The Official Glasgow Rangers Thread
Discussion
xjsdriver said:
No, just lots of us pointing out simple facts which most of you, as has been pointed out by others - have been staggeringly and willfully ignored. Facts are facts, you simply have to accept them.
So why do UEFA, FIFA, the SPFL, and a supreme court judge disagree with your 'facts'?In fact don't bother answering, you're a Yes/SNP man so it's not like we're going to get any sense out of you.
technodup said:
So why do UEFA, FIFA, the SPFL, and a supreme court judge disagree with your 'facts'?
In fact don't bother answering, you're a Yes/SNP man so it's not like we're going to get any sense out of you.
Every single Rangers fan knew what liquidation meant before it happened. Look at all the campaigns the fans had prior to liquidation. They were absolutely desperate to avoid liquidation and for the CVA to be pushed through as they knew the difference. In fact don't bother answering, you're a Yes/SNP man so it's not like we're going to get any sense out of you.
Now there is this pretence that liquidation means nothing, or simply didn't happen.
However like you posted earlier, they intentionally keep missing out the words liquidation and keep using administration.
Likewise they keep saying relegated rather than applying to join the league as a new club.
There has been numerous comments by loads of people if it's a new club or not. Many of the comments have been taken completely out of context, or made by people who don't understand football.
All the restrictions placed on Rangers were that of a new club. Applying for a position in the league, not allowed to qualify for European football for number of years.
Lord Nimmo had some bizarre opinions of football. The EBTs opinion was very, very odd.
He deemed Rangers had broken the rules by using EBTs and fined Rangers for that. However he didn't strip titles as he ruled that using EBTs didn't gain them a sporting advantage.
How do you even begin to justify that stupidity?
So Rangers manage to attract better players by paying them more money than other teams could by breaking rules, yet breaking the rules to get better players doesn't give a sporting advantage.
You can't justify that in any way shape or form.
Various people have different opinions on the matter and will pick the one that suits them.
In the real world, I'd say the vast majority of people know what liquidation really means.
[quote=Driver101]
Every single Rangers fan knew what liquidation meant before it happened. Look at all the campaigns the fans had prior to liquidation. They were absolutely desperate to avoid liquidation and for the CVA to be pushed through as they knew the difference.
Now there is this pretence that liquidation means nothing, or simply didn't happen.
However like you posted earlier, they intentionally keep missing out the words liquidation and keep using administration.
Likewise they keep saying relegated rather than applying to join the league as a new club.
There has been numerous comments by loads of people if it's a new club or not. Many of the comments have been taken completely out of context, or made by people who don't understand football.
All the restrictions placed on Rangers were that of a new club. Applying for a position in the league, not allowed to qualify for European football for number of years.
Lord Nimmo had some bizarre opinions of football. The EBTs opinion was very, very odd.
He deemed Rangers had broken the rules by using EBTs and fined Rangers for that. However he didn't strip titles as he ruled that using EBTs didn't gain them a sporting advantage.
How do you even begin to justify that stupidity?
So Rangers manage to attract better players by paying them more money than other teams could by breaking rules, yet breaking the rules to get better players doesn't give a sporting advantage.
You can't justify that in any way shape or form.
Various people have different opinions on the matter and will pick the one that suits them.
In the real world, I'd say the vast majority of people know what liquidation really means.
Absolutely this ^^^^^^^
Every single Rangers fan knew what liquidation meant before it happened. Look at all the campaigns the fans had prior to liquidation. They were absolutely desperate to avoid liquidation and for the CVA to be pushed through as they knew the difference.
Now there is this pretence that liquidation means nothing, or simply didn't happen.
However like you posted earlier, they intentionally keep missing out the words liquidation and keep using administration.
Likewise they keep saying relegated rather than applying to join the league as a new club.
There has been numerous comments by loads of people if it's a new club or not. Many of the comments have been taken completely out of context, or made by people who don't understand football.
All the restrictions placed on Rangers were that of a new club. Applying for a position in the league, not allowed to qualify for European football for number of years.
Lord Nimmo had some bizarre opinions of football. The EBTs opinion was very, very odd.
He deemed Rangers had broken the rules by using EBTs and fined Rangers for that. However he didn't strip titles as he ruled that using EBTs didn't gain them a sporting advantage.
How do you even begin to justify that stupidity?
So Rangers manage to attract better players by paying them more money than other teams could by breaking rules, yet breaking the rules to get better players doesn't give a sporting advantage.
You can't justify that in any way shape or form.
Various people have different opinions on the matter and will pick the one that suits them.
In the real world, I'd say the vast majority of people know what liquidation really means.
Absolutely this ^^^^^^^
Driver101 said:
However like you posted earlier, they intentionally keep missing out the words liquidation and keep using administration.
I used administration in relation to Motherwell. Not Rangers. Facts?Driver101 said:
You can't justify that in any way shape or form.
In the real world, I'd say the vast majority of people know what liquidation really means.
Well a supreme court judge did justify it so forgive me for not caring what you think.In the real world, I'd say the vast majority of people know what liquidation really means.
AIUI, IANAL and I've not followed every twist and turn to the nth degree as you seemingly have (strange in itself when it's not your club- I don't remember giving Motherwell or Dundee or Hearts much thought in administration), it boils down to club and company. The company is gone but the club remains.
The club is more than the business. The club is the fans, the history, the titles. And we are still going strong.
And it's good to see that the rest of you are going to be hurting for a good while yet.
technodup said:
Driver101 said:
However like you posted earlier, they intentionally keep missing out the words liquidation and keep using administration.
I used administration in relation to Motherwell. Not Rangers. Facts?Driver101 said:
You can't justify that in any way shape or form.
In the real world, I'd say the vast majority of people know what liquidation really means.
Well a supreme court judge did justify it so forgive me for not caring what you think.In the real world, I'd say the vast majority of people know what liquidation really means.
AIUI, IANAL and I've not followed every twist and turn to the nth degree as you seemingly have (strange in itself when it's not your club- I don't remember giving Motherwell or Dundee or Hearts much thought in administration), it boils down to club and company. The company is gone but the club remains.
The club is more than the business. The club is the fans, the history, the titles. And we are still going strong.
And it's good to see that the rest of you are going to be hurting for a good while yet.
Yes you did mention Motherwell about administration and relegation. However at the time you were comparing Rangers to Motherwell and said they had been in administration themselves, as if they were equally as bad. "Throwing stones in glass houses" was the comment when their situation wasn't anywhere near the same Rangers. However you were directly comparing apples to oranges.
A football club is nothing without a business. Without a business it doesn't exist. Never before Rangers were liquidated have I ever heard any fan ever try to distinguish the difference between a club and a company.
You keep going on about how Rangers are the most successful club in the world. There is actually teams who have won more trophies, but I'd guess they don't count as they aren't professionals?
What's the main difference between an amateur club and a professional one?
Yes you've guessed it, A company.
If club and company are seperate, why did the club lose its registration to the football league, and require to apply for a new one, if it was only the business that collapsed?
You can't selectively choose the benefits of being a professional club, then ignore the other side of the coin.
Are you a shareholder? Have you ever heard anyone saying I've got shares in the business? Neither have I. Anyone that has a share always talks about having shares in the club. How does this defining line work in some circumstances, but not others?
Have you ever disagreed with a high court judge's opinion? Are they always right? As I explained above, he was unarguably wrong with his understand of how more money gets you better players, but doesn't give a sporting advantage. I'm sure we all know his opinion isn't right there. Do we just selectively accept some of the things he says as wrong, yet believe the bits that we want to?
Your very own Donald Findlay QC,with all his legal knowledge, has previously said it isn't the same club.
Liquidation has been made out to be meaningless in the at few years.
Granted you sit in the stadium, have the same beliefs and do most of the same stuff. However all that was purchased from the ashes of liquidation.
You can't claim to be the same in some senses, yet without the responsibilities of the other side. They all go hand in hand.
So many rules were broken to allow Rangers to enter the league a few years ago. If they weren't allowed in they wouldn't exist in any form now.
The biggest issue I've got in Rangers fans keep going on about how they are harshly treated and everyone is against them. The truth is the rules have been bent and broken time and time again to save and support them.
Allowing Dave King to pass the fit and proper test, even though he's been convicted of many counts of fraud and was due to be jailed for the rest of his life, and the fact he was involved with the old club, were two reasons that the rules said he shouldn't be anywhere near the football league. However as Rangers were on the brink of going down, more rules broken in an attempt to save them.
I've no idea why Rangers fans are always looking to harm other clubs and Scottish football. That's my real gripe. Boycotting business and services as they are connected to other clubs is just bitter and childish.
Rangers need the cash more than any club. Rather than being a destructive force in Scottish football, I'd like to see the club actually make an effort to join in and try to be part of Scottish football.
However it does always seem the fans want to alienate themselves with their barbaric behaviour. In their circumstances I'd have assumed keeping a low profile and their mouths closed would be the safest way forward.
However we still see all these boastful and crass comments. It's just too easy to put them back in their box with all the ammunition available.
Driver101 said:
Firstly I'm not hurting.
Your 20 paragraph essay says otherwise.Carry on if you like. Or get over it. Either way none of the Rangers fans on here or anywhere else care.
The crest, the stadium, the titles, the history. Unchanged. No surrender.
(Notice how I never ask what team you or the others support? It's because I have no interest. You should try it
).technodup said:
our 20 paragraph essay says otherwise.
Carry on if you like. Or get over it. Either way none of the Rangers fans on here or anywhere else care.
The crest, the stadium, the titles, the history. Unchanged. No surrender.
(Notice how I never ask what team you or the others support? It's because I have no interest. You should try it ).
I'm not bothered about it. I will correct people like yourself though. I wouldn't have responded half the time in this thread if people didn't keep quoting me and saying factually incorrect things. Carry on if you like. Or get over it. Either way none of the Rangers fans on here or anywhere else care.
The crest, the stadium, the titles, the history. Unchanged. No surrender.
(Notice how I never ask what team you or the others support? It's because I have no interest. You should try it
).Each time you do correct one, the responses are either obsessed, deflection or insults. It's clear who it bothers and clear they don't have a valid argument in return.
As I said, everyone knew what liquidation meant prior to liquidation. You can't change the tune afterwards to suit.
History will always remain on the history. Nobody disputes that fact at all.
The stadium and crest are purely assets. Anyone could have bought them a few years ago and used them as they wished.
Mike Ashley is the current owner of the crest.
He secured the rights to the crest as part of the last pawn deal. A deal that Rangers are trying to avoid paying back.
Again, if you wish to claim something as your own, it really needs to be paid for.
Mike Ashley has said he wants his money back and he will relinquish the trademarks. However Rangers don't seem to value the crest enough.
Edited by Driver101 on Saturday 20th June 11:13
technodup said:
Driver101 said:
Firstly I'm not hurting.
Your 20 paragraph essay says otherwise.Carry on if you like. Or get over it. Either way none of the Rangers fans on here or anywhere else care.
The crest, the stadium, the titles, the history. Unchanged. No surrender.
(Notice how I never ask what team you or the others support? It's because I have no interest. You should try it
).Don't make a fool of yourself!
The surrender happened in the biggest form possible when Rangers were liquidated!!!
P.S. if it's the same club how much did the original shareholders get for their shares or were they given new shares pro-rata?
I suppose that means you're carrying on. Fill your boots.
I would ask given that Rangers no longer exist bla bla why so many of the unwashed are so obsessed about the minutiae of the legal situation, but I don't expect a reasoned answer.
Is it maybe because to all intents and purposes outside the courtroom and boardroom we are the same as we ever were?
I would ask given that Rangers no longer exist bla bla why so many of the unwashed are so obsessed about the minutiae of the legal situation, but I don't expect a reasoned answer.
Is it maybe because to all intents and purposes outside the courtroom and boardroom we are the same as we ever were?
technodup said:
I suppose that means you're carrying on. Fill your boots.
I would ask given that Rangers no longer exist bla bla why so many of the unwashed are so obsessed about the minutiae of the legal situation, but I don't expect a reasoned answer.
Is it maybe because to all intents and purposes outside the courtroom and boardroom we are the same as we ever were?
And lest we all forget you are the peopleI would ask given that Rangers no longer exist bla bla why so many of the unwashed are so obsessed about the minutiae of the legal situation, but I don't expect a reasoned answer.
Is it maybe because to all intents and purposes outside the courtroom and boardroom we are the same as we ever were?
technodup said:
I suppose that means you're carrying on. Fill your boots.
I would ask given that Rangers no longer exist bla bla why so many of the unwashed are so obsessed about the minutiae of the legal situation, but I don't expect a reasoned answer.
Is it maybe because to all intents and purposes outside the courtroom and boardroom we are the same as we ever were?
Nobody is saying that rangers don't exist it's just that new rangers have had to start again in 2012!I would ask given that Rangers no longer exist bla bla why so many of the unwashed are so obsessed about the minutiae of the legal situation, but I don't expect a reasoned answer.
Is it maybe because to all intents and purposes outside the courtroom and boardroom we are the same as we ever were?
Nobody is denying what pre 2012 rangers achieved even if the titles and cups are tainted due to the fiscal doping that wa going on for years!
rangers walked away from £150 million plus of debt and started with a clean slate and that includes trophies!
technodup said:
I suppose that means you're carrying on. Fill your boots.
I would ask given that Rangers no longer exist bla bla why so many of the unwashed are so obsessed about the minutiae of the legal situation, but I don't expect a reasoned answer.
Is it maybe because to all intents and purposes outside the courtroom and boardroom we are the same as we ever were?
Another example of losing an argument and resorting to insults. I would ask given that Rangers no longer exist bla bla why so many of the unwashed are so obsessed about the minutiae of the legal situation, but I don't expect a reasoned answer.
Is it maybe because to all intents and purposes outside the courtroom and boardroom we are the same as we ever were?
Ever noticed I don't need to lower myself to your levels and resort to childish insults?
The minutiae of the legal situation? If it's so unimportant, why do Rangers fans continously argue their case with vigorous anger?
Beside there in nothing trivial about the details. Liquidation is very serious and final.
The way liquidation has been trivialised as almost meaningless is just unbelievable.
As above, before Rangers were liquidated, every single person and football fan understood the meaning. Only afterwards the smokescreen and irrelevant excuses started.
Remember back when Dave King said liquidation was the way to go and Green said otherwise? Remember Green said liquidation ended the history and everyone agreed with him and were angry with King?
Before they were liquidated they never had to keep telling everyone about their history in every single sentence.
In many ways you are the same. The same supporters turning up, although in far smaller numbers, but still fuelled with bitterness and anger with the thoughts that everyone is against them.
It was a bunch of strangers who bought the assets with no liability and the players were the ones who used employment laws to keep themselves in a job. They were legally allowed to leave the club as there was no ties.
I fully acknowledge the current Rangers as a decendant of the former club. You can't rack up fortunes in debt, fail to pay it, then get liquidated, then pretend all is the same.
Luckily most other clubs do attempt to live within their means.
Rangers would get an easier time if they did show some dignity rather than their usual bravado. They've been shown far more compassion by the football authorities than they should. The rules have been bent time and time again to help them, yet they still play the victim.
Driver101 said:
Another example of losing an argument and resorting to insults.
I'm not arguing anything, far less losing. I've stated the position held by anyone who matters, you disagree and I'm happy to leave it at that or else it would be neverending.It's you who posts 1000 words every time to try and make some point about injustice re the liquidation. Prostate cancer (for example) is an injustice far more worthy of putting time into than wasting it on a Rangers thread on a car forum.
Really, what is the point?
technodup said:
'm not arguing anything, far less losing. I've stated the position held by anyone who matters, you disagree and I'm happy to leave it at that or else it would be neverending.
It's you who posts 1000 words every time to try and make some point about injustice re the liquidation. Prostate cancer (for example) is an injustice far more worthy of putting time into than wasting it on a Rangers thread on a car forum.
Really, what is the point?
Not arguing? I guess you're using another technicality and calling it a difference of opinion, then pretending they are different things? It's you who posts 1000 words every time to try and make some point about injustice re the liquidation. Prostate cancer (for example) is an injustice far more worthy of putting time into than wasting it on a Rangers thread on a car forum.
Really, what is the point?
Throughout this thread when you contest a point, you selectively stick your head in the sand and ignore very valid points when you've lost. Pretending doesn't make things not real.
You have a real issue with accepting facts.
Who matters?
Don't quote extracts taken out of context or printed in papers that you've previous discounted as talking "pish". Or journalists writing press releases on newsfeeds.
Rather than keeping telling me I'm wrong and you're right, try and explain? I know you can't.
What the hell has prostate cancer got to do with posting on the internet? Why don't we stop the internet and all do something more useful? Why don't pull your internet cable and aim for world domination?
Why criticise me for posting, then keep coming back to quote me knowing you'll get a response?
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff