Rangers FC On Field Gossip & Rumour Thread 2017 Mod Note in OP(Updated 14/08)

Eirebear wrote: »

In what way did he buy the history?
I'm genuine here - he bought the club's assets, and with that, apparently, came the "history", i've never quite understood that.

For me, you cannot buy history, even if the SPL/SFA had decided to wipe every title won by Rangers out as null and void, the history of the club would still exist within the fans, the players and everything else surrounding the club.

The horrors of the last few years are part of our history also, everything that led to the club being where it is now - same club, or not.

Think you've nailed it there. If titles are stripped then that becomes a part of the history as well.
Green bought the assets of a football club, he didn't buy the actual club. His club is new and it is a different corporate entity also.

The club that started in 1872 incorporated itself into a corporate entity in 1899. That corporate entity has had several owners down the years but it still exists, at the moment, although it is being liquidated.

Green bought the assets, he didn't buy the club. To do this he would have to have bought Rangers 1899 limited as in that year the club and the company became one. Murray's accounts for Rangers always had the corporate name and then (The Club) beside it.

However the support base still views the team currently playing in Ibrox as the same club. The official name of that team is slightly different to the original one. But if the fans want to believe it is the same then they can. In their view their current team has 54 titles. To think this though, you also have a sectarian signing policy, Manchester riots, tax evasion, overspending, David Murray and Craig Whyte.

Green is on record as saying no cva = loss of history. Traynor is on record as saying Green's club is a new one. This week they say differently. They need to keep the fans on board as admitting its a new club would, I suspect, drive a lot of Rangers fans away, or even form a newer club claiming to be the old one.

If I give the Glazers €1B I will own Man Utd. If Man Utd go bust and I buy Old Trafford and set up a company called Man Utd 2012 to run a team there I do not own Man Utd, nor is my team the all time premiership winners.

I would be amazed to see any Rangers fans accept they are supporting a different club. Can you say its a new club if you have the same stadium, training ground, kit, players and most importantly fans? Technically yes, but only technically.

Green claims to have bought the history of Rangers for £1. He said this last night on STV. A penny a trophy :rolleyes:.

The name of the club is not 'slightly different'.
It is still Rangers FC.

Things like 'The Rangers' were already used decades ago.

The only thing that has changed is the company that runs the club, the company and the club itself are two different entities that are linked closely.

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Totally different thing. Yes but none that would be of any use as you wouldn't have a clue what I was on about but people have bought business's and customer goodwill has been included.
Again we could go on for pages and pages going round in circles now I have no interest in doing so so once again we will have to agree to disagree

I wouldn't bother to be honest.
This comment sums up the chances of having a normal conversation with the guy.

but he's not exactly playing to a tough crowd is he?

It's entirely impossible for him to post without some sort of arrogant dig.


Peppa - I get what you're saying, and to be frank i agree with much of it - however I think you're missing my point slightly.
This isn't an Airdrie/Clydebank situation, nor is it a MK Dons type deal - the club is the same one as it was before the company who owned it were liquidated, supported by the same fans, playing in the same stadium and listed in the record books as having the same History.

Wether that is a saleable asset or not is a question for the legal minds, something which i am not and won't claim to be.

Eirebear wrote: »

Wether that is a saleable asset or not is a question for the legal minds, something which i am not and won't claim to be.

Nor me, hence the use of the word technically the same/new.
In terms of rivalry its the same fans so one will wind the other up as much as possible.

Personally as neutral from Celtic/Rangers point of view I dont feel that Rangers are a "New" Club.

I do think though that there success in the time they were overspending is tarnished.

and I would say the same about Hearts if they had went(which looks unlikely now).

I dont blame Celtic fans though for feeling bit bitter or whatever the word is towards Rangers because they have cost them league titles and problem is we will never know how many.

Not trying ruffle anybody up I hope. Just honest 2c of my opinion.

Eirebear wrote: »

In what way did he buy the history?
I'm genuine here - he bought the club's assets, and with that, apparently, came the "history", i've never quite understood that.

For me, you cannot buy history, even if the SPL/SFA had decided to wipe every title won by Rangers out as null and void, the history of the club would still exist within the fans, the players and everything else surrounding the club.

The horrors of the last few years are part of our history also, everything that led to the club being where it is now - same club, or not.

What money has he invested in the club even??

PauloMN wrote: »

Well said.

I can't understand why people still feel the need to discuss this. If fans want to see it as the same club with all the history - good and bad - let them ffs. Who cares? It doesn't affect me nor anyone else whatsoever if Rangers fans claim to have 0 titles or 54 titles or whatever.

If we're all honest about it, we'd probably all think the same anyway.

If its a new club or the original one is irrelevant to me i still dislike them. and thats healthy in competition (although they are hardly in viable competition ). A lot of people here want to dwell on the crap that surrounded rangers and tbh i think its mainly to wind each other up because there is no chance you're going to change someones opinion..

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/205975-european-clubs-body-downgrades-rangers-status-but-recognises-history/

European clubs body downgrades Rangers' status but recognises history

The European Club Association has confirmed that Rangers remain as members of the organisation but that their status has been downgraded following the transfer of ownership.

Following administration and the subsequent transfer of assets to a newco owned by Charles Green’s consortium, Rangers lost their place in the Scottish Premier League and were later admitted to the third tier of the Scottish Football League.

The ECA is the sole independent body recognised by UEFA and FIFA as representing clubs at European level. Ordinary members of the group are required to be playing in their domestic top division and be licensed to play European football.

Rangers do not hold a UEFA club licence as a result of a break in their accounts and, having lost their top-flight status, are no longer ordinary members of the ECA, the organisation confirmed.

"Rangers FC held ordinary membership with the ECA before entering into administration and later into liquidation," an ECA spokesperson confirmed to STV.

"Meanwhile Rangers FC, owned by the Rangers Football Club Plc, transferred all its assets, including its goodwill, to Sevco Ltd (Sevco Ltd later changing its name to the Rangers Football Club Ltd)

"Alike at Scottish FA level, this 'new entity' had to re-apply for membership with ECA as according to Swiss law, membership of an association is neither heritable nor transferable (article 70.3 of the Swiss Civil Code).

"In dealing with these re-application, ECA applied the terms and provisions of our membership policy and statutes.

"According to the prerequisites set out in the membership policy, Rangers FC did not meet the requirements to be granted ordinary membership (top division and European licence).

However, Rangers are permitted to hold associate membership, which holds no voting rights, as they are one of the founder members of the ECA. The organisation considers the club’s history to be continuous regardless of the change of company.

"With regards to associated membership, the membership policy states amongst others that founding members are granted automatic membership," the spokesperson explained.

"Taking into account that the 'new entity' also acquired the goodwill of the 'old entity', it was held by the ECA executive board that the goodwill, taking into account legal and practical arguments, also included the history of the 'old company'.

"Consequently it was concluded that Rangers FC was entitled to associated membership of ECA as considerer to be a founding member."

It's a genuine question though, but go ahead and talk your way out of it.

I'm sure the fact you're proving my point has escaped you as well.

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

you're happy with that then?

With the fact that the ECA proves that the ****e posted here about us is wrong ?

Pretty much yeah.
But hey, what do they know right ?

Jelle1880 wrote: »

With the fact that the ECA proves that the ****e posted here about us is wrong ?

Pretty much yeah.
But hey, what do they know right ?

Relax would ya, i was commenting on your gif more than anything, it brought a smile to me

Team versus Montrose

RANGERS: Alexander; Argyriou, Hegarty, McCulloch, Wallace; Templeton, Hutton, Macleod, Little; Shiels, Kyle
Subs: Currie, McKay, Crawford, Cole Naismith

I ****ing love McKay.

3-2 Cracking goal from the wee winger who had just come on as a sub