Templeton7|RFC wrote:ConorCelticFC wrote:Jela, if you're the same club surely you should be held responsible for their actions? Yet you don't want to be.
We've paid off all of our debts to Scottish clubs, including giving hearts £500,000 for Lee Wallace, which we didn't actually owe them till next year.
The Maestro wrote:So much shit in this thread, especially
Holding companies being members of the SPL
Rangers being "demoted" from the SPL
Rangers haven't been liquidated at all, only changed ownership and holding company
Seriously it's like all these different fucked up argument put into a blender and poured onto a keyboard.
Dan wrote:The Maestro wrote:So much shit in this thread, especially
Holding companies being members of the SPL
Rangers being "demoted" from the SPL
Rangers haven't been liquidated at all, only changed ownership and holding company
Seriously it's like all these different fucked up argument put into a blender and poured onto a keyboard.
If you think that's what I said, you haven't quite understood.
Dan wrote:
The Rangers under the new holding company has never been a member of the SPL, the Rangers under the old one has.
It really isn't difficult to understand.
Dan wrote:The club - while it was under the previous holding company was a member of the SPL. The club with it's current status with the new company has not. It's pretty fucking simple lad.
The Maestro wrote:Dan wrote:
If you think that's what I said, you haven't quite understood.
Your point was that it is the SAME CLUB but different holding companies. You said:Dan wrote:
The Rangers under the new holding company has never been a member of the SPL, the Rangers under the old one has.
It really isn't difficult to understand.Dan wrote:The club - while it was under the previous holding company was a member of the SPL. The club with it's current status with the new company has not. It's pretty fucking simple lad.
That would seem to suggest you thought it was the old holding company which was a member of the SPL, while the new holding company is not.
Dan wrote:The Maestro wrote:
Your point was that it is the SAME CLUB but different holding companies. You said:
That would seem to suggest you thought it was the old holding company which was a member of the SPL, while the new holding company is not.
You obviously aren't able to understand English. Good talk though.
The Maestro wrote:Dan wrote:
You obviously aren't able to understand English. Good talk though.
Explain what you meant then?
Dan wrote:The Maestro wrote:
Explain what you meant then?
That while Rangers were under the old holding company they (as in Rangers) were a member of the SPL. 'Newco' Rangers have never been a member of the SPL because, as you've been going on about for quite a while, they're in the Third Division. So, under the new holding company, Rangers have not been a member of the SPL. Simple.
The Maestro wrote:Dan wrote:
That while Rangers were under the old holding company they (as in Rangers) were a member of the SPL. 'Newco' Rangers have never been a member of the SPL because, as you've been going on about for quite a while, they're in the Third Division. So, under the new holding company, Rangers have not been a member of the SPL. Simple.
Yes but you used this as a way to try and prove Rangers were the same club.
It does exactly the opposite.
Dan wrote:The Maestro wrote:
Yes but you used this as a way to try and prove Rangers were the same club.
It does exactly the opposite.
No it doesn't. 'Newco Rangers' is simply a continuation of the club. It's the same club. It shouldn't be allowed, but it does.
ConorCelticFC wrote:The irony of him accusing you of not understanding English and yet not knowing the meaning of the word 'betray.'
Dan wrote:
Yeah, I don't actually have a clue. Was just blagging it tbh.
Dan wrote:You do know a hell of a lot about Rangers though, you sure you're a Celtic fan? 'Cos that's worrying.
You've went way past the line though. It was fine of you to voice your opinion (or what you may call the truth), but it's almost turning into the new version of RR versus religion on here.The Maestro wrote:Dan wrote:You do know a hell of a lot about Rangers though, you sure you're a Celtic fan? 'Cos that's worrying.
Proving people wrong generally results in being called obsessed.
Being correct doesn't really worry me at all
MickStupp wrote:You've went way past the line though. It was fine of you to voice your opinion (or what you may call the truth), but it's almost turning into the new version of RR versus religion on here.The Maestro wrote:
Proving people wrong generally results in being called obsessed.
Being correct doesn't really worry me at all
Not what I meant, but that was goodThe Maestro wrote:MickStupp wrote:
You've went way past the line though. It was fine of you to voice your opinion (or what you may call the truth), but it's almost turning into the new version of RR versus religion on here.
Quite a good analogy actually
RR versus made up rubbish
Me versus made up rubbish
Templeton7|RFC wrote:
Delighted for the lad, always been a class player in Scotland and finally getting the chance to show it off on the biggest stage of all.
Not to mention that is the 3rd match in a row, he's been Man of The Match for Northern Ireland.
ConorCelticFC wrote:I'm only messing. Yes, Shiels is a good player. Shame that he's playing in the Scottish fourth tier and that he only has one eye. He's good enough for a team like Wigan even with just the one.
TheRangersFan wrote:Could bring a tear to a glass eye.
