Rangers FC to go into administration

[Boycey]

Have to say lads I don't think the FC United/Manchester United case even belongs in this discussion

[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.

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

You're right. I don't. That's sort of my point. It's not a science, in my view. A club, a sense of identity is much more complex and emotive than a line in a companies register. You have a very clinical view, which is undoubtedly correct. But when the fans start talking about whether Rangers is the same as old Rangers, I think that academic discussion goes out the window. Even more so when the 'new' Rangers field the same players, play at the same stadium, lay claim to the same history and wear the same kit.

This is completely different than two teams both in existence at the same time fighting over identity, which is what happened in the NFL with the Baltimore Ravens and the Cleveland Browns and what you are referring to POTENTIALLY re. AFC Manchester and Manchester United.

[AZOffaly]

Have to say lads I don't think the FC United/Manchester United case even belongs in this discussion

It doesn't, because they are two seperate clubs, co-existing. If AFC Manchester was created to fill the void left by Manchester United suddenly leaving, and wore the same kit, at Old Trafford, with all the same fans and the same roll of honour, then it would be a similar situation. Again, that is my point.

[thewingedlady]

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.

The assets (mainly the ground) will always belong to the club but never the company, that's the point. Plus a company transfer factors liabilities into price whereas an asset sale in liquidation does not.

Put it this way, if I find out that at any stage the owners of your beloved Liverpool (and mine as it happens) transferred assets away from the company to a third party without transferring the entire company holding the assets, you will accept that Liverpool FC ceased to exist at that point. Is that fair enough?

[deiseach]

Have to say lads I don't think the FC United/Manchester United case even belongs in this discussion

It doesn't, because they are two seperate clubs, co-existing. If AFC Manchester was created to fill the void left by Manchester United suddenly leaving, and wore the same kit, at Old Trafford, with all the same fans and the same roll of honour, then it would be a similar situation. Again, that is my point.

And your point is still vague to the point of being barely there. You say in the previous post that a sense of identity is complex and emotive and the academic discussion goes out the window. Given all that, if a future unfolded where FC United of Manchester got to the point where they were the most successful club in Manchester wearing red and called United and bought Old Trafford to house their legions of fans . . . it's ludicrous of course, but not much more ludicrous than the idea that AFC Manchester could take up the mantle of a fallen Manchester United and not skip a beat.

[AZOffaly]

Are you seriously, seriously, telling me that the Rangers now plying their trade in the Scottish First Division is not the self same 'club' as that which was killed by the SFA? A club calling itself Rangers, playing at Ibrox, with the same players, the same identity, the same colours, and the same fans as the one which was there the season before . If you can not see that to all intents and purposes as far as the fans and opposition fans are concerned, this is the same team, then nothing I will say will convince you otherwise. To me, this Rangers is the very self same thing as what was there before, with some legalese to square the financial circle.

Your constant referral to Manchester United and AFC Manchester is clouding the issue, I suspect deliberately so. I have said several times that AFC Manchester cannot claim to be Manchester United because BOTH CLUBS are in operation at the same time. How could they be the same thing?

[deiseach]

The assets (mainly the ground) will always belong to the club but never the company, that's the point. Plus a company transfer factors liabilities into price whereas an asset sale in liquidation does not.

If the club owns the assets, what does the company own?

Put it this way, if I find out that at any stage the owners of your beloved Liverpool (and mine as it happens) transferred assets away from the company to a third party without transferring the entire company holding the assets, you will accept that Liverpool FC ceased to exist at that point. Is that fair enough?

I'm not sure how this is meant to work, but if I am understanding what you are saying and all the assets of Liverpool such as the ground, the intellectual property and player contracts (note this didn't happen with Rangers because for contractual purposes a player is tied to a company, not a club, which pretty much proves that there is no club without a company...but I digress) were transferred to another company, and all that was left was a registration in Companies House, you are asking me what would I be left supporting? The answer is: nothing.

[deiseach]

Are you seriously, seriously, telling me that the Rangers now plying their trade in the Scottish First Division is not the self same 'club' as that which was killed by the SFA? A club calling itself Rangers, playing at Ibrox, with the same players, the same identity, the same colours, and the same fans as the one which was there the season before . If you can not see that to all intents and purposes as far as the fans and opposition fans are concerned, this is the same team, then nothing I will say will convince you otherwise. To me, this Rangers is the very self same thing as what was there before, with some legalese to square the financial circle.

I don't know why you are referring to Rangers being killed by the SFA, no such thing happened. But in answer to your question, it is not the same club.

[AZOffaly]

And that is where I disagree. And you are 100% correct, technically. But I am correct where it matters, in the heart of what the game is supposed to stand for. 

[deiseach]

Your constant referral to Manchester United and AFC Manchester is clouding the issue, I suspect deliberately so. I have said several times that AFC Manchester cannot claim to be Manchester United because BOTH CLUBS are in operation at the same time. How could they be the same thing?

Because if you believe that clubs are about the essence and what supporters believe, then you are not going to be able to face down those who believe FC United of Manchester are the true spirit of Manchester United. The fact that the two clubs existed side-by-side is meaningless when you have faith.

[AZOffaly]

If both clubs exist at the same time, how can one claim to be the other? Do they just pretend that the other doesn't exist?

Laying claim to have the 'spirit' of busby and the like, and bemoaning the way United is being run, is not the same thing in my mind.

[deiseach]

If both clubs exist at the same time, how can one claim to be the other? Do they just pretend that the other doesn't exist?

Laying claim to have the 'spirit' of busby and the like, and bemoaning the way United is being run, is not the same thing in my mind.

You're the one claiming to be "correct where it matters, in the heart of what the game is supposed to stand for". Arguing from authority.

[AZOffaly]

Of course I am. You're all about the business. I'm about the love of the game man.

[Old yeller]

then why did the club that finished 2nd in the top tier in Scottish football in 2012 start the following season in the fourth tier? If you can explain that in a football context then I will accept that it is the same club. Otherwise, the logical conclusion to draw is that the old club ceased to exist and a new club emerged in the fourth tier. It may be draped in all the finery of the old club, and that does matter. But it is still a new club.

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

Exactly, no two ways about it!

[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

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.

it just looked like you were trying to equate Celtic with rangers - that's all!

we might believe that rangers are effectively the same clubs (other do too) but that's our opinion, doesn't mean it is correct.

actually I don't really care.
I wish they would be annulled and be gone from Scottish football as it would get rid of a lot of problems in terms of fans.
but This wont happen.