Rangers FC Not A New Club

4,600 10
Login to Comment Search

Rfc_Richie_87
19 years ago
12 years ago
2
04 Sep 2012 19:00:41
Just a reminder rangers are NOT a new club FACT!!! the holding company rangers plc is to be liquidated yes but the football club will not be FACT. all club assets trophies HISTORY IBROX THE BADGE etc were transferred form the oldco a normal thing in england i be. RANGERS 1872 still LIVES on no matter what any other club says ( scumtic ) who also did an asset transfer in 1994, so your update without badges and kits is wrong should have kept them in
DWCallaghan
17 years ago
2 days ago
50
Premium
07 Oct 2012 09:52:52
I know it is annoying mate, but might be license thing as well ? SI dont have the licences for the SFL, that is why we all have to put them in. I have just taken the Bears logo's from the existing graphics and stuck them in Div 3, so it is all good. Only annoying thing is teh bug in the update where all our Scottish players have a nil value, so keep getting offers all the time.
Mind you, they should have fixed several other things, big Jig left me on a Bosman at Xmas !!!! never happen in real life to the Club skipper :-)
doyle119487
15 years ago
12 years ago
5
06 Jan 2013 19:24:44
By Rfc_Richie_87 | Permalink | On 04 September 2012 - 20:00 PM
Just a reminder rangers are NOT a new club FACT!!! the holding company rangers plc is to be liquidated yes but the football club will not be FACT. all club assets trophies HISTORY IBROX THE BADGE etc were transferred form the oldco a normal thing in england i be. RANGERS 1872 still LIVES on no matter what any other club says ( scumtic ) who also did an asset transfer in 1994, so your update without badges and kits is wrong should have kept them in



zombie nation
rabcp
19 years ago
2 years ago
1,632
07 Jan 2013 16:38:15
Zombie huns, your dead and now a newco deal with it!
Jan.
20 years ago
8 months ago
305
Premium
07 Jan 2013 19:38:41
LOL.

Love a dirty zombie in denial.
caleyjag
20 years ago
4 years ago
33
09 Jan 2013 15:31:43
Trolling much you Rangers-obsessed twats?
Telegram Sam
18 years ago
8 months ago
5,083
10 Jan 2013 20:52:54
Rangers existed from 1872-2012. The company ceased to exist, and whilst the new club may have adopted its badge/ stadium/ fanbase, it is a new club and a new company that is less than a year old. What happened to Celtic in 1994 is completely different - it is the same company that was founded in 1888 with the same company number, but in 1994 it changed from a privately-owned company to a publicly-owned company, but nonetheless it was the same company post-1994 as it was pre-1994.

It's really not that complicated.
rabcp
19 years ago
2 years ago
1,632
11 Jan 2013 14:20:37
By Telegram Sam | Permalink | On 10 January 2013 - 20:52 PM
Rangers existed from 1872-2012. The company ceased to exist, and whilst the new club may have adopted its badge/ stadium/ fanbase, it is a new club and a new company that is less than a year old. What happened to Celtic in 1994 is completely different - it is the same company that was founded in 1888 with the same company number, but in 1994 it changed from a privately-owned company to a publicly-owned company, but nonetheless it was the same company post-1994 as it was pre-1994.

It's really not that complicated.


It is for the knuckle dragging bigoted huns...
jojobuffon
16 years ago
13 years ago
41
14 Jan 2013 10:15:28
They shouldn't have any badge or kits as they are a Scottish football league team and have to admit went into my editor and changed their name to their official name sevco fc
zulu9812
14 years ago
3 months ago
22
Premium
16 Jan 2013 07:36:04
It depends on how you look at it.

Are Rangers a new club because the business was liquidated and assets transferred into a new business entity? Perhaps. But then again, there's a strong argument that a football club is more than it's business registration with Company House.

Are Rangers a new club because the SFA gave them a brand new league registration in the Third Division, irrespective of the status of the business side of things? Again, perhaps. But think what would happen if a Scottish team (Rangers or Celtic) were to be offered a place in the English 4th tier. This would also involve a brand new league registration, but would that team then be a brand new club? I think probably not.

As far as the club name goes: the SFA would only issue a registration to The Rangers, not Rangers. I'm not sure why this was. Ostensibly it's because SFL didn't want to two teams with so similar names (Rangers and The Rangers) but the business had already been liquidated by this point. It's probably some obscure legal point but it's not like, say, Newton Heath becoming Manchester United (by the way, Man U still trace their history back to 1878, as Newton Heath).

I think a good comparison is Ferranti Thistle. Ferranti Thistle were a junior side who played in Edinburgh. When a spot opened in the Scottish Football League, Ferranti Thistle pursued that option. Ferranti were a works team, and there were strict SFL rules prohibiting corporate sponsorship through the team name. Additionally, the club's ground was not up to league specification. So a new name and a new stadium were required. Ferranti Thistle were re-formed as Meadowbank Thistle and moved to Meadowbank Stadium. Later still, that club were bought by new owners who changed the team name and moved them out to West Lothian, becoming Livingston FC. In both instances, you can argue that new clubs were created - different stadiums, different names, different fans, etc. I'm not sure you could say the same thing about Rangers, who have maintained everything within their power.

You'll need to Login to comment