rogueleader
suave gringo
So , if rangers had purchased St Mirren, would St Mirrens history have been an asset transferable to the new owner , rangers ?
ALL three of the remaining bidders for Rangers have refused to rule out liquidation
- Thread starter DevAdvocate
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
No, they would have to dispose of the 'goodwill' or trading rights of st mirren due to the rules around ownership of muliple teams within the SFA. Its why rangers and celtic have never been allowed to buy a feeder club in the lower divisions.
Still clutching to those straws. Its fading fading fading.... go into the light.
Let them rest in peace. Its over.
Let them rest in peace. Its over.
Excellent.
So we know that clubs are bought and sold lock stock and barrel. We know this from your Leeds United example.
No company is going to take on the liabilities of the club, so the club will have to fold.
You are correct the assets of the company that own the club will have to be sold off. Like Ibrox and Murray Park.
Given that we know for a fact that League status is not transferrable to a new company. Given that we know that there is no mechanism by which the history of a club can be transferred to another, It is absolutely certain and beyond any doubt that unless someone takes on the liabilities of Rangers, then they will die.
"Given that we know that there is no mechanism by which the history of a club can be transferred to another"
Aye there is, you purchase the goodwill. Simples
Lol you haven't even come up with one answer to any of the questions. The timeline, why nobody else follows this get out jail free card, transfering st mirrens history etc.
One question do you believe this title is tainted?
One question do you believe this title is tainted?
rogueleader
suave gringo
I meant the entire entity that is LUFC after the administrators had done their bit. But you knew that didn't you?
Let us not use that to distract from the ludicrous notion that a club not liquidating has any bearing on one that will.
No there is no mechanism for this to happen. SPL/SFA rules would have to be changed to let this happen. This is a fact.
Would you also like some magic beans with your purchase of goodwill?
I wonder if that might be because you are an idiot?
I don't mind people just not getting it. But you have gone to a lot of effort not to get it.
Worse than that. You have gone to a lot of effort to ensure that others don't get it.
You know fine well that Rangers fans are ****ing idiots. Do you think it is fair to be filling them up with ****?
No, the title is not tainted. Or if it is, we tainted it. I congratulated you guys earlier. Best team won the league.
To answer your other questions:-
1. The timeline - As I have stated, the timeline is of the club, not the company. Hence Leeds can claim they are founded in 1919, even though their original holding comapny has been liquidated and they sit within a company founded in 2007.
2, why nobody else goes follows this get out jail free card - Some have! Leeds, and Luton being the two I have discussed. There have been many other though. Why this is not used more often though is mainly due to the FAs Insolvency Rules in England which state all administrations should be exited with the use of a CVA or they will not grant the Golden Share. The FA use their discression on this, hence Leeds 15 point penalty and the 20 point penalty for Luton. The other reason for this is that the owner of the club tends to get shafted! They lose the club for nothing and there is a good chance that they will be struck off from being a director. PRetty sure this was the offence Whyte was barred for before.
3. transfering st mirrens history - If a company buys another business including its goodwill, then it can trade as this business. Forgetting the rules on multiple club ownership, if Rangers bought St Mirren, then the company would then have the rights to operate two businesses, one as rangers one as st mirren. Imagine for instance ford bought kia. Ford would have the right to trade as ford founded in 1908 (or whenever) and the right to trade as kia founded in 1980 (made up dates). Both businesses would have an intact history. You could not however merge the twos historys. You could not claim that Kia had been making the Mondeo since 1970 for instance.
The sooner he moves onto the acceptance stage the better for his health. Poor sod probably hasn't slept since valentines day with worry.
1. wrong
2. wrong
3. wrong
Stop reading message boards for your information, or you'll get duped like david murray
rogueleader
suave gringo
tbh mate, I think you are proving my point for me there
......you could not claim that rangers newco had been making the rangers history 1872-2012.If its a fact, you can post a link to the rule? Seriously if there is a rule I would be very interested to see it, and I will feel very foolish!
And goodwill is an asset of a company. I know it sounds stupid but it is real! (surprised you havent made a goodwill hunting joke yet)
I imagine a fully grown beard and a mountain of paper with flow charts and diagrams and ****.
You must log in or register to see images
[/COLOR]
tbh mate, I think you are proving my point for me there
Not at all mate.
No-one here is disputing Leeds have kept their history. Leeds company only came into existance in 2007.
Its the whole thing about the business (the club) and the company being different.
I imagine a fully grown beard and a mountain of paper with flow charts and diagrams and shi
I have just told you that there is no mechanism for it. None at all.