Comment on End of the Road for King? by Mark C.
John C. I am in agreement with you that Rangers were not relegated. Albert Kinloch is clearly chancing his arm in my opinion. Where I am not fully in agreement with you, or i just dont believe its clear enough to say that your judgement on the matter is the letter of the law is on how liquidation of the company is treated in respect of the club.
I have read all the arguments on here ad infinitum, all of which are reasonable and sensible but when push comes to shove, the evidence in the courts, on football body websites and in general doesnt support the general consensus of us all on here.
For a QC in this situation to not use what you would believe to be the easy option of going down the liquidation route means he had to know or have reasonable doubt, it would hurt his case. The SPFL position has been stated as same club so he couldnt use them as evidence. The SFA have previously said the membership was transferred from oldco to newco and through their website still recognise Rangers as the same club(or they did in the run up to the Scottish Cup Final when listing previous finals) They also in a submission to the Advertising Standards Agency, said the same thing.
Im guessing if he chose to go down this route then QC Poole would have lined the SFA and SPFL up and shot him down. Even his own witness, ended up saying it without making it blatantly obvious when cross examined.
I have read that Coral deliberately didnt use liquidation for fear of losing the blue pound however they already risked that with a funny tweet about Kenny Miller(only player to score in 3 Old Firm games) and you could argue they risked losing the rest of Scottish footy pounds by not going down the liquidation route so I doubt very much they were bothered, or probably even aware of the impact.
Again, i go back to my original point that what you are saying is just an opinion and is not a documented fact, as much as we would like it to be.
Mark C Also Commented
End of the Road for King?
Im a regular in Atlantic City and can assure you that walking around the casinos streaks of 9,10,11 reds or blacks are common as are streaks of 9,10,11 odds or evens(more noticeable last 2 years due to the new machines showing stats). Back in the day, I used to take my $10 out and bet against a long streak before trying $20 against it again if i lost until 1 day a chap i eventually got to know well said to me that it was actually a mugs bet.
He explained the math funnily enough pretty much exactly as Homonculus(sp??) did above and said that at the start of a sequence the odds of spinning RRRRRRR are the exact same as spinning RBRBRBR or RRRBBBR and that the odds of spinning RRRRRR then black as a final spin are the same as spinning RRRRRR then red as a final spin if you only join the table at the end.
If the operator of a roulette table was unscrupulous enough, they could rig it without a single person around that table knowing.
If the SFA were unscrupulous enough, they would still need the help of Lubo, Rod, Sutton, Stubbsy, WGS, Frank McGarvey, Willie Miller, Robbo and ex Rangers players and managers and trust that nobody would grass them.
Come on guys. Its a complete non starter !
End of the Road for King?
Allyjambo – your man was suffering from what is known as the Monte Carlo Fallacy.
If someone gets 7 reds in a row, amateur gamblers around the table will put their money on black. Professional gamblers will not change their normal pattern. The fact of the matter is that as soon as the wheel starts spinning again, the odds are the EXACT same as the previous spin which is slightly less than 50% in roulette, due to the 0 or 00 but its 50% in a football draw, hence why you get patterns like Hibs and Rangers 10 in a row and Edinburgh City with now 17 out of 20 home draws which is equally amazing.
The longest roulette run recorded is 32 reds in a row.
End of the Road for King?
The numbers are displayed before the start of the draw. Rod Stewart knew he had drawn out Number 3 Celtic. It was announced in advance. Always is.It used to be the teams were contained in a ball container, then they even managed to mess that draw up.Bumbling idiots. YESDraw cheats. CANT SEE IT
Recent Comments by Mark C
Small Price to Pay?
JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 21:36 God Almighty man! They said what they said because they were determined to ‘save Rangers’ regardless of truth!
Im glad you cleared that up JC. Im 100% confident in my stance now that its opinion and not fact.
Even IF, it is in direct contradiction to MY OWN opinion. Something i can live with.
NORMANBATESMUMFCFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 16:58
Before quoting statements from our rancid governing bodies, remember they are entirely conflicted and when the need arises have no qualms about lying to achieve their desired result. These money grabbing, morally bankrupt individuals will be trumped by the rule of law and they will be shown up for what they are
I get that. If JC was accusing the SFA of telling a bare faced lie on the membership then fair enough. The way I read it was that he was saying i told a bare faced lie about the membership transfer.
I am happy for him to clear that up but again i would suggest that unless anyone has 100% evidence that the SFA 2 statements are absolute lies then the idea that the membership was new is an opinion. And not a fact as stated.
“Either way both sides can be poorly served by the SMSM and social media when half-truths, speculation and wishful thinking dominate to the exclusion of the facts. “
SMUGASFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 16:33
Sorry I don’t follow (again – you’ll find that’s a recurring theme with me on here!). Why is the secured finance arguement flawed? And I don’t see how arguing the point assists your old club confusion arguement either. And just to to continue the theme…if the BMW in question was Colin Macrae’s and he had won the world championship with it, and you’ve bought the motor (having checked the HP is cleared) does that make you world champion?
I never said it made your argument flawed, i was acknowledging that the original point was flawed. To point out the flaws, i made an equally flawed statement, knowing it was flawed to make the precise point that was made yesterday about half truths.
I didnt actually comment on your point but as you have asked then quite simply its not comparable. Buying a car with outstanding HP or houses with outstanding mortgages is completely different from what happens in business be it straight forward sales, distressed sales, sales from administration or sales whilst in liquidation. Its just daft to compare them. It once again enforces the point made that “both sides can be poorly served by the SMSM and social media when half-truths, speculation and wishful thinking dominate to the exclusion of the facts.”
JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 13:57 The new club in the SFL did not get ‘Rangers’ share’ in the SFA.They got the share in the SFL that the old Rangers forfeited by suffering the big insolvency event of being put into Liquidation.It was in virtue of being accepted into the SFL that the new club was automatically admitted to the SFA membership.The lie that somehow the particular ‘Rangers’ share’ was ‘transferred’ is just that- a bare-faced lie constructed so as to give the impression of ‘continuity Rangers’.That is the very essence of the ‘Big Lie’.That’s where the 6th Floor people tried to work the con.Now, please go away and do some reading, and thinking.
Firstly, my humble apologies for daring to have a different opinion to you on the membership. My opinion is born from actually doing some reading so in relation to your “opinion” on the matter can you explain why the SFA said:
“Sevco Scotland Ltd bought Rangers Football Club PLC’s share in the SPL and membership of the Scottish FA as part of their acquisition of assets. Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements.”
They then went on to say:
“We are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club. “
How can that be any clearer. Its in black and white. The SFA membership was transferred and is not a “bare-faced lie” as you have described.
NORMANBATESMUMFCFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 11:56 Slight flaw in your argument Mark C, as the buyer of the BMW would be liable for any finance secured on the vehicle and purchasers of 2nd hand cars are advised to do a credit search on the vehicle for this very reason.Leaving behind debt and carrying on as if nothing has changed is rather difficult to achieve…..
That is not a flaw in my argument at all. It is precisely the “argument” im making.
Each statement is a half truth that only serves to further confuse the issue.
JOHN C Genuine question if Rangers in current form “was able to become for the first time a member of the SFA.” why was the existing membership transferred in continuity and why wasnt a new membership issued ?