club.
      All relevant bodies accept these facts. The disappointed haters cannot accept facts. Their hatred has consumed them.
      While all true football fans will be happy that Rangers Football Club continues on, the haters, football haters really, are left to wallow in that hatred.
      They mean nothing to any decent person who loves their football.

      Delete
    2. Your post, unsurprisingly, is just more drivel. Lord Nimmo Smith was the foremost authority in the land on Insolvency Law. These matters are governed by the Insolvency Act.
      The company that owns the club has legal personality. The club does not. It is the business operation of the company. It's what the company does; what it operates. Hence, it is an asset of the company. The administrators sold most of the assets ("including Rangers Football Club" - LNS) to newco.
      The administrators were acting within their, practically unlimited, powers in accordance with the Insolvency Act. All legal.
      You claim that it wasn't. Despite the acceptance of what has happened by all relevant bodies. Including BDO and the creditors who would be filing law suits here there and everywhere, if they thought it was illegal.
      Could you please tell us the section and paragraph, of the Insolvency Act, that prohibited the administrators from acting as they clearly stated they did.
      Also, have you advised Lord Nimmo Smith, Lord Glennie, Charles Flint QC, Nicholas Stewart QC, Uncle Tom Cobley and all, of your knowledge on these matters? I'm sure they'd be glad to hear from you. What about the creditors? Are they banging on your door seeking your advice? Surely, they must be, so you can consider my questions to be in the rhetorical category.

      Delete
    3. You state in the insolvency act where it supports your theory that an incorporated club can avoid paying its creditors during administration and then dissolve the incorporated company sell the unincorporated club to become incorporated again in a new company but as the same club. http://smallbusiness.chron.com/would-club-become-incorporated-3937.html

      Delete
    4. I dont disagree that administrators have immense powers. Never once said they don't. But your argument lies in the nonsense that a club is an intangible asset. The club becomes the company on incorporation. Read RFC 1872 articles of association. Its plain to read. Easy to understand. Nimbi Smith didn't ever say the club and the company are legally distinct. You put words in his mouth. He dd however say that legally the club is the company and that not in dispute. In a footballing sense he believes the club is for matters of sport more or less the same thing. But legally the club is company. Google it. Any site on incorporating club ad why it would be done. Still you insist on passing off unchecked Talmudic gobbledegook from the Vultures who want to fill your head with warp nonsense. Of course administrators have immense powers they can strip the club to pieces and they did. And left the dead carcass of the club on BDOs table. And a new club/comapny began with assets of the old club. This nonsense about not being able to incorporate a club is just that. One site legal book or website that explains why a club cannot be incorporated. I don't care either way. My whole point is the blog insists that Rangers are same club. I have given umpteen examples including taking Nimmo Smiths words in context. But still you say I'm delusional. I don't gain anything or lose anything if its same club. But i have no agenda other than to object the blogs assertions. If you clim the blog is quite correct then you deliver your source for the intangible club in law.

      Delete
    5. None of the QCs you mentioned ever said that a club cannot be an incorporated body ever. Thats you implying they have. Also the administrators never once mentioned that the club is not an incorporated body. Do you just imply quotes that people might have said or you interpreted as what they said. I notice you say everything i write is drivel yet I have given you many sources if you read them. All your sources confirm that a club is the company when it becomes incorporated. What becomes incorporated if its not the club. The reasons for incorporating a club are numerous as i have stated many times and can be found in any book on business law that actually covers the law. Also on millions of websites. Still haven't found one website that claims a club cannot be incorporated and is an intangible asset of a company that became incorporated to hold a club. But what became incorpororated in your dream concept of club? Obviously the club became incorporated that why it states in all incorporated clubs that the club is the company except RIFC. 2012. The club is all the assets and liabilities thats why players play for the jersey. That why fans pay for season tickets. its not to support a dream entity that cannot be seen. You keep repeating your nonsense without an kind of back up. Refer me to where it states anything you have claimed and ill read it unless its from the vultures who bought the assets of dead club. Nimmo Smith didn't say it. He clearly says legally club is the company,. read his report. No-one ever said club is not legally the company except you. SO I assume you haven't read your own sources properly just like you don't read what i write properly. You read what you want to read then quote what others never ever said. And then say its not you its me. Its hilarious. Scottish football is on its knees primarily because Rangers died. Its a legal fact the club died in 2012. Read the laws on incorporating clubs. plenty to be found on the internet. Not sure if links can be attached but if they can i attached first site on small business incorporation including clubs. All clubs are businesses. Why you insist without sources that you read the law different I cannot be sure. So rather than me show you what you can read in any good business book that can be trusted. You show me the source of your intangible club theory. deal.

      Delete
    6. Nowhere does LNS say that the club is the company, legally or otherwise. On the contrary he states repeatedly that the company is the owner or operator of the club.
      He states "each of the 12 members of the SPL owns and operates an association football club". "The club owned by oldco (the company) played in the league between 1998 and 2012". So the company is the owner/operator of the club. It is not the club. Further statements by LNS showing that the company is the owner/operator of the club and therefore separate: -

      Page 4 “On the 14th of June 2012 a newly incorporated company, Sevco Scotland Ltd., purchased substantially all the business and assets of Oldco, INCLUDING RANGERS FC”
      Page 4 “*Newco+ BECAME THE OPERATOR OF RANGERS FC within the Third Division of The Scottish Football League”
      Page 5 “Newco as the current owners and operators of RANGERS FC”
      Page 6 “Rangers FC was liable to sanctions as provided by the Rules in event of a breach WHILE (RANGERS FC) WAS OWNED AND OPERATED BY OLDCO”
      Page 6 “...capable of affecting Rangers FC AS A CONTINUING ENTITY now owned and operated byNewco”
      Page 32 “Rangers FC is of course OWNED AND OPERATED BY NEWCO”
      Page 33 “...does not affect Rangers FC as a club UNDER ITS NEW OWNERSHIP”

      LNS goes on: -

      "In legal terms, it (a club) appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold."

      "This is not to say that a Club has legal personality....We are satisfied that it does not"
      The old company acquired the legal debts, not the club. So legal debts remain with oldco.
      Football breaches/sanctions (unlike debt) are put on the club. So they follow the club if it is transferred to a new owner. Regardless of when the breach, if any, was made.
      This of course, could not have happened if Rangers was a new club. If football rules are breached then football sanctions on a club follow the club. Sanctions on a club cannot be put on a different club or a new club.

      You will have noted the clear and numerous separations Lord Nimmo Smith, Charles Flint QC and Nicholas Stewart QC made between the company that owns the club and the club itself.
      Especially, “It is the club, not the owner, who plays in the league"
      The company, the owner/operator, doesn't play in the league. It is the club that the company owns that plays in the league.
      "In common speech (plain English) a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator."
      Lord Nimmo Smith, Charles Flint QC and Nicholas Stewart QC.


      What do you know that these esteemed men and so many other professional people do not?
      Will you write to LNS et al, and inform them of their error? Or will you contact the creditors of oldco and BDO about your intimate knowledge of the Insolvency Act that has escaped everyone else's attention?

      LOL






      Delete
  48. It sums this country up when were having debates about rangers identity while the game is on it's death bed. Wise up fellow
    bears do not take the bait ffs.
    They will change their tune next season
    when we turn them over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When Rangers fans start doing reality then maybe the game will come out of its depression.

      Delete
  49. Hearts were close to liquidation in 1907 but new company paid their debt to save club. Middlesborough came close to liquidation. Where in liquidation for the close season but came out due to finding funds to pay creditors. Coventry city Ltd liquidated but the holding company above saved the club. got points deduction and saved club. Leeds were close to liquidation but got the dodgiest ever CVA. Rangers FC went into liquidation couldn't pay creditors. The holding company at time of insolvency event had no funds to cover debts. RFC still dead after 3 and half seasons none came forward to pay creditors and no cva accepted. New club was formed with the assets of RFC the club in liquidation. Via being bought by a new Company first then creating New Rangers day after they played their first ever game. Pretty simple and researchable. But I'm sure you don't do research here. you take the word of the vultures who created the new club. Awesome stuff. Lot of personal opinions flying about very little research into Murray holding company which could have carried the weight of the debts of club had it still been the Holding company. Murray group outlived RFC. Nobody ever paid their debts to date. Therefore sadly all the misquotes of Nimmo Smith or other QCs cannot change the fact Rangers the club which became incorporated in 1899 born as business in 1872 died of massive debt failure in 2012. Not a happy thing to endure but thats the truth of the matter. Now do the research to find out the truth yourselves next time. And stop taking the word of corrupt people as trustworthy. Dont trust me either. But do proper dilligent research before defending position with intangible concepts that aren't lawful. Adieu! To you and you and you. I can't help you find the truth if you refuse to look for it. I have tried to look for your allegations but they don't actually exist. I sometimes wonder if your dreamt them up just like the founding fathers dream concept club that no-one ever saw. Cracker that one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was in the Air Force. I was member of the Air Force. I was NOT the Air Force. The Air Force has planes. The planes are assets of the Air Force. The planes are NOT the Air Force. The Air Force has insignia and the members wear uniforms. These are symbols of the Air Force.
      When I left the Air Force the Airforce did not cease to exist. When a plane is lost, the Air Force goes on. You can members or representatives of the Air Force. You can see the planes belonging to the Air Force flying overhead.
      You can see the representatives and the hardware of the Air Force. You cannot see the Air Force.
      You can see members of a club. You can see representatives of a club. You can see the symbols of a club. You can see a team of players representing a club. You cannot see a club.
      Not unless you have special powers and can "see" intangible things. Is that your claim?

      Are you Phil 3 names? Or are there more idiots like him at Parkhead? When do you think the legal challenge will be made against newco for using the name Rangers Football Club for their business operation?

      Will it be soon? Or shouldn't I hold my breath?

      Delete
    2. I also never once stated that you were RFC either. SO not sure why you refer to you as not the air force?

      Delete
    3. Someone up there said that the club was this or that. can't be bothered checking what exactly. basically they were talking about assets and the team etc was the club.
      What I have been pointing out is that these things are NOT the club. You can see a club's representatives and it's symbols, You can see these things but you cannot see an intangible thing. These things are NOT the club.
      Rightly or wrongly, football club's have taken on a spiritual quality with so many supporters over the years. You could argue perhaps, that a football club resides in the hearts of it's representatives and those who attend weekly to show their devotions.

      Delete
  50. Still not actually reading any factual lawful books mate. Intellectual property is not the club. Its an asset just like plant or land. The club is all the assets collectively not just the title of operations. The air force example is not relevant to the RFC legal position. All you need to do is point out the law of Clubs and where it says a club is not the company once incorporated. Surely that will be easy to point me in direction of your source. Nimmo Smith wasn't talking the law when he made his SPL commission declaration. It was an SPL Tribunal nothing to do with law. He did however state quite clearly that legally the club and the company are the same thing. Government organisations are not clubs. therefore its not the same thing. Intellectual property can be purchased outwith any club for a fair price. In RFCs case it was for less than 1 pound apparently. But maybe thats why a fraud case against the administrators is under way. Havant got a clue what that all about. Did RFC fans get shortchanged. No doubt. Does new RFC feel same to any fan. Probably. Is it legally same. I don't think so. But maybe you have some legal stuff to back up your claim Intellectual property = whole club. And clubs can come out of liquidation by transferring to new companies to avoid paying creditors. Maybe you were a member of the gladiator club in your past life. Its gone now. Not even the second third fourth or fifth gladiator club is still going. One day even the air force will be gone. Not an incorporated club under UK law though. So totally irrellevant to the point of legal weight. One day there will be no more football. Laws on clubs are very easy to find online. Try reading one. And thanks for reminding me Im an idiot so often. Still legally correct even though Im an idiot. And no Im not Phil 3 names. I came hear to try and learn what all the fuss was about. Whats so bad about being anew club anyway? might look same but legally its not. But just as much fun to be had watching the team. Do you resort to name calling often? peace and kindness on you and your family friends and new club.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You keep banging on in error. The ame nonsense repeated ad nauseam will not make it true.
      The company is an legal entity that owns assets. Tangible and intangible. These assets are NOT the company, never mind the club. The club has no legal personality. It has no assets. It IS an asset. An intangible asset, Rangers are legally and emotionally the same club.
      Rangers will remain the same club legally. Anyone who wants to challenge that can make an application to the courts. They can try to convince the court that newco has committed a criminal and civil offence by presenting the club they operate as being the same club that oldco operated.
      Proving that newco has presented Rangers as the same club will be easy. BDO and the creditors, London Stock Exchange and shareholders and so, so, many more will back you on that front. Newco will totally agree with you that they have indeed done that.
      Your difficulty will come when you try to convince the court they have done that illegally.
      So get into your law books son. Lodge a challenge. Make yourself a hero.

      There must be thousands like you. Tell them what the law is and they will pile in. Besides, what's to lose? Except, your court costs, and newco's as well of course. Good luck hot-shot. I won't hold my breath.

      Signed,

      Your Daddy.

      LOL

      Delete
    2. Your jumping to more conclusions. Your quoting nothing that backs up your story. Im no hot shot. You take comments made as opinions and then use them as some sort of legal defence. You claim that i have an agenda against Rangers. I have not. The blog proposes that other teams are being offensive in suggesting that Rangers are not the same club. You have an agenda. You twist dream scenarios and propose them as law. You claim company is not club in law and make no source for your claim. Just add more conjecture. I therefore put it to you that perhaps you are reading what you want to suit an agenda that you want to be the case. You miss quote Nimmo Smith and other QCs talking in a non legal context. And refuse to accept any legal suggestion that is contradictory to your agenda.

      Delete
    3. I won't be pursuing anything in law. Im just putting up the defence for the case that singing your not Rangers anymore is supported by the companies act, insolvency act and the fact that creditors got stuffed. No hot shot requirements. I personally don't have any problem with Rangers being a new club. But for some reason you have a problem with people who believe the legal case for Rangers being a new club. You claim that club is not company. Which i cannot read freely in any law books. You make a claim that intellectual property pertaining to the name of Rangers and its logos for playing purposes is the club. I disagree and it would seem from previous other liquidation cases that have been quoted in this blog that the Rangers case is quite different in law. All other cases where a club was in liquidation came out of liquidation to save the club or save the club just before liquidation proceeding were began by paying creditors. Creditors are a major stakeholder in any club/business/comapny. The assets and liabilities define the club/business/comapny in law. Refusing or being unable to pay creditors puts club/business/comapny in liquidation. Transferring assets from a club/business/company that cannot pay creditors to a new club/business/company including intellectual property assets does not transfer the club as a whole it transfer the assets, the building blocks of a club/asset/company which allow the club/business/company to grow. This notion of same club different company is unlawful. I repeat the same thing over as nauseum because it seems that you don't actually read it unless it is repeated. The incorporation of a club makes the club a legal entity in its own right. The naming rights logo and other intellectual property are important parts of a club. But if another company buys those assets without the liabilities which helped build those assets it has by law created a brand new club/company/business albeit with the assets of old club. Its allowed to trade in law as anew club/company/business. But if it wants to be the old business/club that created all the history it must take responsibility for the creditors who helped to grow the old club/business or at least agree a settlement with them in form of a CVA. This did not happen. Assets were transferred. Perhaps illegally. So it might be in Rangers favour if they are found guilty of felony or fraud in acquiring old club assets for new company. And the assets may be transferred back to liquidated club, to find new byers at a more appropriate price and restart old rangers with old board and see if they can pay off creditors to prevent another new club from acquiring the assets. I suspect even if that happened the license for football would be revoked and old rangers or new new rangers would be forced to start again from scratch at bottom of the 4th tier. If old rangers creditors get paid or settle favourably with old rangers then old rangers would become the same club it always had been albeit with a 4+year gap in its history but its honours would be claimed being old club saved. But if creditors don't get paid then old rangers club will remain in liquidation and nice be gone forever except in history books. A bit like Third Lanark. Anyway you continue reading what you want to read and taking snippets of info out of context and keep on believing that Rangers are immortal since being dreamed into existence. Ill do reality. And while the law is quite clear on the matter if you look for it. You keep on dreaming up scenarios that arentbacked by law.

      Delete
    4. Again you say things which have never happened. BDO creditors and london stock exchange have never once claimed Rangers are same club. Only people who claim this are football fans in a non legal context. You somehow can't see the difference between law and what you want to believe a club is defined as by law. SFA SPL and EUFA all have different positions on what a club is for their purposes. The law has a completely different definition of club. You quote SPL definition of a club as if its law. You read SPL rules as defining the legal position of the UK law. Under UK law Rangers are anew club. SPL don't argue with the law. But for their sporting purposes they have their own rules which they have concluded means NEWco Same Club. Should this be challenged in a court of law at some point then SPL might need to update their definition to suit the law due to confusing people to believe its the law. But thats for someone else to take up the case. In footballing terms Club=company under law and UEFA rules. Club does not equal company in SPL rules. But for legal purposes should it be challenged and the law remains as it stands right at this minute then Rangers FC club incorporated 1899 became a legal entity by law Rangers FC Ltd the company and the club. You refuse to read your old clubs legal position in its own articles of association and memorandum. It says in black and white club is company from 1899 onwards. Club and company liquidated in 2012. No-one has ever legally disputed that. Some have made emotional opinions that its same club after 2012 debacle. But never in any legal sense has anyone claimed its same club.

      Thanks for reading Daddy

      Delete
  51. Lets take the case of Airdrieonians v Clydebank. Airdrie went burst. A new company bought assets belonging to Clydebank FC and created Airdrie Utd. In Your dream world scenario who is the Team Airdrieonians? Are they New club Airdrie Utd. Old Club Clydebank FC (albeit just changed their name to Airdrie Utd) Or are they Airdrieonians as they call themselves since Rangers went burst and claim to be still Rangers? Whose history do New Airdrieonians have? Is it combo of both old clubs? Or whichever club they want to be, since its all just intangibles anyway? You keep digging more and more holes with your incorruptible history suggestions.

    To prove your theory only requires one thing a source for your claim that a club is not the company when it incorporates. Stock exchanges accept companies since Rangers is anew Company with high risk they were admitted to the high risk AIM Market. They couldn't retain a Nomad under King. Therefore they were booted off the AIM and currently have private ltd status until they can get resisted on AIM or even riskier market trading scheme. Old Rangers were a high grade PLC and had access to the real FTSE stock exchange for companies that have certain level of protection for investors. If any stock exchange accepts new company onto their market they must therefore be complying with companies act. Therefore incarnation of club gives club legal identity as a legal person who can bind contracts. Therefore any club accepted onto stock exchange must be the company that is on that stock exchange. Therefore Newco must equal NEWclub in law. Oldco=old club in law. SPL rules don't matter in law unless challenged in UK law. Which might just happen if Creditors get a raw deal from liquidation of OLD club. Once again it seems you have dreamed up notions that Stock exchange accept its same old Rangers. Any sources for this new theory of yours?

    Since your my Daddy and daddy calls me hot shot. Can I call you "The dream Dad?" you quote lots of dreams and pass them off as irrevocable proof that you are correct. I bet your fellow bears are cringing at your defence. Even though they really want you to be correct.



    ReplyDelete

By commenting on this article on Ibroxnoise.co.uk, you confirm you have read and understood the site terms, conditions, and moderation parameters (provided on the home page) of doing so.