a question for anyone who thinks we're a new club

[Captain Hilts 12,819]

it seems that no matter how many times the facts are presented to these idiots, they still insist on believing that we are a new club. il use Hearts (SFL3 feeder club) as an example for this, as they look most likely to go under at the moment (with any luck )

say Hearts (SFL3 feeder club) fall into the same situation as us - they find a new owner, but crippling debt forces him to take over the club with a new company, meaning transferring the clubs assets (honours, stadium, training facilitates ect.) over to the new holding company. then, like Charles Green, the owner publicly states a number of times that they are the same club as they were before. will the Hearts (SFL3 feeder club) fans think "no. he's lying. we're a new club"........

i think this question pretty much answers itself. let's wait and see til it's happening to the diddy clubs, then see what their opinion is

[Bear78 96]

The ordinary one's are pretending to think this just to annoy you, the rest are as dumb as animals, I'd probably be too busy laughing at them to notice, but you should just tell them they are wanks and see if that shuts them up

[Big V 271]

I don't want Hearts (SFL3 feeder club) to go under... they have a good youth system for us to continue to plunder.

[Sgt. Pepper 117]

SAME club, New company!

Simple.

[d_nic83 61]

The real way to confuse the mhanks about this is to play along with there daft assertions that were a new club. Ask them the question if we are a new club then surely that means we have never played them before. Which also means if we have never played them before then they no longer are our rivals. You can't be someone's rival if you have never played them before. Said it to a few of the uneducated halfwits the puzzled look on there faces is pretty funny.

[paisleyroad 894]

People are always gonna have they're doubts as long as people keep starting threads like this FFS

Who actually gives a flying fuck what anyone outside Rangers thinks?

[MikeBlue 136]

In all honesty, there really aren't many outside Celtic that are clinging on to this. There's the odd dig from Celtic supporting journalists but even they are starting to drop it as it makes them look ridiculous.

If you have anyone giving you grief, just tell them to check the official SFL website.

[54andcounting 627]

it seems that no matter how many times the facts are presented to these idiots, they still insist on believing that we are a new club. il use Hearts (SFL3 feeder club) (SFL3 feeder club) (SFL3 feeder club) as an example for this, as they look most likely to go under at the moment (with any luck )

say Hearts (SFL3 feeder club) (SFL3 feeder club) (SFL3 feeder club) fall into the same situation as us - they find a new owner, but crippling debt forces him to take over the club with a new company, meaning transferring the clubs assets (honours, stadium, training facilitates ect.) over to the new holding company. then, like Charles Green, the owner publicly states a number of times that they are the same club as they were before. will the Hearts (SFL3 feeder club) (SFL3 feeder club) (SFL3 feeder club) fans think "no. he's lying. we're a new club"........

i think this question pretty much answers itself. let's wait and see til it's happening to the diddy clubs, then see what their opinion is

Sent this to the Scotsman:

I wish to complain about this article:

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/technology/gaming-reviews/rangers-confirmed-to-be-included-in-fifa-13-video-game-1-2541040?

The reason for the confusion arose after it became apparent that the club’s liquidation!

The club was not liquidated, the PLC is in administration, the football club continues! If you do not believe me then see this:

They have debated in Law and in accordance with SPL and SFA membership and rules, if Ranger FC 1872 are Rangers FC 1872, know what we are!!!

[46]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, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise.

Source :

THE SCOTTISH PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED

REASONS

for Decision dated 12 September 2012

by

THE RT HON LORD NIMMO SMITH,

NICHOLAS STEWART QC

and

CHARLES FLINT QC

the Commission appointed by Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Scottish Premier League Limited dated 1 August 2012 in relation to RFC 2012 Plc and Rangers FC

Please stop this inaccurate reporting.

[Ibrox_Nights 429]

I don't want Hearts (SFL3 feeder club) (SFL3 feeder club) to go under... they have a good youth system for us to continue to plunder.

Very true, very true

[MVRanger 2,603]

Just direct any Bheggar still harbouring this delusion to the SFL web-site where, under member clubs, they will encounter Rangers F.C. Snigger with amusement as you watch them go apoplectic as they see the Club was formed in 1872 with all the honours listed intact and an unbroken history until today.

[ianb1547 3,767]

The powers that be dont neccesarily go along with this. The reason I say that is because I asked SFA why we were in the 2nd round of the scottish cup (when teams that were in SPL in previous season dont enter until a later round).

This was the email I got back from the SFA.

Thank you for your email the contents of which have been noted.

The Club to whom you refer no longer exists i.e. Rangers FC and

therefore the rule highlighted by you cannot be applied.

The newco club, The Rangers FC, as you know operate under the auspices

of the Scottish Football League Division 3 and, as a consequence of

their position in that league, enters the competition in Round Two.

Thank you for taking the trouble to write

[54andcounting 627]

The powers that be dont neccesarily go along with this. The reason I say that is because I asked SFA why we were in the 2nd round of the scottish cup (when teams that were in SPL in previous season dont enter until a later round).

This was the email I got back from the SFA.

Thank you for your email the contents of which have been noted.

The Club to whom you refer no longer exists i.e. Rangers FC and

therefore the rule highlighted by you cannot be applied.

The newco club, The Rangers FC, as you know operate under the auspices

of the Scottish Football League Division 3 and, as a consequence of

their position in that league, enters the competition in Round Two.

Thank you for taking the trouble to write

Email them this back:

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, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise.

From my post above and quote the source and ask them to explain!!!

[rossDas 1,071]

The saggy sphincter brigade are a people who enjoy propagating myths, and will never accept the facts no matter how solid. What we must do is ensure that the lie does not become accepted as truth.

[WVB 2,560]

School playground stuff.

That is all.

[grager 3]

Who gives a fcuk what any one outside the rangers family think.

Let them spread their vile beliefs and hopes of us gone , It just proves how big we are for the lesser class to be obsessed with the rangers .

At the end of the day they want to be us and have our glory , they won't admit it but their probably jelous of our new journey.

[No Hablo Inglés 32]

It is just banter. Are you honestly going to believe that if it were the other way around we would just accept it and move on...nah That's what football rivalries are about, getting one up on your rival and then making the most of it while you're there.

[davekerrthebear 124]

they KNOW the facts. they only say this shit to try to wind us up. unfortunately they succeed more often than not.