Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 The question about being a new club or not has been answered many times by those whose opinion matters I.e. the football authorities & the law lords. It is not a new club that is clear. Its history continued when it's legal entity changed.I'd have thought Donald Findlay would have known that. Maybe he should stick to criminal law as his knowledge of corporate law is clearly lacking somewhat. One day later you clearly still haven't read the article. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 I think you are overly focusing on semantics. The general point he is making is exactly the point you regularly make. Rangers has changed. It feels like a different club. It feels like a lesser club. At times, it feels like an alien club, but it is the same club with the same 142 year long history. While I might feel that Rangers is a different club, I know that it isn't, and it certainly does not need to create a new history. For a former vice-chairman to say this is quite beyond the pale and utterly inexcusable. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Rangers has changed. It feels like a different club. It feels like a lesser club. At times, it feels like an alien club, but it is the same club with the same 142 year long history. While I might feel that Rangers is a different club, I know that it isn't, and it certainly does not need to create a new history. For a former vice-chairman to say this is quite beyond the pale and utterly inexcusable. He says it's the same club legally but in his heart it doesn't feel that way. I feel much the same. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,653 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 One day later you clearly still haven't read the article. I can assure I have read the article. Findlay does suggest it is a new club. Quite ridiculous 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,653 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 He says it's the same club legally but in his heart it doesn't feel that way. I feel much the same. No he doesn't . Read the DM article 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 I can assure I have read the article. Findlay does suggest it is a new club. Quite ridiculous At no point does he say it's a new club legally. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 He says it's the same club legally but in his heart it doesn't feel that way. I feel much the same. He believes that Rangers is a new entity that has to create its own history. That is his extremely unhelpful personal view. Authority, thankfully, has determined otherwise, but those who constantly challenge authority over - and there are many - have found a new ally. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 When DF talks about Rangers being a new entity that needs to create its own history, he's not talking about the company - he's talking about the club. Maybe he his, maybe he isn't because the two are so closely linked that the events of 2012 created a multitude of questions and grey areas, but my point wasn't about what he actually said, it was about (as I said) what he 'inadvertently' raised. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Maybe he his, maybe he isn't because the two are so closely linked that the events of 2012 created a multitude of questions and grey areas, but my point wasn't about what he actually said, it was about (as I said) what he 'inadvertently' raised. His learned friend Lord Nimmo Smith may have declared otherwise. But to Donald Findlay the Rangers which visits Cowdenbeath on Tuesday is not the same Rangers he once served. 'It is a different club,' he tells Sportsmail bluntly. 'They may play at Ibrox and they may play sometimes in royal blue jerseys. 'But you cannot pass on that which is undefinable. And that is spirit and tradition and all the rest of it. 'To me this is a new Rangers which has to establish its own history and tradition. But it's not the Rangers I know. To me, genuinely, it is a new entity.' Read more:*http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2816759/Donald-Findlay-says-Rangers-new-entity-establish-s-history-tradition.html#ixzz3HrRNaAeg* Follow us:*@MailOnline on Twitter*|*DailyMail on Facebook If Graham Spiers had written that, we'd have been justifiably furious. No-one would have suggested that he was talking about the company instead of the club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,653 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Maybe he his, maybe he isn't because the two are so closely linked that the events of 2012 created a multitude of questions and grey areas, but my point wasn't about what he actually said, it was about (as I said) what he 'inadvertently' raised. The club & it's history continued. Frankly couldn't give a damn about the corporate stuff 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.