Rangers FC to go into administration

[AZOffaly]

A bit of an existential question I suppose, but what is a 'Club'? If you take the view that the club is an ideal, or concept, made up of the fans, the players, the history, the traditions and the identity then I think any incarnation of 'Rangers' is the same club.

If your contention is that the club is the legal entity, then all new incarnations are evidently several different clubs.

My own take on it is that the legal entity is simply a vehicle for the money to flow in and out, and the club, the essence of the club, is held in the fanbase, the colours, the history and the traditions. I think that persists even as legal entities come and go.

[deiseach]

People are free to think what they like. St Pat's still claim they won the 2001/2 League of Ireland because they accumulated more points on the pitch than Shelbourne, and who is to say they are wrong? Well, I am, because they had 15 points deducted for fielding an ineligible player. Rangers fans can claim that the club that plays out of Ibrox is exactly the same club as the one founded in 1872. They would be wrong, because ownership did not change as it might have done on previous occasions or in other scenarios. Once liquidation had taken place, there was nothing left to own.

[thewingedlady]

A bit of an existential question I suppose, but what is a 'Club'? If you take the view that the club is an ideal, or concept, made up of the fans, the players, the history, the traditions and the identity then I think any incarnation of 'Rangers' is the same club.

If your contention is that the club is the legal entity, then all new incarnations are evidently several different clubs.

My own take on it is that the legal entity is simply a vehicle for the money to flow in and out, and the club, the essence of the club, is held in the fanbase, the colours, the history and the traditions. I think that persists even as legal entities come and go.

That is the point I'm getting at. A club is a collective, a movement and ultimately it's the fans who decide what that is. It cannot be confined to legal documents. Company structure, directors and shareholders change all the time - all of which is no consequence to the club..

How does everyone here define their own GAA club? Do people say it's a club, a trust, a joint venture? Do we have any incorporated GAA clubs (is that even allowed)?

All of which leads me to believe that it is disingenuous to say that Celtic have played their last game against Rangers and will never play them again. I'd take a guess that this game will attract a big crowd. Probably a few banners in the crowd or taunts referring to previous experiences between themselves. All of which doesn't make sense, giving that they're playing a three year old club from the second tier in the league cup, with whom they have no previous history.

But that's not really the case.

There are a number of rules about football competitions, some regarding the playing of the games, some about the organization of the competition and some about the business side of the teams. Rangers broke the business rules very seriously and were punished by being expelled from the competition they were in. They were readmitted to a lower level of the competition with the same manager and many of the same players, the same fans and playing at the same stadium with the same name and same blue white and red colour scheme for their strip.

They are the same club.

I direct you to my reply above. Rangers were not demoted or expelled or anything like that. They went out of existence quite independently of any punishment they may have received from the SFA or SPL. And if they were 'readmitted', how do you explain Oldco getting to vote on Newco's application to the SPL?

Obviously my argument here is that they didn't go 'out of existence'. The company in question was liquidated. Therefore Rangers we're readmitted having been taken over by a new corporate structure.

As for Oldco voting for the Newco - they're both from the one club and therefore have the same interests. They weren't voting for something completely independent of themselves.

Company and club is not a synonymous term.

[AZOffaly]

People are free to think what they like. St Pat's still claim they won the 2001/2 League of Ireland because they accumulated more points on the pitch than Shelbourne, and who is to say they are wrong? Well, I am, because they had 15 points deducted for fielding an ineligible player. Rangers fans can claim that the club that plays out of Ibrox is exactly the same club as the one founded in 1872. They would be wrong, because ownership did not change as it might have done on previous occasions or in other scenarios. Once liquidation had taken place, there was nothing left to own.

If Liverpool FC went bust in the morning, but at the start of next season a new club, wearing red, called Liverpool AFC was founded and for whatever reason allowed enter the EPL. If this entity had YNWA as the anthem, playing in front of the Kop at Anfield, and fielding the likes of Henderson, Sterling and Sturridge, would you consider them 'Liverpool', or would you owe them no allegience and consider them a completely new thing altogether, with no more pull on your affections, or claim to the history of Liverpool FC, than any other club in the Merseyside area, or anywhere else?

[thewingedlady]

People are free to think what they like. St Pat's still claim they won the 2001/2 League of Ireland because they accumulated more points on the pitch than Shelbourne, and who is to say they are wrong? Well, I am, because they had 15 points deducted for fielding an ineligible player. Rangers fans can claim that the club that plays out of Ibrox is exactly the same club as the one founded in 1872. They would be wrong, because ownership did not change as it might have done on previous occasions or in other scenarios. Once liquidation had taken place, there was nothing left to own.

See, I think this is factually wrong. Just because a company is in liquidation doesn't mean that there is nothing there to own. You aren't suggesting that the liquidated company - with a decent stadium and training facility - didn't have any assets?

I have difficulty with your logic here as well. If a club changes custodians through a sale (the primary interest of a purchasor being the assets) then that is ok, but if a liquidator is appointed to a company to transfer assets, then that's different. Why is it different?

[lynchbhoy]

Not sure that patronising and condescending comment merits a response, but I'll accede in this instance.

Point - if my point here isn't already clear to you then that's a personal issue. Others seem to have taken the debate on knowing full well what my point is and without accusing me of having an agenda.

Mission? I have no agenda here. I'm merely pointing out that the whole Sevco joke is a little jaded and a little disingenuous. I have no deliberate intention of linking everything Celtic does with Rangers. I was asking people if the situation was reversed would you be so hung up on legalities and clinical on such issues?

Seriously Lynchboy - what's your take on the game coming up against Rangers? Completely new club and Celtic have had no previous games or dealings with them at all? I am genuinely interested in your answer.

you original point wasn't clear.
it was not apparent whether you believed rangers were no longer in existence
or rangers were the same club as before

you seemed to be trying to tie in Celtic to rangers under the 'old firm' thing which many Celtic fans for over a decade have been trying to distance themselves from , as Celtic are not a 'green' version of rangers.
the supporters and their behaviour can demonstrate that straight away.
the behaviour of the clubs commercial operations also demonstrate that.

your comments
"Isn't it funny how people see their own favoured club as something with a unique culture, sacred places, indellible memories and a special status that can't be reduced to mere legal entity, and yet when it comes to rival clubs they can be reduced to documents lodged in Companies House and sets of property deeds."

are very wide of the mark to say the least.
so what were you saying.
others commented but made statements rather than answers imo

anyhow
I actually posed the question to you asking what your point was. it was not intended to be patronising or condescending.
I genuinely was unclear what you were trying to say.

my response to your question is
it might be a 'new' rangers commercially in the company registrations office - but they still have the same fans, colours and as far as I know , there has been no official comment on stripping rangers as they were,  of their titles won in the 'questionable dozen years of financial irregularity ' or setting their title count back to zero- by the sfa or whatever they are called these days.
that's because they want this to blow over and people will de facto assume its the same rangers and have the same titles and so on, as they are the establishment club and t would be easier (and more palatable) for them in the long run.

so while I detest that people call it the old firm - let alone new firm (theres no fecking firm at all)  - to me I still see rangers.
yes they shouldn't exist, and the rules have been bent out of shape. but I cant see how it isn't rangers.

I would have loved the club to be wound up and get rid of their naked and unabated sectarianism.
but these low lifes (they aren't all like this btw) will find some other anti social aggressive sectarian outlet instead and I don't think Scottish society want that either.

while many clubs miss rangers for the money element, many fans don't miss the aggro and hassle (from what im told by Dundee, Dundee utd, hibs and Aberdeen fans for example).

imo

[gallsman]

Why do any of you even care?

[deiseach]

AZ, you should recall the trauma of Liverpool nearly going bust a few years back, and no one suggested a scenario whereby it might be easier to just let it happen, get back into EPL 'for whatever reason' - too big to fail? - and carry on as if nothing had happened. This is because it's a nonsense scenario. In fact, Liverpool are the classic example of why a club and company are, synonymous:

Liverpool F.C. was formed on the 15th of March 1892. It was at John Houlding's house in Anfield Road that he and his closest friends left from Everton FC, formed a new club. William E. Barclay, a great football enthusiast, strongly suggested that they should go on with a new name: Liverpool.

However, it was not until 3rd June that the name Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Ltd was formally recognised by the Board of Trade, and the club could start to make history.

Barclay had been the first secretary at Everton when they became a league club in 1888, and so in turn became the first secretary at Liverpool. Bearing in mind Barclay's suggestion, it was surprising that on 26th of January 1892 Houlding tried to form a 'new' Everton: The "Everton Football Club and Athletic Grounds Company plc" was registered in London on that date and as the 'old' Everton club was not registered as a plc Houlding had hoped to perform a weird "takeover" of Everton; stealing the name of the club in a legal way. But a meeting at the Football Council on 4th of February 1892 ruled that it could not approve membership of a new club with the same name as an existing member!

If we were to take the idea that a club was about some intangible 'essence', then we must accept the possibility that FC United of Manchester might one day have more fans than Manchester United FC and would therefore become Manchester United FC, right?

[deiseach]

See, I think this is factually wrong. Just because a company is in liquidation doesn't mean that there is nothing there to own. You aren't suggesting that the liquidated company - with a decent stadium and training facility - didn't have any assets?

I have difficulty with your logic here as well. If a club changes custodians through a sale (the primary interest of a purchasor being the assets) then that is ok, but if a liquidator is appointed to a company to transfer assets, then that's different. Why is it different?

You've pretty much answered your own question there. They are different, because one involves the sale of the company including the assets, and the other involves just selling the assets.

[AZOffaly]

My point is that the club, and the legal entity are two different things. Of course I know that technically they are not. But I have an old fashioned belief that the club is what those who support it say it is. If Liverpool Football Club PLC goes bust, and Liverpool AFC PLC is founded, I believe the supporters would transfer en-masse to Liverpool AFC, and that would become de-facto 'Liverpool'.  I also believe opposing fans would recognise it as Liverpool, and the history would transfer with it. The colours would still be the same etc.

Your scenario of Everton and Liverpool is also not the same, as there is a clear line of delineation where Liverpool, with their own identity, existed and before they existed. Also, as Everton continued to exist, obviously John Houlding's new club could not be the same.

Your scenario of AFC Manchester and Manchester United cannot be held to be the same, as there are 2 clubs. They obviously cannot be one and the same.

Perhaps a more accurate scenario for consideration is this.

Is the club now playing at the Emirates stadium the same club as that which was once called Woolwich Arsenal?
Is the club now playing at Old Trafford the same club as that which was formerly Newton Heath?

In January 1902, with debts of £2,670 – equivalent to £250,000 in 2015[nb 1] – the club was served with a winding-up order.[17] Captain Harry Stafford found four local businessmen, including John Henry Davies (who became club president), each willing to invest £500 in return for a direct interest in running the club and who subsequently changed the name;[18] on 24 April 1902, Manchester United was officially born

I submit they are considered the same club for historical and identity purposes, regardless of what the companies register says.

[gallsman]

My point is that the club, and the legal entity are two different things. Of course I know that technically they are not. But I have an old fashioned belief that the club is what those who support it. If Liverpool Football Club PLC goes bust, and Liverpool AFC PLC is founded, I believe the supporters would transfer en-masse to Liverpool AFC, and that would become de-facto 'Liverpool'.  I also believe opposing fans would recognise it as Liverpool, and the history would transfer with it. The colours would still be the same etc.

Your scenario of Everton and Liverpool is also not the same, as there is a clear line of delineation where Liverpool, with their own identity, existed and before they existed. Also, as Everton continued to exist, obviously John Houlding's new club could not be the same.

Your scenario of AFC Manchester and Manchester United cannot be held to be the same, as there are 2 clubs. They obviously cannot be one and the same.

Perhaps a more accurate scenario for consideration is this.

Is the club now playing at the Emirates stadium the same club as that which was once called Woolwich Arsenal?
Is the club now playing at Old Trafford the same club as that which was formerly Newton Heath?

In January 1902, with debts of £2,670 – equivalent to £250,000 in 2015[nb 1] – the club was served with a winding-up order.[17] Captain Harry Stafford found four local businessmen, including John Henry Davies (who became club president), each willing to invest £500 in return for a direct interest in running the club and who subsequently changed the name;[18] on 24 April 1902, Manchester United was officially born

I submit they are considered the same club for historical and identity purposes, regardless of what the companies register says.

Course it is. The really productive green and gold protests Artest to that.

[thewingedlady]

Not sure that patronising and condescending comment merits a response, but I'll accede in this instance.

Point - if my point here isn't already clear to you then that's a personal issue. Others seem to have taken the debate on knowing full well what my point is and without accusing me of having an agenda.

Mission? I have no agenda here. I'm merely pointing out that the whole Sevco joke is a little jaded and a little disingenuous. I have no deliberate intention of linking everything Celtic does with Rangers. I was asking people if the situation was reversed would you be so hung up on legalities and clinical on such issues?

Seriously Lynchboy - what's your take on the game coming up against Rangers? Completely new club and Celtic have had no previous games or dealings with them at all? I am genuinely interested in your answer.

you original point wasn't clear.
it was not apparent whether you believed rangers were no longer in existence
or rangers were the same club as before

you seemed to be trying to tie in Celtic to rangers under the 'old firm' thing which many Celtic fans for over a decade have been trying to distance themselves from , as Celtic are not a 'green' version of rangers.
the supporters and their behaviour can demonstrate that straight away.
the behaviour of the clubs commercial operations also demonstrate that.

your comments
"Isn't it funny how people see their own favoured club as something with a unique culture, sacred places, indellible memories and a special status that can't be reduced to mere legal entity, and yet when it comes to rival clubs they can be reduced to documents lodged in Companies House and sets of property deeds."

are very wide of the mark to say the least.
so what were you saying.
others commented but made statements rather than answers imo

anyhow
I actually posed the question to you asking what your point was. it was not intended to be patronising or condescending.
I genuinely was unclear what you were trying to say.

my response to your question is
it might be a 'new' rangers commercially in the company registrations office - but they still have the same fans, colours and as far as I know , there has been no official comment on stripping rangers as they were,  of their titles won in the 'questionable dozen years of financial irregularity ' or setting their title count back to zero- by the sfa or whatever they are called these days.
that's because they want this to blow over and people will de facto assume its the same rangers and have the same titles and so on, as they are the establishment club and t would be easier (and more palatable) for them in the long run.

so while I detest that people call it the old firm - let alone new firm (theres no fecking firm at all)  - to me I still see rangers.
yes they shouldn't exist, and the rules have been bent out of shape. but I cant see how it isn't rangers.

I would have loved the club to be wound up and get rid of their naked and unabated sectarianism.
but these low lifes (they aren't all like this btw) will find some other anti social aggressive sectarian outlet instead and I don't think Scottish society want that either.

while many clubs miss rangers for the money element, many fans don't miss the aggro and hassle (from what im told by Dundee, Dundee utd, hibs and Aberdeen fans for example).

imo

Christ, right. Start at the top I suppose.

I wasn't trying to tie Celtic in with them. I wasn't even talking about Celtic. I did use them as a comparitor to prove a point but if I had been talking about, let's say, United and Liverpool, I don't think the fans from the other side would have gotten so defensive and accused me of dragging their favoured club into this. I think most reasonable people would see this.

My point couldn't have been more clear that I see Rangers are the same club as before. I used comedic irony to ask questions that a fair and honest answer would expose the hypocrisy of the situation.

At least you have acknowledged that it is the same Rangers, and for that you deserve some credit.

In summation I go back to my previous comment - football clubs and companies are not synonymous terms and it's idle to pretend that they are.

[deiseach]

My point is that the club, and the legal entity are two different things. Of course I know that technically they are not. But I have an old fashioned belief that the club is what those who support it. If Liverpool Football Club PLC goes bust, and Liverpool AFC PLC is founded, I believe the supporters would transfer en-masse to Liverpool AFC, and that would become de-facto 'Liverpool'.  I also believe opposing fans would recognise it as Liverpool, and the history would transfer with it. The colours would still be the same etc.

Your scenario of Everton and Liverpool is also not the same, as there is a clear line of delineation where Liverpool, with their own identity, existed and before they existed. Also, as Everton continued to exist, obviously John Houlding's new club could not be the same.

Your scenario of AFC Manchester and Manchester United cannot be held to be the same, as there are 2 clubs. They obviously cannot be one and the same.

Perhaps a more accurate scenario for consideration is this.

Is the club now playing at the Emirates stadium the same club as that which was once called Woolwich Arsenal?
Is the club now playing at Old Trafford the same club as that which was formerly Newton Heath?

In January 1902, with debts of £2,670 – equivalent to £250,000 in 2015[nb 1] – the club was served with a winding-up order.[17] Captain Harry Stafford found four local businessmen, including John Henry Davies (who became club president), each willing to invest £500 in return for a direct interest in running the club and who subsequently changed the name;[18] on 24 April 1902, Manchester United was officially born

I submit they are considered the same club for historical and identity purposes, regardless of what the companies register says.

But they are not different! You say you have an "old fashioned belief that the club is what those who support it", which means you have to accept the FC United/Man Utd scenario whereby if enough people switch allegiances then the new club takes over the inheritance of the old club. It is precisely because there is no distinction between the club and the company that this kind of nonsense is not indulged.

[AZOffaly]

I am saying FC Manchester can never be Manchester United because there are two clubs! If Manchester United folded, and FC Manchester wore the same colours, had the same fans, and laid claim to the history, then I, for one, would consider them to be Manchester United.

[deiseach]

I am saying FC Manchester can never be Manchester United because there are two clubs! If Manchester United folded, and FC Manchester wore the same colours, had the same fans, and laid claim to the history, then I, for one, would consider them to be Manchester United.

I don't know where you would draw the line with this. I don't think you do either.