Guest Poster Stephen Explains to Cam Why New Rangers Is Not Old Rangers

Stephen addressed this comment to cam – I thought it worth putting up as a post on its own account, even although he disagrees with me! 🙂

————————————————————

At the end of the day, your club was one entity, David Murray was director of Rangers, Ally McCoist was a Rangers player.

There was only one set of accounts, only one licence, only one membership, only one constitution (you have to have a constitution to be formally recognised as a club in Scotland)

Never ever in the world of Scottish football was there ever any doubt about the reality of Rangers Football Club, until it went bust.

Now “The People” – forever preaching dignity and sound Presbyterian values to everyone else have decided to create the mindset where the club lives on but the less important “company” part has liquidated.

They want to keep the trophies won whilst dodge their way out of paying the bills that helped them win many of those trophies. Dignity? What would Mr Struth say to that today?

The only “club” that lives on is the one where it exists in the hearts & minds of those that used to follow it. I don’t blame them for doing it. But I do blame the SFA for allowing this scam to take place.

Let’s be clear – Rangers Football Club – the one that won 9IAR and the ECWC in 1972 is gone. However if you create the illusion and shout it loud enough and long enough, then appearances would suggest it is still here.

This is where media manipulation and carefully constructed events such as a 140 year old birthday party at Ibrox sow the seeds of the myth that the original club is still with us.

I’ve heard all the arguments from the bears, like the quote from Lord Nimmo Smith who said a club can exist etc. But no-one seems to want to be reminded when the very same person said Rangers ceased to exist on 14th June.

Or that Rangers FC exist in UEFA rankings but so do other liquidated clubs (these get updated every 5 years I believe)

Or that the club was bought (never seen Rangers Football Club in the asset sale)

Or that the membership was transferred so it’s the same club (a membership is not a club – a membership is an entitlement for a club to participate. Rangers transferred their membership to Sevco. Rangers are no longer entitled to play football, Sevco now are)

Or that the ECA regard you as the same club (The ECA are a private members club – who asked the SFA for guidance on how this new Rangers should be regarded, but have no authority over UEFA. They can pretty much say what they like.)

What we have here is an almighty push by many in Scotland, both from a Rangers point of view and from a Scottish football point of view, to make new Rangers LOOK like the old Rangers. It’s an embarrassment beyond all proportions for Rangers to have went bust in the first place and the saving of Rangers [for many] is a saving of face. Not to mention the emotional attachment – which I can understand.

Why, when asked – did Stuart Regan not give a clear answer to the question way back in 31st July 2012? Watch from 11:25

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19068235

Is this the same club, same history …. ?

If it was the same club, all he had to do was say “Yes”. Why didn’t he?
He could have put this debate to bed last year, but he didn’t.

Because he knows fine well, from a legal perspective, Rangers are gone.
However it is clear he wants the new club REGARDED as the old club.
To put it simply – he knows he can’t do anything about it from a legal perspective, but he wants to retain the old Rangers for the image of Scottish football in general.

I disagree with Paul on his stance – just because he is from a legal background, it doesn’t make him right – every courtroom has two lawyers that disagree, so you could say Paul has a 50/50 chance of being right.

New club cannot play in Europe for the first 3 years.

New club was voted INTO Scottish football (not voted out from SPL)

LNS said the club ceased to exist on 14th June.

New club is associate members – were they downgraded or did they join as associate members?

Duff & Phelps stated that in the event of liquidation, the players registrations would revert back to the SFA. Why would that need to happen? Why couldn’t they remain registered with the club? Eh?

So let’s end the notion that the SFA say Rangers are the same club.
Behind the scenes they treat you like a new club by their actions, but they want you to be SEEN as the old club with their words – or lack of them. I don’t think anyone could argue with that.

Apart from those in denial.

We’ve watched everyone from Charles Green, Jim Traynor, Walter Smith, Mark Hately, Richard Gough etc, all go from a position of stating categorically that the old club is gone along with its history, to a position where they have simply ignored their own comments to keep up the pretence that the old Rangers is still alive.

If you tell a lie long enough and all that.

It’s all bluff & bluster from the blue brigade forcing through the myth that Rangers never died – whilst all clinging on to words of comfort from anyone no matter how ridiculous they might seem. I mean, can you really buy history?

In the original article – the point was made that it is the “mindset” that is still alive. That is very much the case. The spirit lives on so to speak. But the club didn’t. Because the club could not pay what it owed and that’s why it’s gone.

For me the disgusting aspect of all this – is that whilst other clubs have to pay their way, cut their cloth and balance the books, the Ibrox klan think it’s perfectly acceptable to watch creditors left with nothing, whilst they give two fingers up to the British taxpayer and then boast about being the same club and debt free.

Why didn’t Stewart Regan simply say “Yes, it’s the same club”?

Know why? I think you do.

Posted by Stephen