The Official Glasgow Rangers Thread
Discussion
Terzo123 said:
In the context of Ninja Lewis's post that doesn't make sense.
NL's point was that Rangers should not have been granted an SFA licence, and should have had to start in the non professional leagues.
Quite clearly that did not happen, so "Guess what, we were" is puzzling.
I apologise if me not understanding the post has upset others enough to start banding about troll nonsense
Sorry I've mis-explained it as I forgot the context NL's point was that Rangers should not have been granted an SFA licence, and should have had to start in the non professional leagues.
Quite clearly that did not happen, so "Guess what, we were" is puzzling.
I apologise if me not understanding the post has upset others enough to start banding about troll nonsense
It does make sense to me - not making any judgement on the validity of the point. You just need to imagine some punctuation...
NL: "Rangers should not have been granted an SFA licence"
SJ: "Guess what, we were" (granted an SFA licence. Why? Because Rangers are important, and only Celtic fans trolling a Rangers thread would suggest otherwise)
simoid said:
Why? Because Rangers are important, and only Celtic fans trolling a Rangers thread would suggest otherwise)
I think the 'importance' of Rangers is a bit nebulous and should have no bearing, if any, on how their future is/was decided. In fact, I would go so far as to say that NO football club or entity should have a overriding importance (either perceived or real) that saves them.I am a Celtic fan and if they had done what Rangers did I would have no problem with them being banished from the leagues, or even existence, if that was the just outcome. It's just another business after all. There's more imprtant things to life and society than football clubs.
Edited by Ferg on Wednesday 10th October 16:48
JuniorD said:
simoid said:
Why? Because Rangers are important, and only Celtic fans trolling a Rangers thread would suggest otherwise)
I think the 'importance' of Rangers is a bit nebulous and should have no bearing, if any, on how their future is/was decided. In fact, I would go so far as to say that NO football club or entity should have a overriding importance (either perceived or real) that saves them.I am a Celtic fan and if they had done what Rangers did I would have no problem with them being banished from the leagues, or even existence, if that was the just outcome. It's just another business after all. There's more imprtant things to life and society than football clubs.
JuniorD said:
simoid said:
Why? Because Rangers are important, and only Celtic fans trolling a Rangers thread would suggest otherwise)
I think the 'importance' of Rangers is a bit nebulous and should have no bearing, if any, on how their future is/was decided. In fact, I would go so far as to say that NO football club or entity should have a overriding importance (either perceived or real) that saves them.I am a Celtic fan and if they had done what Rangers did I would have no problem with them being banished from the leagues, or even existence, if that was the just outcome. It's just another business after all. There's more imprtant things to life and society than football clubs.
Edited by Ferg on Wednesday 10th October 16:48
JuniorD said:
I am a Celtic fan and if they had done what Rangers did I would have no problem with them being banished from the leagues, or even existence, if that was the just outcome.
that's the point, it wouldn't be a just outcomefor any business, ban a company, ban the directors, make sure none of the same management is in charge, but it's pointless trying to punish a name or a brand
Hugo a Gogo said:
that's the point, it wouldn't be a just outcome
for any business, ban a company, ban the directors, make sure none of the same management is in charge, but it's pointless trying to punish a name or a brand
To be blunt, that's absolute rubbish.for any business, ban a company, ban the directors, make sure none of the same management is in charge, but it's pointless trying to punish a name or a brand
It happens all the time in the business world. Large names and brands go out of business all the time. Especially companies that are liquidated.
Just because some people may have an emotional attachment to a brand doesn't change this. Pan Am for example
Terzo123 said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
that's the point, it wouldn't be a just outcome
for any business, ban a company, ban the directors, make sure none of the same management is in charge, but it's pointless trying to punish a name or a brand
To be blunt, that's absolute rubbish.for any business, ban a company, ban the directors, make sure none of the same management is in charge, but it's pointless trying to punish a name or a brand
It happens all the time in the business world. Large names and brands go out of business all the time. Especially companies that are liquidated.
Just because some people may have an emotional attachment to a brand doesn't change this. Pan Am for example
Pan Am is a good example
they went bankrupt, if TWA or Delta had gone ahead with a buyout, it would have started off as before, same routes, same logo, same livery, and there would be absolutely nothing stopping this new company trading as "Pan Am Newco" from continuing to operate the same routes, in fact a 2nd Pan Am company did just that, then they also went bust, and a THIRD Pan Am company continued (it went bust too!)
Hugo a Gogo said:
businesses do go out of business all the time, and no-one chases the brand name for punishment for what the previous company did
Pan Am is a good example
they went bankrupt, if TWA or Delta had gone ahead with a buyout, it would have started off as before, same routes, same logo, same livery, and there would be absolutely nothing stopping this new company trading as "Pan Am Newco" from continuing to operate the same routes, in fact a 2nd Pan Am company did just that, then they also went bust, and a THIRD Pan Am company continued (it went bust too!)
A direct quotePan Am is a good example
they went bankrupt, if TWA or Delta had gone ahead with a buyout, it would have started off as before, same routes, same logo, same livery, and there would be absolutely nothing stopping this new company trading as "Pan Am Newco" from continuing to operate the same routes, in fact a 2nd Pan Am company did just that, then they also went bust, and a THIRD Pan Am company continued (it went bust too!)
Pan Am brand has been resurrected six times after 1991, but the reincarnations were related to the original Pan Am in name only.
simoid said:
That a direct quote from Lord Nimmo Smith?
Sadly the media in the west coast of Scotland, along with other people of influence are unable to talk directly about this subject, due to the obvious threat and threats that have been made. I think we're up to 25 journalist now who have been threatened. Instead they have to appease and massage. Sad but true.JuniorD said:
Things are tight in the Terzo household, so i'll only be enquiring about half a million quids worth tonight when it opens Does the transfer window shut on Saturday 31st August or Monday 2nd September next year?
Genuine question, I remember it being delayed for a bank holiday or something a couple of years ago.
Anyway Rangers will be able to sign free agents in less than a year so talk of "2 years' time" is slightly inaccurate.
Genuine question, I remember it being delayed for a bank holiday or something a couple of years ago.
Anyway Rangers will be able to sign free agents in less than a year so talk of "2 years' time" is slightly inaccurate.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff