Rangers FC to go into administration

[deiseach]

Zombies are drawn together . . . which means we'd end up with Jermaine Defoe!

[From the Bunker]

what about Wimbledon and mk dons scenario ....?

that's more like the American franchise thing

does anyone think the new Wimbledon are the old one in any way?

Everyone has ignored this Question? Why? It points the the reality of a Club being an affinity rather than a business to fans.

I must say I'm enjoying the drama of all of this. Rangers lived beyond their means for decades! Won a truck load of trophies illegally.

[Ulick]

deiseach, in a football sense you are wrong.

Ask the average football fan the name of the limited company that is their football club.  I would guess that not many will actually know the company name.  They may well guess "Arsenal Football Club Limited" or the like but, generally, they wouldn't know the answer.

This is because the fans are invested in the club, its players, ethos and history, and not the legal entity that actually owns the whole shooting match.  The fans aren't being employed by the legal entity (as its employees are) so the actual legal entity is of pretty much no importance to them.

Whether you think (or even I) this is right or wrong doesn't really matter.  It's what the majority of football fans would think and that's why the banter and song singing will transfer from one legal entity to the next.  If you can't see that then you need to broaden your perspective a bit.

There was no separate "legal entity" which owned Rangers. There was only the club. There was no distinction in law or football authorities between the club and a separate "legal entity". The club went bust and was liquidated.

Only in the wake of that liquidation a holding company was formed. The holding company bought the assets of the liquidated club, a new club wholly owned by the holding company was then formed. What you describe may be the current set-up but certainly wasn't the case before liquidation.

[Franko]

deiseach, in a football sense you are wrong.

Ask the average football fan the name of the limited company that is their football club.  I would guess that not many will actually know the company name.  They may well guess "Arsenal Football Club Limited" or the like but, generally, they wouldn't know the answer.

This is because the fans are invested in the club, its players, ethos and history, and not the legal entity that actually owns the whole shooting match.  The fans aren't being employed by the legal entity (as its employees are) so the actual legal entity is of pretty much no importance to them.

Whether you think (or even I) this is right or wrong doesn't really matter.  It's what the majority of football fans would think and that's why the banter and song singing will transfer from one legal entity to the next.  If you can't see that then you need to broaden your perspective a bit.

There was no separate "legal entity" which owned Rangers. There was only the club. There was no distinction in law or football authorities between the club and a separate "legal entity". The club went bust and was liquidated.

Only in the wake of that liquidation a holding company was formed. The holding company bought the assets of the liquidated club, a new club wholly owned by the holding company was then formed. What you describe may be the current set-up but certainly wasn't the case before liquidation.

He didn't say there was.

[deiseach]

Everyone has ignored this Question? Why? It points the the reality of a Club being an affinity rather than a business to fans.

If we assume that there are two positions - those who think the club and company are indivisible, and those who think the club can be separated from the company and not lose anything that is the club - then neither AFC Wimbledon or MK Dons fits. Neither club claims to be the continuation of Wimbledon FC. AFC obviously claim to be the spiritual successor and phoenix of Wimbledon, but they don't pretend to have been founded before 2002. That acceptance of reality is one of the club's many admirable qualities.

[AZOffaly]

They also celebrate the 1988 success as their own. Well at least the BBC pretends that they do. Oh, and their is this (albeit from Wiki)

The club crest, which is based on the coat of arms of the Municipal Borough of Wimbledon, features a black double headed eagle in reference to a local legend that Julius Caesar once made camp on Wimbledon Common, this symbol being his own attributed coat of arms. The crest is designed to replicate, as closely as legally possible, the crest of the original Wimbledon F.C. in order to reflect the fact that AFC Wimbledon see themselves as a continuation of the club that existed before relocation and rebranding as MK Dons. The club wished to preserve Wimbledon FC's legacy and traditions for the loyal fans who felt that the relocation had isolated the club from its roots and community to such an extent that it no longer bore the hallmark of the club that they had once supported and that AFC Wimbledon was its spiritual, if not legal, successor.

[AZOffaly]

Oh yeah, there is also this from their official site. Deiseach, maybe they are not that admirable at all after all.

Club Honours

The supporters of AFC Wimbledon believe that our club is a continuation of the spirit which formed Wimbledon Old Centrals in 1889 and kept Wimbledon Football Club alive until May 2002. We consider that a football club is not simply the legal entity which controls it, but that it is the community formed by the fans and players working towards a common goal. We therefore reproduce the honours won by what we believe was, and will always be, 'our' club, in our community.

 
1894-95 Joined South London League


Read more at http://www.afcwimbledon.co.uk/club/clubhonours/index.aspx#c4FZxbcKXlwU7pEo.99

[deiseach]

I don't have a problem with any of that.

Edit: the thing is, if AFC Wimbledon claimed that nothing had changed, that all that had happened was that the legal entity had changed but the club was eternal, I think they they'd be the target of general ridicule, not appreciation. To reiterate, nowhere do they claim they are the same club.

[AZOffaly]

You don't have a problem that they consider themselves a continuation of Wimbledon FC, and that they claim the trophies won by Wimbledon FC as their own?

[gallsman]

Oh yeah, there is also this from their official site. Deiseach, maybe they are not that admirable at all after all.

Club Honours

The supporters of AFC Wimbledon believe that our club is a continuation of the spirit which formed Wimbledon Old Centrals in 1889 and kept Wimbledon Football Club alive until May 2002. We consider that a football club is not simply the legal entity which controls it, but that it is the community formed by the fans and players working towards a common goal. We therefore reproduce the honours won by what we believe was, and will always be, 'our' club, in our community.

 
1894-95 Joined South London League


Read more at http://www.afcwimbledon.co.uk/club/clubhonours/index.aspx#c4FZxbcKXlwU7pEo.99

I think there was something similar to the American process of "handing back" the history a few year's ago, at least from the MK Dons side.

[Franko]

Oh yeah, there is also this from their official site. Deiseach, maybe they are not that admirable at all after all.

Club Honours

The supporters of AFC Wimbledon believe that our club is a continuation of the spirit which formed Wimbledon Old Centrals in 1889 and kept Wimbledon Football Club alive until May 2002. We consider that a football club is not simply the legal entity which controls it, but that it is the community formed by the fans and players working towards a common goal. We therefore reproduce the honours won by what we believe was, and will always be, 'our' club, in our community.
 
1894-95 Joined South London League


Read more at http://www.afcwimbledon.co.uk/club/clubhonours/index.aspx#c4FZxbcKXlwU7pEo.99[/ftp]

I don't have a problem with any of that.

Is the part in bold not exactly what you have been arguing with all along??

AZ says a club is more than just a legal/financial entity - you say it isn't??

I'm confused?

Everyone has ignored this Question? Why? It points the the reality of a Club being an affinity rather than a business to fans.

If we assume that there are two positions - those who think the club and company are indivisible, and those who think the club can be separated from the company and not lose anything that is the club - then neither AFC Wimbledon or MK Dons fits. Neither club claims to be the continuation of Wimbledon FC. AFC obviously claim to be the spiritual successor and phoenix of Wimbledon, but they don't pretend to have been founded before 2002. That acceptance of reality is one of the club's many admirable qualities.

They claim that the legal entity was formed in 2002 but they lay claim to the full histroy of the 'old' Wimbledon - right back as far as 1895 if you don't mind.

Isn't this exactly what 'Rangers' fans have done?

[Franko]

Oh yeah, there is also this from their official site. Deiseach, maybe they are not that admirable at all after all.

Club Honours

The supporters of AFC Wimbledon believe that our club is a continuation of the spirit which formed Wimbledon Old Centrals in 1889 and kept Wimbledon Football Club alive until May 2002. We consider that a football club is not simply the legal entity which controls it, but that it is the community formed by the fans and players working towards a common goal. We therefore reproduce the honours won by what we believe was, and will always be, 'our' club, in our community.

 
1894-95 Joined South London League


Read more at http://www.afcwimbledon.co.uk/club/clubhonours/index.aspx#c4FZxbcKXlwU7pEo.99

I think there was something similar to the American process of "handing back" the history a few year's ago, at least from the MK Dons side.

So if the Rangers administrators 'handed back' the history of the club to Sevco, everything would be OK?  Oh dear.

[gallsman]

Oh yeah, there is also this from their official site. Deiseach, maybe they are not that admirable at all after all.

Club Honours

The supporters of AFC Wimbledon believe that our club is a continuation of the spirit which formed Wimbledon Old Centrals in 1889 and kept Wimbledon Football Club alive until May 2002. We consider that a football club is not simply the legal entity which controls it, but that it is the community formed by the fans and players working towards a common goal. We therefore reproduce the honours won by what we believe was, and will always be, 'our' club, in our community.

 
1894-95 Joined South London League


Read more at http://www.afcwimbledon.co.uk/club/clubhonours/index.aspx#c4FZxbcKXlwU7pEo.99

I think there was something similar to the American process of "handing back" the history a few year's ago, at least from the MK Dons side.

So if the Rangers administrators 'handed back' the history of the club to Sevco, everything would be OK?  Oh dear.

Did I say anything of the sort? I couldn't give two shites about newco/oldco/sevco or whatever and struggle to understand anyone on this board who does. I merely raised a point pertinent to the particular discussion.

[deiseach]

You don't have a problem that they consider themselves a continuation of Wimbledon FC, and that they claim the trophies won by Wimbledon FC as their own?

Their statement is laden with caveats that your statement above strips out.

[deiseach]

I think there was something similar to the American process of "handing back" the history a few year's ago, at least from the MK Dons side.

I saw one wag saying that Celtic missed a trick in not buying the history of Rangers when they had the chance!