Jean7brodie says: (385) December 5, 2013 at 9:34 pm 2 2 …

Comment on Comment Moderation Thread by HirsutePursuit.

jean7brodie says: (385)
December 5, 2013 at 9:34 pm
2 2 Rate This

Could anyone enlighten me as to why the OCNC thread is called ‘Bonkers OCNC’?
a. TSFM wishes to stigmatize anyone who has an opinion on the matter as bonkers.
b. TSFM wishes to stigmatize anyone who argues that the old club has died is bonkers
c. TSFM wishes to stigmatize anyone who argues that the old club survives is bonkers
d. The debate is driving him/her bonkers
e. All of the above

Recent Comments by HirsutePursuit

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Big Pink
I think that saying OC/NC is about “bragging rights” is missing the point.

Rangers fans have never been allowed to come to terms with the death of their club. They can never properly reflect on the circumstances surrounding its demise – because they are systematically being ‘duped’ into believing that it didn’t happen.

The consequences of liquidation that the SPL (and to a slightly lesser extent) the SFA couldn’t ignore are, in the minds of the deluded, some dark conspiracy against the Club (old and new).

They can’t see that their original club simply spent more than it earned and went out of business.

They can’t see that the SPL did everything in it’s power (and a bit more) to facilitate the direct entry of the new Club into the top tier.

They can’t see that the SFA facilitated the new Club’s entry into the SFL by the unprecedented approval of the transfer of full SFA membership from the original Ranger Football Club to the new version.

They can’t see that LNS was nothing more than a crass exercise in providing a veneer of validation to the continuity myth.

They can’t see that the 5 way agreement was structured so that the parties “bought in” to the idea of Rangers’ (the association football club) continuing existence – despite that idea being contrary to the rules and regulations of the SFA, SFL AND the SPL.

Supporters of every other club have had to look on as all of these things have happened and, at the same time, are being asked to accept that the ‘sins’ of the old club are merely technical oversights that did not affect past results.

It is insulting in the extreme that Rangers fans can say their current Club is ‘going for 55’.

Insulting to those Rangers fans who have been emotionally manipulated into believing it to be true.

Insulting to every other football fan in Scotland who sees the truth but who are collectively being bullied and coerced into accepting the lie.

This isn’t about bragging rights. It’s about not being taken for a fool.

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Is it uniquely a Rangers thing that the fans almost universally refer to the club as “we”?

I have occasionally heard fans of other clubs speak in the same terms, but more as an exception than a rule.

” We” are going for 55, “We” are an institution, “We” are the same club, etc.

When Rangers fans say the club is more than a corporate body, actually, I think they mean it. 

Of course, unless you were a fan, you’d have no difficulty in understanding that, for the purpose of the football rules and regulations, a corporate body holding membership of a league, is a football club. It really is that simple.

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Re the Brechin game, just to confirm…

Rangers gave permission for its players (at least in registration terms) to play for Sevco Scotland – who were by then (and still are) TRADING under the name of Rangers Football Club.

The transfer of Full membership was from one member club to another. This full membership transfer had nothing to do with the identity of Sevco Scotland.

When it received the full membership from Rangers Sevco Scotland (though renamed TRFC by then) was still the same club…

…that was admitted into the SFL several weeks earlier.

Rangers simply ceased to be a club (in the eyes of the SFA ) when its full membership was transferred to Sevco Scotland and its SPL share was transferred to Dundee.

You should not confuse the trading name with the footballs clubs that have used it.

To Comply or not to Comply ?
For what it’s worth…
As I understand things, the concert party (including Mr King) cannot, without approval from the TOP, buy or sell shares in RIFC during the mandatory offer period.

However, I do not see what would prevent RIFC selling unallocated shares.

The restrictions, as far as I am aware, apply only to the specific people involved in the rule breach. I cannot see what would prevent the company from carrying on a routine share issue.

Luckily/unfortunately for Mr King, he (and the other members of the concert party) won’t be able to take part in a share issue at this time.

Looks like Other People’s Money will have to do for now. 14 

To Comply or not to Comply ?
What I find particularly interesting is that in the interpretation section, there is no listing for “club”/”football club”.

It was, back then (as it is now still), completely self-evident that football clubs are companies or unincorporated associations. 

SSL Certificates