The Case For Rangers History

[TheWeeBlueDevil 0]

Taken from VB site , hope it's ok to post this here .

 

 

The Case For Rangers History

Written by Damien

Sunday, 17 June 2012 20:27

 

Ok much has been said online and in people's workplaces about Rangers losing their history due to the formation of a newco. Below I have stated evidence which disproves this myth hopefully once and for all.

 

Now it should be noted that the most vehement pusher's of the 'no history myth' are Celtic fans. Why? Simple, they are bitter. Since their inception they have been jealous of all things Rangers and this gives them the opportunity to right all the wrongs done against them. Poor wee mites. Now what is the basis of their argument?

 

That a newco breaks the timeline of a club. Well the problem here is the distinction between the company that operates the club and the club itself.

 

Rangers indeed have been registered since 1899 as a PLC and again re-registered in 1981. However the actual club was formed in 1872. So according to Celtic fans the years between 1872 and 1899 didn't actually exist and are just a figment of our imagination.

 

So how can we prove that company and club are different? Quite simply by looking at the latest litigation between Rangers and the SFA. Have a look.

 

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html

 

Note the first two sentences:

 

This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA"), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA and by the Judicial Panel Protocol which sets out the disciplinary rules relating to the conduct of members of the SFA and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to enforce such rules.

 

Clearly Lord Glennie finds the distinction between company and club. Newco are now the 'company' that run Rangers Football Club. If this were not the case then the above judicial review would now have been scrapped. This we know is not true as the SFA are still going to decide on it or Charles Green will accept the initial punishment of the transfer embargo.

 

So there we go we now have clear legal evidence that a company and club are separate.

 

Who else should we look to for more evidence? The SPL maybe? Well the SPL are currently investigating Rangers for use of EBT's and dual-contracts with a view to more sanctions. One SPL source has old BBC Scotland that part of the Rangers newco's application for league membership could depend on them taking responsibility for past transgressions. But wait a minute, surely a newco doesn't have 'past transgressions'. Again, it will be an issue that the 'club' did and not the company, therefore history still seems to be playing a part.

 

Even SPL Chief Mr Doncaster admits as much.

 

“You would expect the football club to take with it responsibility for anything that emerged from that investigation”.

 

Note the use of the word's 'football club'.

 

Ok, now we have established that company and club are different what did Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps have to say on this matter.

 

"The Club will continue to operate as it has always done but within a new company structure." - Paul Clark

 

"However, we should make it clear that Rangers Football Club will continue within a new company structure and the Club survives and will continue playing football at Ibrox." - Paul Clark

 

There are many more quotes from D&P but let's move on.

 

So what about this liquidation malarky, after all this is the main reason for the disappearance of our history isn't it? Well according to Celtic fans it is, however HMRC seem to have a different view.

 

"Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox."

 

Now remember what we read above, company and club are seperate entities, HMRC believe this too.

 

And on the subject of liquidation, what do the liquidators have to say? Well appointed liquidators BDO partner Mr Cohen said this:

 

"will not mean the end of football at Ibrox – only the end of the company that ran the club".

 

Again we are back to the company/club stuff again, anyone seeing a pattern?

 

Clearly we have now established that history belongs with the club and therefore the club no matter who or what company owns it will retain it.

 

But, but..what about...

 

Airdrie? New club didn’t get admitted to SFL. Clydebank was purchased, moved to Airdrie, renamed Airdrie United. Situation completely different.

 

Gretna 2008? This is an entirely new club that just uses the Gretna name, they didn't even lay claim to Gretna's history

 

Third Lanark? Started FORTY years after the demise of the original, surely only a joker would use this as an example, oh wait....

 

Clydebank(Juniors) - now they are clutching at straws, for a team that's been reformed so many times using this as an example should be ridiculed.

 

These are the only examples that can and are used against the case for Rangers history. Pretty weak, eh?

 

So what of other examples of clubs who have been in a similar situation to Rangers and retained their history? Well three teams stick out, Leeds United, Charlton FC and Middlesborough. All had their companies liquidated and all moved on. Now I suggest anyone who doubts this look up the official websites of these clubs and have a look at the 'History' sections. I think you will find that their histories are indeed intact.

 

Ah but, they are English so that doesn't count. Oh really, liquidation laws applied to Leeds Utd, Charlton FC, Middlesborough and Rangers are the same laws. They apply to both England and Scotland, so no argument there.

 

But wait just a goddamm minute. If one looks far enough back into the Scottish football records like Celtic fans did with ahen, Third Lanark, then we can find the example of Hibernian FC. Now Hibernian FC ceased to exist in 1897, ten years after winning the Scottish Cup and three years after winning Division Two yet these honours still remain on Hibernian's history even though the club wasn't reformed until one year later. How can this be? Could this be why Hibernian fans are keeping schtum in this matter, in case Celtic fans want one of their only two major honours erased?

 

This Hibs example alone proves that the SFA have set a precedent in clubs reforming and keeping their history intact.

 

So there we have it the case has been presented you can make up your own mind. However I will point out that all of the above are facts. Nothing has been made up, it's now up to you to decide, do Rangers retain their history?

 

My answer. Of course we do

Edited June 19, 2012 by TheWeeBlueDevil

[Zappa 0]

Taken from VB site , hope it's ok to post this hear .

 

No problem at all.

[der Berliner 4,146]

Our main problem is not the actual facts, which de jure and de facto say what we all know. Our problem is the current stance not ponly taken by the Hooped Horrors, but by nigh all chairmen, supporters, and last but not least nigh all press people in Scotland. They have been doing this for years and have went into overdrive since February.

 

One of the prime candidates is BBC Scotland and through them the BBC. This news outlet is held in high regard all over the world and they are perceived to be true and impartial. They, IMHO do real damage to our world-wide image and we shall and ought to remember and essentially fight that.