The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Charlie-Brown]

Naismith & Whittaker wouldnt have been able to walk away from their contract if they were the same club their registrations would have remained with Rangers not the SFA and Rangers would have been entitled to compensation & transfer fees which Green tried and failed to achieve because they are NOT the same club the law makes that perfectly clear. BRYCE knows the laws of this land very well. He knows it requires sophistry of the highest order to try to convince people to think differently but the Facts and in the statute books. Rangers now is not the same as Rangers before.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Charlie-Brown

[Lincon Premier]

Bryce, Please read and reply to all points:

 

Sir D Murray owned Rangers football club as part of his Murray International Metals empire. ( right? ) Rangers corporate identity was MiM ( correct? )

 

Murray sold the football club to C White for a ?1 ( right?) 

 

At what point did C White incorporate the football club, and IF he did what was the name of the Corporate identity.

 

There was some wrangling between C White and C Green ( I won't go into that for legal reasons ) However it's common knowledge that Green took over the assets of the football club with a corporate identity of Sevco Scotland ( Right? ) 

 

At the time of Green taking over the assets of the football club, this was the only time a corporate identity was even mentioned ( right? ) 

 

Therefore when C White put the football club into administration and eventually liquidation, there was no corporate identity, and it was the football club that was killed off. The assets are not the club and C Green said so in a court of law. So when C Green started a football club called Rangers international ( the Rangers ) it was an entirely new club that pretended to be the same, to get the supporters to follow it, and give Green his profit on his investment.

Without the gullible fans Green would have bought a pig in a poke.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Lincon Premier

[Jambo-Jimbo]

The law of the land does not recognise them as the same club indeed their very FACT they are in liquidation makes continuation of the club an impossibility. Corrupt SFA shenanigans dont even matter a jot because even allowing for their delusional pretences even they have treated Rangers as the new football club they are in all competitions and under their rules Rangers retained precisely ZERO footballing status because Old Rangers were put in liquidation hence NEW REPLACEMENT RANGERS were creates in 2012.

 

It will be very interesting what the SFA do if or when another club goes to the wall and is liquidated.

 

The rules which the SFA employed for Rangers, have to be also be used for any other club as well.

 

After all the SFA are supposed to govern without fear or favour.

 

I won't be holding my breath tho.

[bryce9a]

Bryce, Please read and reply to all points:

 

1. Sir D Murray owned Rangers football club as part of his Murray International Metals empire. ( right? ) Rangers corporate identity was MiM ( correct? )

 

2. Murray sold the football club to C White for a ?1 ( right?) 

 

3. At what point did C White incorporate the football club, and IF he did what was the name of the Corporate identity.

 

4. There was some wrangling between C White and C Green ( I won't go into that for legal reasons ) However it's common knowledge that Green took over the assets of the football club with a corporate identity of Sevco Scotland ( Right? ) 

 

5. At the time of Green taking over the assets of the football club, this was the only time a corporate identity was even mentioned ( right? ) 

 

6. Therefore when C White put the football club into administration and eventually liquidation, there was no corporate identity, and it was the football club that was killed off. The assets are not the club and C Green said so in a court of law. So when C Green started a football club called Rangers international ( the Rangers ) it was an entirely new club that pretended to be the same, to get the supporters to follow it, and give Green his profit on his investment.

Without the gullible fans Green would have bought a pig in a poke.

 

1. Murray was majority shareholder in the The Rangers Football Club PLC, which - as the RULES define - was the "owner and operator" of the football club Rangers FC. So for all intents and purposes, he was the owner of Rangers.

 

2. He sold his shareholding in the club's former owner and operator, yes.

 

3 and 4. In May 2012, Sevco Scotland Ltd, the new "owner and operator of the club" (those pesky Rules again ) was formed, a few weeks before it acquired the club from its previous "owner and operator".

 

5. Corporate entities, newcos and oldcos, have been mentioned throughout this saga.

 

6. Yet again, you are wrong - the rules distinguish between club (an enterprise comprised of various assets, players, property, branding etc) and the legal entity that owns/operates it.

 

You don't like it? Think the rules should be changed? Contact Ann Budge. Good luck with that

[bryce9a]

2012/2013 cup competition draws and placements tell us everything you need to know from Old Rangers to New Rangers how the SFA & SPFL treated old club / new club in competitions. Rangers were treated as an entirely new entity bottom tier club and their finishing position in the last season of their liquidation counted for nothing...the same club would have been seeded in 2012/2013 Cup Competitions they werent end of story.

 

This is an ol' favourite of mine

 

Rangers entered the Cup in round two in season 2012-13. Here were the rules, for that season, describing who the entry criteria for that stage of the Cup:

 

Round Two The clubs which, in the current season, are members of The Scottish Premier League and those which participate in The Scottish Football League First and Second Division Championships, shall be exempt from playing in Round Two of the Competition. 

 

Now Charlie. Take your time, read it carefully, more than once if required, hell, two or three times. And see if you can figure out why Rangers from SFL3 had to enter at that stage... [cue Countdown-style ticking clock]

 

 

ps. My "contact Ann Budge" comment in the post above is not because she has some unilateral power to change the rules, nobody does - that's the point. 

Football in Scotland is not under the rule of some dictator, it is a democracy, with the member clubs comprising the electorate. 

 

If you personally have a problem with the rules, "owner and operator of the club" etc, then contact your clubs as they are the ones with the power to change them. Despite what that big meanie Neil Doncaster thinks... 

Edited May 8, 2016 by bryce9a

[PeterintheRain]

1. Murray was majority shareholder in the The Rangers Football Club PLC, which - as the RULES define - was the "owner and operator" of the football club Rangers FC. So for all intents and purposes, he was the owner of Rangers.

 

2. He sold his shareholding in the club's former owner and operator, yes.

 

3 and 4. In May 2012, Sevco Scotland Ltd, the new "owner and operator of the club" (those pesky Rules again ) was formed, a few weeks before it acquired the club from its previous "owner and operator".

 

5. Corporate entities, newcos and oldcos, have been mentioned throughout this saga.

 

6. Yet again, you are wrong - the rules distinguish between club (an enterprise comprised of various assets, players, property, branding etc) and the legal entity that owns/operates it.

 

You don't like it? Think the rules should be changed? Contact Ann Budge. Good luck with that

 

 

  Amazingly enough absolutely none of the above is actually true. Apart from point 6.   

 

    Have you ever been to Ipox?  Have you looked at those big metal gates?   What do they say on them?  Rangers Football Club Ltd.   Could you please explain why they do that if Rangers FC were a club and not a company?

 

    On point 6. The rules differentiate between the company which sends out a team of 11 haddies every week and any other company which owns them.  HMFC are a company. We were owned by Waldo he sold out to the Pieman, He sold out to Vlad, we went into administration and were bought by the Budgie.  The company known as HMFC just changed owners.   Not a club a company.  Clubs don't have owners and can never be bought or sold.   they can not be run by companies as they are run by their members or are not a club.  IT'S THE LAW.

 

   Please explain how your pretend CLUB can be a CLUB without actually obeying a single law or rule which would make them so. 

 

     And please answer how there are TWO rangers existing at the same time if they are one and the same indivisible?   How did old rangers have a vote on pretendygers getting into the SPL if they were both the same?

 

Charles Green admitted in court that he bought some assets, not the entire company. He therefore admitted in a court of law that he had been lying just to fool the huns into backing him.  Why are you sticking to his self confessed lie and not accepting what the man says when under threat of perjury?

 

Answer the question or just piss off with the rest of your queen bothering horde.

[bryce9a]

  Amazingly enough absolutely none of the above is actually true. Apart from point 6.   

 

    Have you ever been to Ipox?  Have you looked at those big metal gates?   What do they say on them?  Rangers Football Club Ltd.   Could you please explain why they do that if Rangers FC were a club and not a company?

 

    On point 6. The rules differentiate between the company which sends out a team of 11 haddies every week and any other company which owns them.... 

I'd really recommend you have a read of the Rules my friend, rather than post from sheer, blind ignorance.

 

From the Articles...

 

SHARE CAPITAL

18. Except with the authority of a Qualified Resolution, the issued Share Capital of the Company shall not exceed ?42 divided into 42 Shares.

19. A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by a Trustee or a person who is the owner and operator of a Club.

...

A ?person? includes a natural person, corporate or unincorporated body (whether or not having separate legal personality) and in the case of a natural person that person?s personal representatives and successors.

 

Now look at the list of 42 Shareholders (https://www.endole.co.uk/company/SC175364/the-scottish-professional-football-league-limited?page=ownership):

....

Rangers Football Club Ltd

Aberdeen Football Club Plc

Motherwell Football & Athletic Club Ltd

Celtic Plc

Berwick Rangers Football Club Plc

Ayr United Football & Athletic Club Ltd

Alloa Football & Athletic Club Ltd

Heart Of Midlothian Plc

 

So there it is. A share may only be issued to the "owner and operator of a club", ie. TRFC Ltd, HMFC plc. You're welcome

Edited May 8, 2016 by bryce9a

[Sidsnot]

Brycie,are you saying Rangers were relaunched by SEVCO?

Next you'll be telling us Titanic will be relaunched.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/jul/27/rangers-relaunched-brechin

[Hashimoto]

I like most even minded Hearts fan and for that matter most non Sevco fans believe that the team currently playing in Govan are a reincarnation from a bygone era. However my question is "Why is this Sevco debate discussed, conducted purely at the fan base only whilst our respective clubs continue to remain silent on the matter?" I'm not sure if it's a legal point of order that prevents Hearts, Hibs, Celtic, Aberdeen...etc from joining the debate, but surely some official direction from our clubs, rather than continal silence would help unmuddy the water regarding the Sevco question.       

[marshallschunkychicken]

I'd really recommend you have a read of the Rules my friend, rather than post from sheer, blind ignorance.

 

From the Articles...

 

SHARE CAPITAL

18. Except with the authority of a Qualified Resolution, the issued Share Capital of the Company shall not exceed ?42 divided into 42 Shares.

19. A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by a Trustee or a person who is the owner and operator of a Club.

...

A ?person? includes a natural person, corporate or unincorporated body (whether or not having separate legal personality) and in the case of a natural person that person?s personal representatives and successors.

 

Now look at the list of 42 Shareholders (https://www.endole.co.uk/company/SC175364/the-scottish-professional-football-league-limited?page=ownership):

....

Rangers Football Club Ltd

Aberdeen Football Club Plc

Motherwell Football & Athletic Club Ltd

Celtic Plc

Berwick Rangers Football Club Plc

Ayr United Football & Athletic Club Ltd

Alloa Football & Athletic Club Ltd

Heart Of Midlothian Plc

 

So there it is. A share may only be issued to the "owner and operator of a club", ie. TRFC Ltd, HMFC plc. You're welcome

Click on the link to 'Rangers Football Club Ltd'.

[Justin Z]

Click on the link to 'Rangers Football Club Ltd'.

 

[Pistol1874]

Rangers RIP have never been a member of the SPFL so it's unclear why their rules are being quoted.

Rangers RIP died as members of the SPL, and their share of that organisation transferred to Dundee. Rangers 2012 applied to join the SFL to make up the numbers.

It might also help if Bryce quoted 'the rules' as applied to Rangers.

For example a transfer ban which came into effect after they concluded all of their transfers, the waiving of rules around entry criteria, and the acceptance of punishments levied on Rangers RIP which the agreed then tried to renege on. If nothing else, that showed that the lack of morality had also been bought from Rangers RIP.

The reason that rules have been bent or plain ignored, is the simple perception that Scottish football could not afford to lose that many customers.

It's a real pity, lamentable really, that Scottish football's 'leaders' took such a short term view and a once in a lifetime opportunity was missed.

It really would have been better for Scotland had justice taken its true path.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Pistol1874

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Trying to get back on topic there's a few developments on the legal side that are in the offing

 

1. The publication of the judgement on the Charles Green costs case. In the event that all charges against him are discontinued (no assumptions or knowledge here) there should be no reason not to publish. If you'll remember at one point the lawyer argued a bit about the existence of the ethereal 'club' as a separate entity. The reason for this is they were trying to separate out the time of Green's appointment from the board of Sevco Scotland so that effectively he wouldn't be covered by indemnity until much later on. My guess is that the judge will have totally ignored this aspect of the argument and made the decision purely on the basis of the nature of the charges.

 

2. The Supreme Court should shortly make a judgement as to whether or not to hear the appeal on behalf of Rangers liquidators. This could go either way but only an idiot would assume they'd automatically accept and hear the appeal especially given similar cases on disguised remuneration earlier this year.

[Footballfirst]

Bryce - What is your view on the allegations raised by the Tax Justice Network in the report produced by their offshoot the Offshore Game?

 

Do you have a view on the alleged deceit by the club's employees and the subsequent failures of the SFA as guardians of the game? 

 

Is it your view that some corporate thingy did some naughty business that had nothing to do with the "club"?

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

I like most even minded Hearts fan and for that matter most non Sevco fans believe that the team currently playing in Govan are a reincarnation from a bygone era. However my question is "Why is this Sevco debate discussed, conducted purely at the fan base only whilst our respective clubs continue to remain silent on the matter?" I'm not sure if it's a legal point of order that prevents Hearts, Hibs, Celtic, Aberdeen...etc from joining the debate, but surely some official direction from our clubs, rather than continal silence would help unmuddy the water regarding the Sevco question.       

If you want a reason for the clubs' silence, just look to what happened to the members of the tribunal that found RFC guilty of 'just short of match fixing'! Or Jim Spence when he merely stated that some fans would call them a new club!

 

While there is no doubt that the clubs should make their positions clear, it's easy to imagine what might be preventing anyone from speaking out - unless they support the 'same club' argument, of course, which could be stated publicly totally without risk to life and limb! With that in mind, there can't be very many 'same club' supporters on the boards of our clubs!

 

There is, of course, the distinct possibility they've all been 'advised' by the SFA (perhaps even the police) to say nothing on the matter.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

If you want a reason for the clubs' silence, just look to what happened to the members of the tribunal that found RFC guilty of 'just short of match fixing'! Or Jim Spence when he merely stated that some fans would call them a new club!

 

While there is no doubt that the clubs should make their positions clear, it's easy to imagine what might be preventing anyone from speaking out - unless they support the 'same club' argument, of course, which could be stated publicly totally without risk to life and limb! With that in mind, there can't be very many 'same club' supporters on the boards of our clubs!

 

There is, of course, the distinct possibility they've all been 'advised' by the SFA (perhaps even the police) to say nothing on the matter.

 

You need to look no further than here to see the problem.

 

Threats of revenge to all the clubs who voted against the new club and there still hasn't been an explanation why Mr. Spence needs to be worried, but I think we can all work it out.

[Rick Grimes]

Click on the link to 'Rangers Football Club Ltd'.

 

Hoisted by his own petard.

[Lincon Premier]

Bryce you conveniently ignore the part where C White bought the club for a ?1 and put the club into admin, without ever mentioning or registering a holding company or corporate identity.

 

Show us where C White registers the club with a parent company and name that company.

 

The Football club died and C Green bought the assets. Nothing more.

[...a bit disco]

There's a couple of bluenosed feckers on my facebook.

 

 

 

#GOINGFOR1

[Pistol1874]

There's a couple of bluenosed feckers on my facebook.

 

 

 

#GOINGFOR1

54 titles in 4 years puts even Leicester to shame. What an achievement.

[SUTOL]

Is 55 the number of loan players they are going to have? 

 

 

 

Or, is it the number of court cases?

 

 

 

Or, is it the millions in debt they have? 

[Diadora Van Basten]

Is 55 the number of loan players they are going to have?

 

 

 

Or, is it the number of court cases?

 

 

 

Or, is it the millions in debt they have?

I reckon there debt would be closer to double that.

 

Shameless club.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

Click on the link to 'Rangers Football Club Ltd'.

There's 2 clubs called rangers. Does that mean bryce9a is talking shite?

[TheTeamForMe]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18701146

 

The first sentence kills any argument that Old Rangers and The Rangers are the same thing.

[Unknown user]

Is 55 the number of loan players they are going to have? 

 

 

 

Or, is it the number of court cases?

 

 

 

Or, is it the millions in debt they have? 

Or maybe the amount of forums they plan to scunner with their presence

[hmfc_steve]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18701146

 

The first sentence kills any argument that Old Rangers and The Rangers are the same thing.

 

 

"We owe no loyalty to the new club. There is no history there for us."

 

Naismith, 25, who suffered two long injury lay-offs during his time at Ibrox, echoed those sentiments, saying: "I'd like to think I've given my all for Rangers.

 

"My loyalty is with Rangers, not with Sevco [Green's company name], who I don't know anything about.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18560798

[wibble]

Has there been any discussion online regards the 2 offshore accounts in the Panama Papers, each with Ibrox in their names?

 

[wibble]

"Ibrox Investments" may be connected to Craigy Whyte, as it is connected to a Mark Ellis and he is listed in Monaco. It was Andrew Ellis who introduced Whyte to Murray.

[SUTOL]

"Ibrox Investments" may be connected to Craigy Whyte, as it is connected to a Mark Ellis and he is listed in Monaco. It was Andrew Ellis who introduced Whyte to Murray.

 

 

 

 

Whaur's the deeds? 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

 

 

Whaur's the deeds? 

 

Probably in some offshore account somewhere.

[Footballfirst]

There was an "Ibrox Park Holdings" company connected to Rangers Hong Kong based investors Barry Scott and Andy Ross.

 

There is also mention of this company in a "John James" blog. https://johnjamessite.com/2016/01/03/reverse-engineering/

[Footballfirst]

I will be interested to see how the SPFL and SFA handle this alleged ineligible player incident with Dundee Utd as opposed to the Sandy Bryson interpretation.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/669042/Exclusive-Dundee-United-face-points-deduction-fine-fielding-ineligible-player-News-Gossip

[B.S.]

if i was a bitter club owner I would deliberately play players that weren't registered properly and use the rangers scenario as my defence. United are relegated anyway so why not go out with a bang and embarras the SFA at the same time

[DETTY29]

Apparently some twitterati that Res 12 and the TNW Repirts have been filed with Uefa snd CAS.

 

Also Rangers will be given the Scottish average co-efficient if they beat Hibs instead of retaining their own - although I'm sure the SFA would send a file to Uefa that RFC are representing Scotland rather than TRFC.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

I will be interested to see how the SPFL and SFA handle this alleged ineligible player incident with Dundee Utd as opposed to the Sandy Bryson interpretation.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/669042/Exlusive-Dundee-United-face-points-deduction-fine-fielding-ineligible-player-News-Gossip

I think we can be pretty certain that it will end up with a decision in line with the 'Bryson Interpretation', and, if the penalty is in proportion to that handed out to RFC, a fine of ?0.25 will be issued! I doubt that even our football governors could contemplate anything that would throw more light on the nonsense that was the LNS Enquiry, though I doubt any penalty will be as kind to Dundee United as the joke handed to RFC was, so a fine that might actually hurt them will be on it's way!

 

I expect very little coverage will be given in the SMSM to the deliberations, with even less given to the comparison between the two versions, one accidental, and one very deliberate!

 

I would, however, suggest, that if there is a significant difference in the way the two issues are viewed, with something akin to natural justice and the rules of the game being observed over United's error, it might indicate a schism between those sitting on the tribunal/committee and those involved with LNS!

[davieholt]

I will be interested to see how the SPFL and SFA handle this alleged ineligible player incident with Dundee Utd as opposed to the Sandy Bryson interpretation.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/669042/Exclusive-Dundee-United-face-points-deduction-fine-fielding-ineligible-player-News-Gossip

 

Dundee Utd should claim that he was 'imperfectly registered', say sorry and give them a mars bar and a packet of crisps

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

In addition to my previous post, I am pretty certain the authorities will view the United case as different from RFC's, citing that Dundee United didn't 'mis-register' the players, but actually that the players were 'ineligible' due to something completely different. There are other very important differences, of course.

 

Dundee United didn't win any titles.

 

Dundee United's error could only be that, a genuine error.

 

Dundee United's error only affected one match.

 

Dundee United are not Rangers.

 

No Dundee United people will be providing evidence (for the 'prosecution') nor involved in the administrative process to provide 'Brysonesque' excuses.

 

The President of the SFA is not a Dundee United supporter.

 

The President of the SFA wasn't involved in setting up United's error.

 

Dundee United are still alive.

 

No one's going to issue any threats against those sitting on the panel!

 

There will be, I'm sure, many other differences to be taken into account, none of which will help United.

[Unknown user]

The Bryson Interpretation is fine but please, god, save us from the Bryce9a Interpretation

[jambovambo]

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2016/05/06/rangers-tax-case-draws-calls-independent-inquiry-scottish-football/ - Rangers tax case draws calls for independent inquiry into Scottish football

 

and

 

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2016/05/11/the-unreported/

Edited May 11, 2016 by jambovambo

[Footballfirst]

There was a hearing today at the Court of Session re Craig Whyte's failure to comply with previous court instructions about his legal aid application.

 

A poster on SFM attended and has reported the following:

 

Just in from Court No. 4.

The business was about the non-provision of information about assets etc  in connection with Whye?s legal aid application ( which was first refused, then granted  months ago).

Court not at all pleased with non-compliance with the order made as far back 11/09/15. Respondent?s position entirely unsatisfactory. However, it would be better for Lord Advocate to have all the information requested, so Counsel for Whyte has been given until 4.00 pm Tuesday 17th May to get all information about Whyte?s finances and assets lodged.

 

The hearing scheduled for 31st May will not be put at risk.

There was no mention of this business being under the reporting restriction orders.

[Footballfirst]

The Offshore Game has responded to some criticisms of their report from a Rangers fan. 

 

http://www.theoffshoregame.net/a-correction-and-statement-regarding-our-report/

[Malinga the Swinga]

In addition to my previous post, I am pretty certain the authorities will view the United case as different from RFC's, citing that Dundee United didn't 'mis-register' the players, but actually that the players were 'ineligible' due to something completely different. There are other very important differences, of course.

 

Dundee United didn't win any titles.

 

Dundee United's error could only be that, a genuine error.

 

Dundee United's error only affected one match.

 

Dundee United are not Rangers.

 

No Dundee United people will be providing evidence (for the 'prosecution') nor involved in the administrative process to provide 'Brysonesque' excuses.

 

The President of the SFA is not a Dundee United supporter.

 

The President of the SFA wasn't involved in setting up United's error.

 

Dundee United are still alive.

 

No one's going to issue any threats against those sitting on the panel!

 

There will be, I'm sure, many other differences to be taken into account, none of which will help United.

In summary, you covered it with Dundee United are not Rangers. Nothing else matters Edited May 11, 2016 by Malinga the Swinga

[Malinga the Swinga]

In addition to my previous post, I am pretty certain the authorities will view the United case as different from RFC's, citing that Dundee United didn't 'mis-register' the players, but actually that the players were 'ineligible' due to something completely different. There are other very important differences, of course.

 

Dundee United didn't win any titles.

 

Dundee United's error could only be that, a genuine error.

 

Dundee United's error only affected one match.

 

Dundee United are not Rangers.

 

No Dundee United people will be providing evidence (for the 'prosecution') nor involved in the administrative process to provide 'Brysonesque' excuses.

 

The President of the SFA is not a Dundee United supporter.

 

The President of the SFA wasn't involved in setting up United's error.

 

Dundee United are still alive.

 

No one's going to issue any threats against those sitting on the panel!

 

There will be, I'm sure, many other differences to be taken into account, none of which will help United.

Duplicate Edited May 11, 2016 by Malinga the Swinga

[Diadora Van Basten]

The treatment of Dundee United is correct it was the treatment of Rangers which was wrong.

[Don Dan]

"anonymous fan" bryce?

 

Just as the heart of Wimbledon FC lives with AFC Wimbledon and not with MK Dons, the heart of Rangers will live with the new company.

[Footballfirst]

The Offshore Game has now provided an update to the Rangers UEFA Licence issue for season 2011/12.

 

http://www.theoffshoregame.net/the-uefa-licence-issue/

[Dutchmul]

Diana - nice of you to join in.

 

Not sure where you've been the last few years, but in case you hadn't noticed, the governing bodies have been consistent that Rangers FC are officially the same club, and rival fans like yourself perceive the rules and regulations to be the problem, not the solution!

 

As our knowledgeable friend FootballFirst will tell you, the rulebook is saturated with distinctions drawn between the club and its "owner and operator", the company. It was on this basis that Lord Nimmo Smith similarly distinguished between oldco and the club it operated in his SPL Commission's report.

 

I won't speculate as to the motivations of individuals who state the new club position. However, the fact they are in their entirety rival fans who hold Rangers in disdain - and independent bodies like the BBC, ASA, ECA etc have all echoed the official position - is more than a little suggestive

 

Nothing wrong with banter between rival fans though. Except when said rival fans forget the responsibilities of the positions they may hold... Mr. Spence...

 

There is no banter, get it through your extremely thick skull, Rangers as a football team died in 2012, eventually they will be liquidated and wiped from this earth. You support a club called The Rangers Football Club who were formed in 2012 and who purchased the assets of Rangers who are in liquidation. full stop, end of discussion.

[Malinga the Swinga]

The Offshore Game has now provided an update to the Rangers UEFA Licence issue for season 2011/12.

 

http://www.theoffshoregame.net/the-uefa-licence-issue/

Theoffshoregame can print and say what they want. It will not make a blind bit of difference. Sportsound covered this and nobody, not one of them, commented on the double standards applied. Scottish football is a joke, a sick corrupt joke.

 

If it wasn't for Hearts, I doubt anyone on here would ever watch another Scottish game again.

[Dutchmul]

Click on the link to 'Rangers Football Club Ltd'.

 

I'm shocked, The Rangers Football Club Active since 29/05/12(3 years 11 months old), surely some mistake, presumably it's a clerical error by the SPFL that one of their member clubs, which they have said is Rangers, hasn't been in existence since the 19th century but only since 2012.

[jambovambo]

@BBCMarkDaly @alextomo @patshar Now have robust advice against SFA but view is they will try & tough it out in absence of MSM intervention.

(@Heavidor)

 

@Heavidor @BBCMarkDaly @alextomo looks like it will be Up to the fans or outside media to take forward

 

Finally getting round to reading the Tax Justice Network report on Rangers. Some awkward questions in there for Campbell Ogilvie/the SFA.

(@grahamspiers)

 

@SkynyrdScotland Might write about it in my column in The Times on Saturday. Some serious - though not uncomplicated - issues at stake.

(Ditto)

Edited May 11, 2016 by jambovambo