Rangers FC to go into administration

[lynchbhoy]

[Any other club would have been wound up long ago]

It was wound up.  Rangers FC is nae more.   They just started a new club in the same ground and pretended it was the old one!

maybe in the the company registration
but is the newco nothing to do with the oldco?

this vile collection that's trying to pass for a club should be finshed off and put out of its (our) misery.

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.

Rangers were the ugly beast that got their comeuppance and I've no sympathy for them however if the company now operating Celtic FC were liquidated don't even pretend that you would accept that the new club is completely distinct and separate from the history, traditions and culture of the old club.

That was funny when the whole Sevco thing first started but has become a little tiresome, IMO.

I actually would
rules are rules and im quite pedantic

so never assume anything about anybody !!

that's your opinion, no one elses!!

it looked at one point when Celtic would be gone. there was going to be no alternative.

[foxcommander]

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.

Rangers were the ugly beast that got their comeuppance and I've no sympathy for them however if the company now operating Celtic FC were liquidated don't even pretend that you would accept that the new club is completely distinct and separate from the history, traditions and culture of the old club.

That was funny when the whole Sevco thing first started but has become a little tiresome, IMO.

I'm sure cities like Manchester will miss those traditions

[thewingedlady]

Isn't it funny how people see their own favoured club as something with a unique culture, sacred places, indelible 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.

Rangers were the ugly beast that got their comeuppance and I've no sympathy for them however if the company now operating Celtic FC were liquidated don't even pretend that you would accept that the new club is completely distinct and separate from the history, traditions and culture of the old club.

That was funny when the whole Sevco thing first started but has become a little tiresome, IMO.

I'm sure cities like Manchester will miss those traditions

Can we be serious for a second. Not that I don't have a sense of humour  but just for a second to consider this.

The "new" Rangers play at Ibrox, train at Murray Park, they have a predominantly blue kit with white togs, they have the same fans, the badge - if not identical - is very similar to the old rangers badge, and they worship the same men that supporters of the "old" club did. What's the difference then between the "old" club and the "new" club then?

Don't be giving me companies, shareholders and directors. Sure SH's and Directors change all the time and a club can change holding company as and when it suits them. No one's going to tell me that Liverpool are a distinct and separate football club from the one that existed under Kop Holdings Limited under Hicks and Gillett. No sane person would argue that, because it's BS.

What about this Old Firm Derby coming up - first time these two clubs have ever met or first time in a few seasons? Give us a break.

[Nigel White]

And they still have 5 stars on their crest signifying that they've won over 50 titles

[Agent Orange]

Great headline in last Thursdays Daily Record.

[lynchbhoy]

Isn't it funny how people see their own favoured club as something with a unique culture, sacred places, indelible 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.

Rangers were the ugly beast that got their comeuppance and I've no sympathy for them however if the company now operating Celtic FC were liquidated don't even pretend that you would accept that the new club is completely distinct and separate from the history, traditions and culture of the old club.

That was funny when the whole Sevco thing first started but has become a little tiresome, IMO.

I'm sure cities like Manchester will miss those traditions

Can we be serious for a second. Not that I don't have a sense of humour  but just for a second to consider this.

The "new" Rangers play at Ibrox, train at Murray Park, they have a predominantly blue kit with white togs, they have the same fans, the badge - if not identical - is very similar to the old rangers badge, and they worship the same men that supporters of the "old" club did. What's the difference then between the "old" club and the "new" club then?

Don't be giving me companies, shareholders and directors. Sure SH's and Directors change all the time and a club can change holding company as and when it suits them. No one's going to tell me that Liverpool are a distinct and separate football club from the one that existed under Kop Holdings Limited under Hicks and Gillett. No sane person would argue that, because it's BS.

What about this Old Firm Derby coming up - first time these two clubs have ever met or first time in a few seasons? Give us a break.

Do you have a point to make with these posts of yours?

Or is your mission to attempt to indelibly links Celtic with rangers ( old or new or whatever)

If it is
You are failing miserably

If it isn't
Then your point isn't clear

[Ulick]

Isn't it funny how people see their own favoured club as something with a unique culture, sacred places, indelible 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.

Rangers were the ugly beast that got their comeuppance and I've no sympathy for them however if the company now operating Celtic FC were liquidated don't even pretend that you would accept that the new club is completely distinct and separate from the history, traditions and culture of the old club.

That was funny when the whole Sevco thing first started but has become a little tiresome, IMO.

I'm sure cities like Manchester will miss those traditions

Can we be serious for a second. Not that I don't have a sense of humour  but just for a second to consider this.

The "new" Rangers play at Ibrox, train at Murray Park, they have a predominantly blue kit with white togs, they have the same fans, the badge - if not identical - is very similar to the old rangers badge, and they worship the same men that supporters of the "old" club did. What's the difference then between the "old" club and the "new" club then?

Don't be giving me companies, shareholders and directors. Sure SH's and Directors change all the time and a club can change holding company as and when it suits them. No one's going to tell me that Liverpool are a distinct and separate football club from the one that existed under Kop Holdings Limited under Hicks and Gillett. No sane person would argue that, because it's BS.

What about this Old Firm Derby coming up - first time these two clubs have ever met or first time in a few seasons? Give us a break.

All very well but the one thing you are missing is that it was the club which was liquidated, not a holding company. So the club did not simply transfer holding companies, a new company and a new club were both formed in order to continue milking the blue pound.

[deiseach]

Can we be serious for a second. Not that I don't have a sense of humour  but just for a second to consider this.

The "new" Rangers play at Ibrox, train at Murray Park, they have a predominantly blue kit with white togs, they have the same fans, the badge - if not identical - is very similar to the old rangers badge, and they worship the same men that supporters of the "old" club did. What's the difference then between the "old" club and the "new" club then?

Don't be giving me companies, shareholders and directors. Sure SH's and Directors change all the time and a club can change holding company as and when it suits them. No one's going to tell me that Liverpool are a distinct and separate football club from the one that existed under Kop Holdings Limited under Hicks and Gillett. No sane person would argue that, because it's BS.

What about this Old Firm Derby coming up - first time these two clubs have ever met or first time in a few seasons? Give us a break.

I am serious about this (I'm not a Celtic fan). If it's the same club and all that happened was the owners changed as happened with Liverpool - that isn't what happened with Rangers, the company was liquidated, but let's put that aside for a moment - 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.

[brokencrossbar1]

Can we be serious for a second. Not that I don't have a sense of humour  but just for a second to consider this.

The "new" Rangers play at Ibrox, train at Murray Park, they have a predominantly blue kit with white togs, they have the same fans, the badge - if not identical - is very similar to the old rangers badge, and they worship the same men that supporters of the "old" club did. What's the difference then between the "old" club and the "new" club then?

Don't be giving me companies, shareholders and directors. Sure SH's and Directors change all the time and a club can change holding company as and when it suits them. No one's going to tell me that Liverpool are a distinct and separate football club from the one that existed under Kop Holdings Limited under Hicks and Gillett. No sane person would argue that, because it's BS.

What about this Old Firm Derby coming up - first time these two clubs have ever met or first time in a few seasons? Give us a break.

I am serious about this (I'm not a Celtic fan). If it's the same club and all that happened was the owners changed as happened with Liverpool - that isn't what happened with Rangers, the company was liquidated, but let's put that aside for a moment - 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.

New stick, same shit.

[deiseach]

New stick, same shit.

Pithy

[gallsman]

In American sport, franchises relocate relatively frequently and often a new or expansion franchise arises in the city the original franchise left - the Browns and the Ravens for example in the NFL or the Bobcats/Hornets and Pelicans in the NBA. The leagues can "award" the history and legacy of the original franchise to the new one. What is the SFA's view of Rangers? Does it view them as the 53 times winners or a start up?

[deiseach]

In American sport, franchises relocate relatively frequently and often a new or expansion franchise arises in the city the original franchise left - the Browns and the Ravens for example in the NFL or the Bobcats/Hornets and Pelicans in the NBA. The leagues can "award" the history and legacy of the original franchise to the new one. What is the SFA's view of Rangers? Does it view them as the 53 times winners or a start up?

As far as I know, the SFA have never made any direct comment on the status of Sevco. The SPFL CEO has recently stated they are the same club using the 'holding company changed, club didn't' argument. He was not asked, so did not answer, the question I have posed.

[thewingedlady]

Isn't it funny how people see their own favoured club as something with a unique culture, sacred places, indelible 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.

Rangers were the ugly beast that got their comeuppance and I've no sympathy for them however if the company now operating Celtic FC were liquidated don't even pretend that you would accept that the new club is completely distinct and separate from the history, traditions and culture of the old club.

That was funny when the whole Sevco thing first started but has become a little tiresome, IMO.

I'm sure cities like Manchester will miss those traditions

Can we be serious for a second. Not that I don't have a sense of humour  but just for a second to consider this.

The "new" Rangers play at Ibrox, train at Murray Park, they have a predominantly blue kit with white togs, they have the same fans, the badge - if not identical - is very similar to the old rangers badge, and they worship the same men that supporters of the "old" club did. What's the difference then between the "old" club and the "new" club then?

Don't be giving me companies, shareholders and directors. Sure SH's and Directors change all the time and a club can change holding company as and when it suits them. No one's going to tell me that Liverpool are a distinct and separate football club from the one that existed under Kop Holdings Limited under Hicks and Gillett. No sane person would argue that, because it's BS.

What about this Old Firm Derby coming up - first time these two clubs have ever met or first time in a few seasons? Give us a break.

All very well but the one thing you are missing is that it was the club which was liquidated, not a holding company. So the club did not simply transfer holding companies, a new company and a new club were both formed in order to continue milking the blue pound.

You cannot liquidate a club. You can liquidate a company.

Can we be serious for a second. Not that I don't have a sense of humour  but just for a second to consider this.

The "new" Rangers play at Ibrox, train at Murray Park, they have a predominantly blue kit with white togs, they have the same fans, the badge - if not identical - is very similar to the old rangers badge, and they worship the same men that supporters of the "old" club did. What's the difference then between the "old" club and the "new" club then?

Don't be giving me companies, shareholders and directors. Sure SH's and Directors change all the time and a club can change holding company as and when it suits them. No one's going to tell me that Liverpool are a distinct and separate football club from the one that existed under Kop Holdings Limited under Hicks and Gillett. No sane person would argue that, because it's BS.

What about this Old Firm Derby coming up - first time these two clubs have ever met or first time in a few seasons? Give us a break.

I am serious about this (I'm not a Celtic fan). If it's the same club and all that happened was the owners changed as happened with Liverpool - that isn't what happened with Rangers, the company was liquidated, but let's put that aside for a moment - 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.

I accept your sincerity.

My take on that is that the club had to be punished and be seen to be punished, particularly given that Scottish clubs so often run into financial difficulties. If Rangers had simply been allowed to get back into the SPL then it would set an awful precedent and leave the SFA very vulnerable to legal challenges by other clubs who go under. If I remember correctly there was a vote on this and the majority of SFA members voted for Rangers to start again in Division 4. I am of course open to correction on this. Juventus were sent packing to the 4th Division a few years ago (although I accept the scenarios are different - merely making the point that Rangers had to be punished).

I note that you didn't address the Old Firm question.

Isn't it funny how people see their own favoured club as something with a unique culture, sacred places, indelible 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.

Rangers were the ugly beast that got their comeuppance and I've no sympathy for them however if the company now operating Celtic FC were liquidated don't even pretend that you would accept that the new club is completely distinct and separate from the history, traditions and culture of the old club.

That was funny when the whole Sevco thing first started but has become a little tiresome, IMO.

I'm sure cities like Manchester will miss those traditions

Can we be serious for a second. Not that I don't have a sense of humour  but just for a second to consider this.

The "new" Rangers play at Ibrox, train at Murray Park, they have a predominantly blue kit with white togs, they have the same fans, the badge - if not identical - is very similar to the old rangers badge, and they worship the same men that supporters of the "old" club did. What's the difference then between the "old" club and the "new" club then?

Don't be giving me companies, shareholders and directors. Sure SH's and Directors change all the time and a club can change holding company as and when it suits them. No one's going to tell me that Liverpool are a distinct and separate football club from the one that existed under Kop Holdings Limited under Hicks and Gillett. No sane person would argue that, because it's BS.

What about this Old Firm Derby coming up - first time these two clubs have ever met or first time in a few seasons? Give us a break.

Do you have a point to make with these posts of yours?

Or is your mission to attempt to indelibly links Celtic with rangers ( old or new or whatever)

If it is
You are failing miserably

If it isn't
Then your point isn't clear

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.

[deiseach]

My take on that is that the club had to be punished and be seen to be punished, particularly given that Scottish clubs so often run into financial difficulties. If Rangers had simply been allowed to get back into the SPL then it would set an awful precedent and leave the SFA very vulnerable to legal challenges by other clubs who go under. If I remember correctly there was a vote on this and the majority of SFA members voted for Rangers to start again in Division 4. I am of course open to correction on this. Juventus were sent packing to the 4th Division a few years ago (although I accept the scenarios are different - merely making the point that Rangers had to be punished).

You remember incorrectly. The vote was on whether to allow the new company accept the SPL share of the old company. Think about it. Rangers were given a vote on whether to transfer themselves to Rangers? How is that meant to work? This was a football matter. CLUBS voting, not companies. There's a supreme irony in seeing Rangers supporters invoke the miracle of bi-location so often invoked by Roman Catholic-types in support of the idea of Oldco and Newco being one and the same.

I note that you didn't address the Old Firm question.

First time these two clubs have ever met. I would have thought it was self-evident from my stated opinion on the matter.

[dec]

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.