Liquidation happened alright, I remember it well. You'll never change your views on this, that's your choice. You're taking the very literal view, Rangers got liquidated so no longer exist in any form. To me Rangers are Rangers, whats happened has happened, it can't be helped. As long as this team plays under the name of Rangers then they'll have my support.
IMO Celtic are happy enough with the one horse race. I have been saying for a while that I didn't mind league reconstruction if there was a need, reason and aim for it happening.... I was sort of in favour of a more equitable split of the prize money, so when Lawwell played the great Altruist in saying how much we had given up I was happy enough. I think in some ways we have pulled a fast one.... Bear with me here. 1st and 2nd took a huge part of the split. Now that has gone the team miles out in front can afford to stay miles out in front. The gap in money between 2nd and the rest ain't so great, so it will be harder for anyone to develop a monopoly on 2nd and create a platform to challenge 1st. I think we might just have given a lot to preserve a whole lot more...... A pretty dastardly stroke tbh.
Think we have differentiate between the formal concept of a club and the more informal ethereal, nebulous entity that fans associate with. I have said many times that Duff & Phelps, the rfc directors in their letter of resignation from Plus Xcode, the SFA and FIFA all have to treat rfc as a new club, since they did not have a membership of any national association from 14 June 2012 till 3 rd August 2012. I have no real issue with LNS idea that there is informal continuity for fans, but the authorities and legal dealings have to treat them as new. On this basis to catapult them is simply cheating. Like it or not, formally, corporately, legally and in football authorities stance and dealings they are a new club, which has already benefitted from gaining a licence and membership against the rules because they did not have three years of accounts. FIFA review of the year 2012 published 26/12/12 stated clearly that in Scotland rfc, not company, not ltd not plc, but club were liquidated and with them 140 years of history,
The club died and a new club was formed with the same name, branding, stadium and the same fans supporting it. We've got into technicalities now about whether or not it truly was the 'club' that died - I never heard a single person on any side separate the two until liquidation. The organisation went under and assets were sold to a new organisation which had to apply for a license in its given trade. I'd argue you shouldn't get to keep the accolades of the dead organisation and if you do then you also have to pay back the debts and the recent fine for the player contracts - you shouldn't be able to absorb the good things from the old business and none of the bad things, but this seems to be exactly what your club is attempting to do. Anyway in any future interactions I'll still treat you like Rangers, after all you really are exactly like Rangers.
So integrity and meritocracy are to be sacrificed for entertainments sake. Scottish football is morally bankrupt over the permitting if a new club without three years of accounts receiving a licence and membership to play in the SFL. This simply makes it corrupt.
****in madness... Football player answers question on a football matter that would affect th team he plays for and some people go crazy. How dare he... BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Nor it seems do Barclays Bank who have advised clients who used the EBT in the same way as rfc to settle with the tax man. They anticipate the UTT to go against rfc and if not, once the decision is out of Scotland in the hand of the Supreme Court. The payments as LNS said on page 42 of his report are then no longer legal but illegal and UEFA would surely have to look at sporting fair play, although the football authorities in Scotland won't.
Training in how to present neutral, mundane answers like every other **** on every other topic in football. I don't see anyone getting worked up about this apart from you and Albie. Most other folk are concerned about Mulgews inability to play the media game.
Yip that the concern .... He should be allowed to voice his opinion on a football matters... no matter if it different from others. That's my point.
One question for all.........would a club be catapulted over 25 or so others, jumping two divisions in England, Spain, Italy Germany or any other civilised league in Europe ?
Right, so the guy who kicks up a stink about people talking about tax tribunals, spl investigations etc etc who only cares about "Rangers" if they get beat.... now identifies a team getting a gratis bunk up of 2 divisions as a "football matter".
