Sphene Community Tools

Community

Copyright © 2007-2018 by Herbert Poul

You are not logged in.
Login
Register

A Django site.

http //www.reliablemedpharmacy.com/

Sandbox / sfa

[ Edit ]

Back to Snip

Warning: You are editing an old version: By Anonymous at 2014-02-19 03:52:28

Title:
Body:	The club live on, it has only been transferred or sold to a new conmpay after the old one went bust. Really? OK, I remember the club being sold before, from John Lawrence's organisation to David Murray's, then from David Murray's to Craig Whyte. Strangely, I don't remember in any of these occasions, when the club was definitely sold as a whole entity, debts included, that it, the club, had to reapply for a position in the SPL or equivalent league, or for SFA membership and yet, this time, purportedly it has simply been sold to Charles Greens consortium, but has to go through all these applications. Why? Something different this time, right?The club and conmpay are separate, its the conmpay in liquidation, not the club. But hold on did the conmpay get docked the sporting points sanction for going into administration, or the club? Ah, right, it was the club but what for? If the club and the conmpay are/were separate, why did the club get punished with sanctions? I mean the club didn't run up any debts did they, it was the parent conmpay, right? After all, that administration has led to liquidation of whatever entity was in administration. So if the conmpay only is being liquidated, it must have been the conmpay that was in admin not the club? Yet the club were docked 10 points. So, how did the parent conmpay, as is now perpetuated in the media, get itself into this situation where it ran up massive debts, couldn't pay them, and got itself liquidated. What was it buying to run up such massive debts? What did it own, what assets did it pay for? Players, perhaps? Players which played for and were registered with ..what entityave Rangers been playing for years with loans from its parent conmpay (now almost departed)?Its certainly a sound argument, that the club has been simply sold on to new owners. In fact since it is the parent conmpay which is in trouble, the club was never ever in trouble at any time in the last few years there was no risk whatsoever, was there? Why all the fuss? Why did the assets have to be bought?And as for those assets, one is the history, right? History can be bought and sold as an asset, can't it?So why didn't Charles Green buy the stadium, the players, etc but offer Nottingham Forest a few million for THEIR history to be attached so that this club he was piecing together could have two European Cups in their history? I mean, its not ridiculous is it? History can be bought and sold as an asset after all.I MEAN, IT'S NOT RIDICULOUS, IS IT????? Then again .
Tags:	Comma separated list of tags.
Captcha:	Please enter the result of the above calculation.
Change Message:

*

See WikiDocumentation on how to format your input.