Jump to content

Welcome to RangersMedia!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.


Oldco / Newco - What's the difference?


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 legalbeagle

legalbeagle

    Terry Butcher

  • True Blue
  • 4,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grantham

Posted 16 July 2012 - 09:27 PM

To everyone involved in this whole saga, and that includes us bluenoses too.

Could someone make a definitive decision on what the difference is between the oldco and newco?
We have some who believe the link to the past has been broken. (False)
We have some who believe that nothing has changed
Some who believe that we are free from debts and old responsibilities
Others who believe that we still must be punished

So, let's have a definitive status on it.

If we are the same, then we will be looking at sanctions for past crimes, if we are not, then what is the difference, and where does it start and end. Also, if we are the same, why on earth have we been put into Division 3, and why can't we just have our old SFA membership?

Too many people want to have their cake and eat it, mostly our enemies but a few of us who change our argument to suit ourselves as well.
advertisement



#2 3Proddie1690

3Proddie1690

    Andy Goram

  • True Blue
  • 1,099 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stirling

Posted 16 July 2012 - 09:35 PM

We're a newco when it suits the taigs and mhedia who bash us about lost history and being a new 'club' and that we've broken the link between old and new so therefore, 'new' Rangers.. However when it comes to the SFA, SPL, we're still very much connected to the oldco for the purposes of fucking us over with draconian punishments... These aresholes have a bone now and they won't let it go

#3 WVB

WVB

    Maintain The Union

  • Banned
  • 28,825 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:1987

Posted 16 July 2012 - 09:35 PM

The oldco signed papes.

The newco doesn't

#4 Thermopylae

Thermopylae

    Bill Struth

  • True Blue
  • 66,739 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow

Posted 16 July 2012 - 09:37 PM

Apparently starting at the bottom isn't a punishment just what a newco has to do so that being the case there can be no sanctions for a newco  :sherlock:

#5 ForeverBlue_Since91

ForeverBlue_Since91

    WHO DARES WINS

  • True Blue
  • 27,425 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow

Posted 16 July 2012 - 09:38 PM

The media keep saying "newco Rangers" but still want to punish us for what the oldco done.

So there is no difference really.

#6 eosmhdo

eosmhdo

    Terry Butcher

  • True Blue
  • 3,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:wee spot in europe

Posted 16 July 2012 - 09:40 PM

The paperazzi hated the oldco and they detest the newco.
So to sum up its a slightly different spelling but the same fucking hassle.

#7 Polo

Polo

    *terryhurlock83*

  • True Blue
  • 5,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Unknown

Posted 16 July 2012 - 09:40 PM

It really is as simple as that.

#8 papaguy51

papaguy51

    Now, Then, Forever.

  • True Blue
  • 59,097 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Lanarkshire

Posted 16 July 2012 - 09:43 PM

The Newco will be recognised with the Oldco's history, so I see no difference.

If it wears blue and plays home games at Ibrox, it's Rangers to me.

I was brought up to support the badge, not the PLC.

#9 ForeverBlue_Since91

ForeverBlue_Since91

    WHO DARES WINS

  • True Blue
  • 27,425 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow

Posted 16 July 2012 - 09:46 PM

No difference.


Honours
Main article: List of Rangers F.C. records and statistics#Honours
Domestic honours
1891,[175] 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1918, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1937, 1939, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1953, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2011
  • Scottish Cup: 33
1894, 1897, 1898, 1903, 1928, 1930, 1932, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1953, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1973, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1992, 1993, 1996,1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2008, 20091947, 1949, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011
European honours
1972

#10 WVB

WVB

    Maintain The Union

  • Banned
  • 28,825 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:1987

Posted 16 July 2012 - 09:54 PM

If we legitimately want to say we are the same club as we always have been, we can't differentiate between newco/oldco when it suits. If it turns out we are guilty of the EBT nonsense, and the rules are followed to the letter, we will get titles stripped. This is just how I see it.  Any titles stripped are the fault of David Murray, not the arseholes at the SFA. i may be missing something glaringly obvious, but otherwise, I expect (due to a deep hatred for David Murray more than any knowledge of tax law) we will lose some titles.

However..........I also expect us to be the 1st club to win 50 titles (again).

Remember, we will start in Division 3, so be prepared for a long war, with snipers having a pop at every opportunity, which we will also need to deal with, via better PR & media savvy.

Also, don't expect to win any Ramsdens Cup, even if we do manage to get past Brechin, we will not be equipped to take on Division 1 teams in later rounds.

Peterhead will probably beat us on the opening day.

None of this is said with any pleasure, but I feel we should prepare for a few shocks on the pitch before we have anything that resembles a settled team, or formation.

That said, it'll be character building, and we'll see what people are made of. I reckon we'll be fine, but expect to see a young team take a few defeats early on.

We just need to get behind them.

#11 Guardian

Guardian

    Gazza

  • True Blue
  • 6,578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow

Posted 16 July 2012 - 09:54 PM

The Rangers company is a newco.

The Rangers club is still the same and still scotlands biggest and most successful club.

#12 peter1872

peter1872

    Gazza

  • True Blue
  • 5,858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow

Posted 16 July 2012 - 10:02 PM

both are our club.

#13 3Proddie1690

3Proddie1690

    Andy Goram

  • True Blue
  • 1,099 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stirling

Posted 16 July 2012 - 10:04 PM

View PostWVB, on 16 July 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

If we legitimately want to say we are the same club as we always have been, we can't differentiate between newco/oldco when it suits. If it turns out we are guilty of the EBT nonsense, and the rules are followed to the letter, we will get titles stripped. This is just how I see it.  Any titles stripped are the fault of David Murray, not the arseholes at the SFA. i may be missing something glaringly obvious, but otherwise, I expect (due to a deep hatred for David Murray more than any knowledge of tax law) we will lose some titles.

However..........I also expect us to be the 1st club to win 50 titles (again).

Remember, we will start in Division 3, so be prepared for a long war, with snipers having a pop at every opportunity, which we will also need to deal with, via better PR & media savvy.

Also, don't expect to win any Ramsdens Cup, even if we do manage to get past Brechin, we will not be equipped to take on Division 1 teams in later rounds.

Peterhead will probably beat us on the opening day.

None of this is said with any pleasure, but I feel we should prepare for a few shocks on the pitch before we have anything that resembles a settled team, or formation.

That said, it'll be character building, and we'll see what people are made of. I reckon we'll be fine, but expect to see a young team take a few defeats early on.

We just need to get behind them.


EBT's did NOT provide us with a sporting advantage, they were used as a sort of player bonus type scheme.. giving guys like Ostantad 30 grand tax free cash didn't win us any titles

#14 Butch_Cassidy

Butch_Cassidy

    David Cooper Templeton

  • Loyal Bluenose
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow

Posted 16 July 2012 - 10:20 PM

View Post3Proddie1690, on 16 July 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

EBT's did NOT provide us with a sporting advantage, they were used as a sort of player bonus type scheme.. giving guys like Ostantad 30 grand tax free cash didn't win us any titles

Exactly.  And who could argue that these players didn't deserve bonuses for all the success they achieved on the pitch.

#15 JCDBigBear

JCDBigBear

    Terry Butcher

  • Moderator
  • 4,977 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uddingston

Posted 17 July 2012 - 09:34 AM

View PostWVB, on 16 July 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

If we legitimately want to say we are the same club as we always have been, we can't differentiate between newco/oldco when it suits. If it turns out we are guilty of the EBT nonsense, and the rules are followed to the letter, we will get titles stripped. This is just how I see it.  Any titles stripped are the fault of David Murray, not the arseholes at the SFA. i may be missing something glaringly obvious, but otherwise, I expect (due to a deep hatred for David Murray more than any knowledge of tax law) we will lose some titles.

However..........I also expect us to be the 1st club to win 50 titles (again).

Remember, we will start in Division 3, so be prepared for a long war, with snipers having a pop at every opportunity, which we will also need to deal with, via better PR & media savvy.

Also, don't expect to win any Ramsdens Cup, even if we do manage to get past Brechin, we will not be equipped to take on Division 1 teams in later rounds.

Peterhead will probably beat us on the opening day.

None of this is said with any pleasure, but I feel we should prepare for a few shocks on the pitch before we have anything that resembles a settled team, or formation.

That said, it'll be character building, and we'll see what people are made of. I reckon we'll be fine, but expect to see a young team take a few defeats early on.

We just need to get behind them.



In the 10 year period the EBT scheme was in use, we only won 4 titles which hardly constitutes domination. (There are no accounts for last year so can't see anything about EBT payments)  EBTs are not illegal. The scheme wasn't hidden from anyone as can be seen in the Club's audited annual accounts. The amounts paid through EBTs were only fractions of wages. Over the 10 years the average percentage of the money paid through EBTs was less than 16% of all wages, etc. Not every player went with the scheme and it should really be the players who owe any tax (if it is ever found to be due). RFC is being held accountable by HMRC for not deducting the tax from the players. Not all the EBTs were paid to players some payments were made to non-footballing employees and directors. The actual amount claimed by HMRC is approx 19m or 1.9m per year on average. (The rest of the HMRC claim is interest and penalties). To suggest for a minute that Rangers achieved some miraculous benefit from the operation of the EBT scheme is bordering on fantasy. The only people to benefit were the employees, players and staff, who joined the scheme. Perhaps that is why they gave it the very appropriately named EMPLOYEE BENEFIT Scheme. The clue was in the name.   I also believe that we provide the SPL and SFA copies of our accounts on an annual basis and if that is correct then why did these bodies not bring this up at the outset?  Where is the enquiry into the other lot for using EBTs?

I have no doubt that the SPL and SFA will try to remove our titles at the behest of our jealous enemies but as far as I and every other real Rangers fan is concerned, we will never remove these from our records.  They were won fairly on the park.  Nobody was bribed.

#16 thebooler

thebooler

    Gazza

  • True Blue
  • 17,115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ayrshire

Posted 17 July 2012 - 09:36 AM

View Postlegalbeagle, on 16 July 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

To everyone involved in this whole saga, and that includes us bluenoses too.

Could someone make a definitive decision on what the difference is between the oldco and newco?
We have some who believe the link to the past has been broken. (False)
We have some who believe that nothing has changed
Some who believe that we are free from debts and old responsibilities
Others who believe that we still must be punished

So, let's have a definitive status on it.

If we are the same, then we will be looking at sanctions for past crimes, if we are not, then what is the difference, and where does it start and end. Also, if we are the same, why on earth have we been put into Division 3, and why can't we just have our old SFA membership?

Too many people want to have their cake and eat it, mostly our enemies but a few of us who change our argument to suit ourselves as well.

What past crimes?

#17 WVB

WVB

    Maintain The Union

  • Banned
  • 28,825 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:1987

Posted 17 July 2012 - 09:38 AM

View Postthebooler, on 17 July 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

What past crimes?

Breaking timmys heart.

We are repeat offenders. :D

#18 elephants stoned

elephants stoned

    Brian Laudrup

  • True Blue
  • 15,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:salford

Posted 17 July 2012 - 09:41 AM

Apart from diffrent reg no at companys house and new trading accounts the new company is the same as the old company. The problem the mhedia are having is that they misunderstand (usualy deliberetly) the diffrence between a football club formed in 1872 and a plc formed in 1899 which itself has gone through many changes, the last being when Whyte took over. Rangers Football Club has a proud and trophy laden history that wouldnt change even if a thousand new companys had been set up.

#19 3Proddie1690

3Proddie1690

    Andy Goram

  • True Blue
  • 1,099 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stirling

Posted 17 July 2012 - 09:43 AM

View PostJCDBigBear, on 17 July 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

In the 10 year period the EBT scheme was in use, we only won 4 titles which hardly constitutes domination. (There are no accounts for last year so can't see anything about EBT payments)  EBTs are not illegal. The scheme wasn't hidden from anyone as can be seen in the Club's audited annual accounts. The amounts paid through EBTs were only fractions of wages. Over the 10 years the average percentage of the money paid through EBTs was less than 16% of all wages, etc. Not every player went with the scheme and it should really be the players who owe any tax (if it is ever found to be due). RFC is being held accountable by HMRC for not deducting the tax from the players. Not all the EBTs were paid to players some payments were made to non-footballing employees and directors. The actual amount claimed by HMRC is approx 19m or 1.9m per year on average. (The rest of the HMRC claim is interest and penalties). To suggest for a minute that Rangers achieved some miraculous benefit from the operation of the EBT scheme is bordering on fantasy. The only people to benefit were the employees, players and staff, who joined the scheme. Perhaps that is why they gave it the very appropriately named EMPLOYEE BENEFIT Scheme. The clue was in the name.   I also believe that we provide the SPL and SFA copies of our accounts on an annual basis and if that is correct then why did these bodies not bring this up at the outset?  Where is the enquiry into the other lot for using EBTs?

I have no doubt that the SPL and SFA will try to remove our titles at the behest of our jealous enemies but as far as I and every other real Rangers fan is concerned, we will never remove these from our records.  They were won fairly on the park.  Nobody was bribed.


very well put my friend

#20 GOAT

GOAT

    HALF-TIME, TEA-TIME, BOW-TIME!

  • True Blue
  • 20,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the Bow Club

Posted 17 July 2012 - 09:46 AM

View PostWVB, on 16 July 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

The oldco signed papes.

The newco doesn't

The policy is back!  (tu)