ianferguson 2,619 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Every sporting body in the land knows Rangers have an unbroken history , that's no longer up for debate and everyone knows the new owners bought all the assets so let there be no doubt Thompson is in the wrong here.I've got a pretty thick skin so references to us as sevco or zombies are only taken as banter and are water of a ducks back .However if someone in a promiment position refutes all the evidence in front of him and actually tries to deprive us of compensation rightfully due to us ,then it's time to make a stand .First thing is to demand SFA clarify Rangers are recognised as having 141 years of history and secondly demand that Dundee United show us the respect we are due as Scotlands largest club.If we look back to the administration /liquidation fiasco you could maybe see how we were perceived as tax cheats who gained an unfair advantage over our opposition and possibly understand other fans contempt for us.But with the benefit of hindsight we are all now aware that we were infact the victims of Whytes fraud and have suffered horrendously despite having not done anything wrong.I don't think it's too strong to point out a lot of bears have gone to their graves with there precious clubs reputation tainted and to have one of our biggest critics not only show no remorse but to actually rub it in while trying to save a few grand is utterly dispicable.Time for Wallace to step up to the plate and put the record straight while also putting Thompson in his place.As for boycotts at tannadump ? I'll leave that decision to the bears who follow home and away ,but if i see the Rangers end a little emptier i'll have a little smile on my face while thinking karma. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coop 654 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 He'll be using the club/company as 'separate identities' to try and save himself a few quid. I'm guessing the argument will be The Rangers Football Club Ltd is the vehicle for the business side and that it's only been in operation since 2012.The club has it's history back to 1872, the company doesn't so the outcome will be wrangled over by the legal eagles. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coop 654 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 If he can pull this off as a technically, becsause the newco has only paid two years developing.The shareholders in the oldco can chase the other years from the oldco's development money.No?I think BDO will be watching with some interest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hilts 12,819 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastEnclosureBear 3,022 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 The fact they keep banging on about us being a new club, emhpasizes we aren't. Rangers then, Rangers now. He's a pathetic wind up merchant, feel a bit sorry for the guy to be honest, nothing else better to do with his time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
broxi74 127 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 We shudnt be doing business with that shower of shite! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ger77 742 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Now then, this is the kind of bitter bastard that sos et al should be focussing their attention on.Im sure that many thousands of Rangers fans will wish to complain by letter, email, phone call etc. Lets hope if that happened that it wouldnt affect their ability to run their daily business dealing with ticket enquiries etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOAT 30,449 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 And he will continue to treat you like mugs and laugh all the way to the bank.It's getting boring now. I couldnae give a rats arse if you go or don't go. It's your choice, but every away ground will be packed when we're back in the top flight, that will do me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 If it walks like a cunt, looks like a cunt, and talks like a cunt....... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hilts 12,819 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 It's getting boring now. I couldnae give a rats arse if you go or don't go. It's your choice, but every away ground will be packed when we're back in the top flight, that will do me.spot on. imagine being 4-0 up at tannadice, thousands of bears chanting "Thomson, what's the score, Thomson Thomson what's the score!" that will mean more to me than 'starving' them of money Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themoodybloo 77 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Man is an ignorant gobshite no more no less. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimfanciesthedude 25,587 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 i take it someone asked the speccy tit where telfer played pre 2012 then, or did telfer simply "appear" back in 2012 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeneily 1,460 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 The newco purchased the assets of the oldco including the club itself, goodwill, brands, tangible assets including buildings, fixtures, etc and tupe'd over the contracts.A typical asset purchase.Now I would certainly define potential future compensation for youth development costs in the event of move under freedom of contract to constitute contingent deferred income which by definition an asset. Intangible until crystallisation and not valued in balance sheet but an asset none the less. I cannot see any law lord concluding anything other then that the deferred income asset was transferred from oldco to newco along with the other assets unless specifically excluded in the sale documentation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,624 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 The newco purchased the assets of the oldco including the club itself, goodwill, brands, tangible assets including buildings, fixtures, etc and tupe'd over the contracts.A typical asset purchase.Now I would certainly define potential future compensation for youth development costs in the event of move under freedom of contract to constitute contingent deferred income which by definition an asset. Intangible until crystallisation and not valued in balance sheet but an asset none the less. I cannot see any law lord concluding anything other then that the deferred income asset was transferred from oldco to newco along with the other assets unless specifically excluded in the sale documentation.Keep your heed down for your first few posts then no one will spot you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StornowayBlue 630 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 He'll be using the club/company as 'separate identities' to try and save himself a few quid. I'm guessing the argument will be The Rangers Football Club Ltd is the vehicle for the business side and that it's only been in operation since 2012.The club has it's history back to 1872, the company doesn't so the outcome will be wrangled over by the legal eagles.How can any Ger play devils advocate with this nonsense. Don't even entertain it. Diageo are currently paying for historical payouts from the Thalidomide scandal. They weren't distributing the drugs back in the sixty's but they now own lock, stock and barrel and so are liable for claims as well as proceeds. The owners of Glasgow Rangers, it seems, are only liable for the old company's debt and none of the goodwill. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibroxholm 2,312 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 It's getting boring now. I couldnae give a rats arse if you go or don't go. It's your choice, but every away ground will be packed when we're back in the top flight, that will do me.Ditto, your second sentence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_ger 1,454 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 This is the type of shit we should not be allowing to get under the skin. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gersandy 594 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 No chance. We paid our footballing debt and Staff tuped over. Telfer was a product of our youth system and bollocks to any suggestion we only nurtured the Lad for 2 years. Absolutely ridiculous. How can we liable for footballing debts yet be refused compensation for development in the same period.Very good point. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BraveheartGordon 77 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 The best evidence that we survived is the reaction of opposition supporters after a big defeat.A quick glance on Facebook or Twitter after the challenge cup final should be all he needs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Jela 21,616 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Can't say his comments mean anything to me tbh. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCPRANGERS1 2,997 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Tin hat on here, but they'll agrue that case in the compensation panel.The football club has been here for over a hundred years, and will still be here in 100 years time. Unlike Dundee United, who could be gone by that time.But the company who "owned" charlie telfer has only be around for 2 years.True but under TUPE your length of service transfers over. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 don' t really know what everyone's getting so upset about. Like it or not, what Thomson says is true, the club we supported died and the new one was formed in 2012. Two years of history is all the new club have so far.ahahhahahaha you guys have an hour to play with the taig. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCPRANGERS1 2,997 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 He'll be using the club/company as 'separate identities' to try and save himself a few quid. I'm guessing the argument will be The Rangers Football Club Ltd is the vehicle for the business side and that it's only been in operation since 2012.The club has it's history back to 1872, the company doesn't so the outcome will be wrangled over by the legal eagles.Under TUPE law though your service continues and rolls over (so to dpeak ) to the new company, I know this because I had to go through the TUPE process. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BraveheartGordon 77 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Do you know something, I don't necessary agree with fan boycotts, I agreed about the one we did when we had them at Tannadice a couple of seasons ago, but you know what when we get to the top flight, or if we draw them in the cup at their ground I really think this should be the only club that we do boycott.No! Rangers fans can't miss out on one of the most enjoyable victories of recent years. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockwellGers 15,254 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Why is there any decision to be made? Who instigated this panel? The SPFL and the SFA recognise us Rangers FC (1872) so why would they sanction or arrange for a decision of this nature? I don't see what's to be contested or 'found' here. The only people that staunchly claim we are a new club are the ones who hate us most, that is no exaggeration at all. Why appease that prick Thomson? Fuck him 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.