And to think it's usually hard-line Catholics who are so vociferous about something which was dead miraculously coming back to life.
This FIFA? http://www.fifa.com/world-match-centre/news/newsid/197/701/7/index.html UEFA FIFA LNS... NEW CLUB
If the demise of the company didn’t affect the club, why did a club that finished second in the SPL find itself playing in SFL3 the next season, and why were its players allowed to walk away from their contracts? The SPL had penalties for clubs going into administration, which were fully applied in the case of Rangers: a 10-point deduction, which didn’t affect its league position. The team wasn’t relegated and no subsequent football penalty was imposed on it which would explain it dropping three divisions. That it did so, then, is an extraordinary event for which the league’s CEO has offered no rationale. There’s no getting around the fact. If the club exists separately of the company, and was bought as an ongoing concern separate from the liquidation of the company, then its football activities continue uninterrupted and it plays in the SPL. Its players remain under contract. Manchester United didn’t drop three divisions and have all its players released when the Glazers bought the club in 2005. Merely changing owners is an event which has no effect on a club’s league status.
It will be recalled that in Article 2 ‘Club’ is defined in terms of ‘the undertaking of an association football club’, and in Rule I1 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club. Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated. While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.” “In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not.“ LNS
If at first you don't succeed, misquote anything you find relevant EDGE really did get under your skins this morning huh?
I never said seething. Do keep up, BEaldo. I can't multi quote but in answer to you venomDP'd - I can't count, what with me being a pleb n all. Not that a follow what the **** you're talking about anyway.
