We spend an inordinate amount of time on this blog arguing about what the re-emergent Rangers should be called. It is a rather circular debate with no way of finding any consensus. The dispute between Rangers (“The Rangerists”) or The Rangers or Sevco (“The Sevconians”) and its claim to be the club that was formed in the 19th century is spurious. Whichever way you look at it, the continuity of the “brand” is undeniable and as long those who wish to keep buying that package are satisfied that the wrapping is authentic – where’s the harm?
The red herring in the argument is that “history” is important. To the average football fan, it is nothing of the kind. As a Celtic fan myself, and a bit of a student of the history of the club, I am constantly dismayed by the Thousand Yard Stare I get from your average Celtic fan who is confronted with the names of people who contributed significantly to the club’s identity. Key figures like Sandy McMahon, Jimmy Delaney, Jimmy McGrory and (God help us) John Thomson rarely elicit recognition.
Modern football fans who live in the instant gratification society of the the WWW and mobile communications may pay lip service to their clubs’ history, but that’s not what gives the modern football fan wears as his badge of honour. That is a commodity often erroneously confused with history – the bragging rights associated with the trophy haul.
The ability to claim that “we have more titles than you” is far more valuable to a supporter than which 19th century attacking centre-back won the Scottish Cup with a last minute header; and the value of said cup wins is heavily weighted in favour of the most recent (save for the honourable exception of the European successes).
The maintenance of that illusion of superiority is crucial if Rangers fans are to believe that their club is still Rangers. Perhaps in time they may even come to fully believe it themselves, but the cataract of column inches devoted to propagating that myth, both from the MSM and from information outlets controlled by Charles Green’s organisation, betrays a lack of total belief by the chief Bear-existentialists. Protesting too much may not be subtle, but that never put off your average fitba’ man either.
The upshot though is this. There is a belief – or at least a hope – amongst Rangerists that the continuity argument holds. They will call the new club Rangers. Fans of other clubs who make up the vast majority of the Sevconian tendency, believe nothing of the kind. They will call it something else.
Many will remind Rangerists that the old club died, and this is factually correct (or at least will be very soon). Rangerists will counter that the Rangers ethos lives on at Ibrox, and despite the worrying overtones (for some) contained in that statement, that is also factually correct.
Rangerists will also point out, as Rangers fans on this blog already have, that the SPL bent over backwards to assist the continuity of the club in order to minimise the financial consequences for Scottish football, and that the SFL too, have agreed that they are the same club.
Why? Simply because Scottish Football thinks it needs to help perpetrate they illusion of continuity to avoid the loss of thousands of paying customers to the game altogether.
So round one has gone to the Rangerists, with the Sevconians pretty much taking an eight-count.
So is the name thing important? I don’t think it is of critical importance. The name in itself doesn’t matter, but to merely agree that everything is as before is to join forces with the MSM, SFA & SPL who have sought to give RFC and their tax theft a pass.
Whatever happens in the future though, the illusion hasn’t worked completely. The Sevconians’ wish to call the new club by a different name was for the purpose of making it synonymous with tax evasion, however the name Rangers now evokes exactly that response. There is now a discernible pause when people mention Rangers. A pause that reflects on the dis-service they did to the country, and to the game of football in Scotland.
Which brings us to the really important point. Throughout this saga rules have been bent. Conflicted individuals, alleged to have been involved in the tax and registration scam and its subsequent cover-up, have remained in positions of authority and power, despite being under a cloud throughout. The media have been complicit, except in rare cases, in allowing the wrong-doing to go unquestioned, actively campaigning for rules not to be applied.
What we have been saying all along is this. Please play the game by the rules, and do not manufacture special cases for the financially powerful.
Call Rangers whatever you wish, but deal with their transgressions appropriately in the spirit of sporting fairness, and within the framework of the existing rules. That is the least – and most – we expect. We don’t ask for much. Just give us back some pride in our sport .
Not sure what sort of Celtic fan you are talking to that do not recognise the names you mention?
I honestly find it hard to believe that there are many Celtic fans, over the age of 25, that would not know the name John Thomson at least.
“So round one has gone to the Rangerists, with the Sevconians pretty much taking an eight-count.”
In what way.
The SFA membership had to be transferred to the new club.
The new club was not seeded in the Scottish Cup.
The new club had to apply to join the SFL.
The new club is not eligible to play in Europe, even if it wins a qualifying competition.
As far as football is concerned it is a new club. Maybe not according to press releases or sound bite quotes, but it is a new club based on how it has been treated. As far as the normal business World is concerned it is an open and shut case, Rangers FC PLC (as was) is being liquidated and an new business with new owners and a new board has been formed. The fact that the new business bought the assets is an irrelevance. Tesco did not become St Mirren when they bought the stadium on Love Street.
If there was an 8 count it’s those who claim it’s the same club who have taken it.
blantyreexile,
You would probably be surprised to hear then, that in the run-up to the 75th anniversary of Thomson’s death, the Celtic View solicited suggestions fron readers on how it could be marked. In reply, ONE letter and NO emails were received.
Of course you may differ in your view, but in mine, the post-Sky, Champions League-era football fan does not have the same regard for history that previous generations did. Perhaps the modern football financials, with their relative over-emphasis on success has something to do with it, but the point I make is that football fans do not view history as a priority.
I agree fans today have a rather disjointed view of what a clubs history means…
I’ve heard opinions from how the club was established…to trophies won…fewer seem to realise the history of your club is made of many different things..including those 2 facets of its history…in my opinion…
I guess the history is what you as an individual want it to be…
I have said it before and I will say it again…if we choose to ignore the truth about wether they actually exist any more and allow the lie to be promoted that they do…then why do we bother with any of the other lies that we are being told…why should we bother with the dishonesty being carried through by the SFA and others..
We might as well accept every lie every and dishonest action…there are no degrees of lies that are acceptable…in my opinion!
Another point on history….what happens today will reflect in our history in years to come…and when the question is asked…”when Rangers PLC where caught…at it…what part did Celtic play in sorting out the mess?”
What will history show I wonder?
Celtic probably have one of the greatest historical stories of all football clubs. They are a fine example of the importance of sport to individuals and communities.
And the new Glasgow club will always be Rangers Tribute Act to me.
TSFM, not sure what the lack of response to the Celtic View article demonstrates. Were you the one person that did respond? If not, what are you suggesting? That the lack of responses indicate a lack of knowledge of Thomson? I would disagree.
I do agree about that the mass coverage of the EPL via Sky has seen an increase in the number of Man City, Chelsea ‘supporters’, or at least people who buy and wear these shirts, who probably couldn’t tell who Mike Summerbee or Peter Osgood were, and that only goes as far back as the 60’s and 70’s.
However, I would suggest these are two different discussions.
Its a brand loyalty, an emotional connection, no matter what eventually emerges from the legal and financial post mortem of RFC.
Im not an RFC supporter, far from it, but would offer the following analogy. I love my Volvo.
Always wanted one, now got one, not new, its basic spec, but love it regardless.
But the Swedish company died, sold it off to Ford. My Volvo was made under Ford’s ownership. Not even built in Sweden. The Focus shares design and parts for goodness sake.
Buy a Ford? Me? Never. Not my style, don’t really know why.
But my Volvo was for me still a Volvo as it still had the ethos, the feel, the style, and despite the ownership change, the car still for me had that something that the brand name symbolised.
Now Volvo is Chinese owned. Checked out the new models, and yep, to me, they’re still Volvo enough . Can’t afford one yet, but would buy one as its volvo enough.
I suppose its the same for RFC fans. Now I’m not condoning the actions of bogits, or people in positions of authority who’s brand loyalty superceeds their responsibilities, yep, those SFA guys, but the analogy holds water I think. When RFC finally dies after liquidation, RFC fans will likely make those same judgements I made…will the new model be RFC enough for them?
Unfortunately for them, it looks like the Sevco ownership might not be making the same succesful transitions that Ford and the new Chinese Volvo corporate owners did, despite the SFA doing all they could to assist.
As a reader of RTC and here for ages, I have grasped the aspects of the company law, new club old club distinctions etc that would indicate that trfc isnt rfc for all kinds of reasons, but its the test of the reality against the brand that will be the issue for fans.
@Blantyreexile…I am born and have always lived in Central London. Nearly all of my friends are Arsenal supporters, I liked Arsenal growing up, and I still go to the occasional game with my pals, They had the George Graham years which were massively successful, they also had the outstanding “Invincible’s” team. For all of that, it was Celtic’s astonishing history, a true fairytale, that made me support Celtic rather than any successful EPL team, even during the agonising 9IAR my support for the Bhoys never wavered. Our amazing history kept my pride in Celtic strong over the years. I get funny looks when I mention I’m a Tim to people here with my Englsh accent, when they inevitably ask “Why!?”, I am more than happy to explain why with pride.
Captain Haddock says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 12:49
3 0 Rate This
Its a brand loyalty, an emotional connection, no matter what eventually emerges from the legal and financial post mortem of RFC.
——————-
Captain, good analogy, football is emotional not rational.
Those who believe the old club is deid will believe that to their dying day. Those who believe it survives will believe it as long as they live.
It is useless and tedious to argue about it.
Which is not to say that the bampoterie should ever let up the gas in the uncovering of the shenanigans that has, and is, going on.
History is important. Rangers history is just that, history *. Does their history continue? UEFA doesn’t seem to think so but it’ll be interesting to see what happens if the Ibrox (at time of writing) outfit qualify for Europe by virtue of their on-field performances before they qualify off-field.
But regardless, and as we all know, you’re only as good as your last game 😉
* subject to review
I think the point TSFM was making was not that Celtic fans don’t recognise the names he mentioned, even I recognise one or two, but that, in general, football fans everywhere are less inclined to find their club’s history, other than trophies won, of importance. I have a friend, a fellow Jambo, who became quite friendly with Pat Stanton and frequently met him and chatted in their local pub. It wasn’t all that long after he’d been Hibs’ manager, say about 5 years, and was, probably, the most famous Hibs player since the days of the Famous Five, a true legend. One time my mate was in the pub chatting to a Hibs fan and his 18 years old son, also a Hibs fan. The son could make plenty of references to 7-0 and ’86 etc but when Pat Stanton walked in, and his father turned in pleasure to his son and said, something like, ‘do you see who’s just walked in?’ ‘Who is he’ said the son, ‘It’s Pat Stanton, don’t you recognise him?’ ‘Who’s Pat Stanton?’ asked the son! Not the exact words but it really did happen, and the son really didn’t have a clue who Pat Stanton was.
I think the younger generations of supporters have grown up in this era of short term players, share issues, money problems and success being everything which deflects from history, and besides, if it’s not included on Football Manager, it can’t be that important, can it?
Captain Haddock says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 12:49
7 0 Rate This
Its a brand loyalty, an emotional connection, no matter what eventually emerges from the legal and financial post mortem of RFC …
————
Very good C’ptn, your piece was interesting for the owner of an Indian-made Royal Enfield Bullet. But I won’t go there 🙂
The distinction between old and new Rangers would surely have been more marked if the stadium had been sold and a greater fuss made about logo’s, names and identifying features.
I’m no expert in clubs that have folded in the way old Rangers did. But can there be many who have survived liquidation (I know it’s not quite done and dusted) still playing at their home ground, in more or less the same kit and logo, and with the trophey cabinet full?
I tried to find clubs in England and Scotland that had liquidated. My superficial search located about six. But none of them appear to have been able to walk between the raindrops the way the blue team playing at Ibrox has.
paulmac2 says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 12:45
As an Aberdeen FC fan – I was thinking how would history reflect on our club – what did we do regarding the RFC (EBT) saga?
At this stage I am not sure that other than the SPL vote to refuse the transfer of the SPL share to Sevco, that any club has had to have carried out any role. Had any club unduly acted, this would in my opinion have been an unnecessary intervention.
The only parties with a role in this stage in the matters surrounding RFC(IA)/Sevco are, I submit, the FTTT in terms of delivering a decision on the MIH v HMRC appeal, the Courts regarding the administration and eventual liquidation of Rangers FC Ltd and the SFA and SPL in terms of responding to football matters as the status of RFC(IA) changed.
At this time I would hope that history is kind on Celtic. Celtic have in my opinion held their council, they have maintained a quiet dignity. What else could or should they have done? Nothing in my opinion.
If anything history at this stage should comment on the fan base and their contributions to the Rangers Tax Case episode. Internet bampots have in the started a rescue campaign for the heart and soul of Scottish football. Time will tell, but I believe at least for the moment, the rot has been checked.
At this stage in the historical debate, if Celtic are to be highlighted in the history books – surely it is to their credit that RTC is one of their own. A fan who took a positive stance, and with much courage took this episode into the public domain for the greater good?
For the moment the history books should focus on the role of the fans in holding the authorities and the MSM to book. If (or when) the FTTT decision provides evidence that RFC cheated on an industrial scale – then the clubs may have a role to play. That should include a move to re-write the football history books to acknowledge who cheated and to what extent.
We cannot surely in al fairness be trying to say that TRFC in SFL3 is exactly the same as the RFC that was in SPL no matter if the facts don’t support it,
If it was the same, TRFC would still be in the SPL and be deducted points for still being in administration. Naimsith would not have had to refuse to TUPE over and be plying his trade at Ibrox in SPL still along with the others. There would still be a massive tax bill to pay – but we seem to not worry about those trivialities
I posted many weeks ago that this arguement is vital – if we accept the pressure from MSM to state oh well dont worry you are the same club to attract more TRFC fans onto here, then we will then be down the line answering the charge – well if its the same why did Dundee replace TRFC – why did UEFA “ban” us for 3 years – and when you lose the first arguement that it is not the same then you will be bound to then agree that they have been punished over and above anyone else.
I come on here to post and read – all stories about all clubs – warts and all – I do not come on here to pander to MSM apologists that we can not worry about who they are and move on since its all behind us now and we have a shiny future.
Sorry – not the way I see it.
History is a fantastic thing – one memory I had when I was in NY working was to visit the Yankees stadium and I sat next to 2 old guys who were arguing whether the current 2nd baseman was the worst split ball hitter ever – and they were going back to players in the 50s and 60s – it wwas fantastic to listen to – I had no idea who they were talking about tho!
Part of the issue with the history is that RFC contains toxic history – bogotry and triumphilism.
Part of it also has titles and cups that were potentially won under dual contracts circumstances that would make many of the players ineligible.
It is important – same as Ole Miss Univeristy had to recognise its own odious history.
However, same as the war mongerers that took us to war in a country that had never attacked us, we are now allowing them to say no weapons were found but it does not matter – move on. It maybe had them and destroyed them but anyway who cares – apart form the families who lost members of their families both Iraquis and Coalition forces.
Jabba keeps perpetuating the myth that I want more punishements because I am bitter and twisted.
No Jabba – I want to know that the common thread in my sad irrelevant little life that I followed for nigh on 45 years was not a con – I spent a lot of money and time attending Scottish football. To find out it is little better than WWF or Tour De France makes me want to know just how much of a sham it was.
And I want to know who took part in covering up the sham.
People busy covering up the sham in SFA instead of getting players from Scotland to emulate Law, Daglish, Baxter, Johnstone, Bremner, Jordon etc. Now there is history we are proud of – but its just that at the moment – history
We have more chance of getting the truth out of the SFA at the moment than we have for qualifying for Brazil or any other WC the way we are going.
Thanks to the SFA history is indeed inportant!
I certainly expect Rangers to lose their EBT appeal, and also to be found guilty of dual contracts with a minimum punishment of loss of titles. That will produce a big change to their history, and an everlasting pointer to their cheating.
Something I hope will happen is that their name will be struck from every trophy they won during the period, with a line etched through their name, rather than have their name deleted, so that whenever anyone looks at the trophies they will see the name Rangers FC with a line through it and ask why? The record books too should show that the titles were taken from them because they cheated and not just marked with an anonymous ‘no title awarded’ or some such notation. In that way, perhaps they won’t be so desperate to hold onto their history, or the rest of us might not be so bothered if they do!
Allyjambo – agree with you 100%
No one should be awarded them – will be shame for QoS and Dundee but I for one want nothing to do with any cups or titles.
I want it also to have no name – since SFA will be shown as not being able to administer the game properly during those years.
The real issue may come when Stuttgart and FC Copenhagen start wondering about how much ECL money they lost due to this issue.
Especially when SFA were responsible for UEFA licences – can they sue SFA for lost money since they rendered a club as eligible when it KNEW they were not?
Now there is a wee ticking item to think about……….
Justice needs to be done for everyone to move on.
One of the points I am attempting to make here is that there is an inordinate amount of importance being attached to the name of the club. There is absolutely no way of ever obtaining a consensus on this – especially since there is no legal barrier to the new club calling itself Rangers.
Therefore, why get hung up on that argument when we should be keeping our eye on the SFA/SPL reaction to any guilty verdicts in the dual payments case. There is a real danger, in my view, that while the focus of the argument is on the cosmetic matter of what’s on the badge, the perpetrators of the alleged breach of rules will walk away virtually scot-free.
There is a kind of “purity of thought” argument that attaches to both sides of this debate. I think it is irrelevant.
Employing players you can’t otherwise afford by using a tax scam – or just refusing to pay what you are due – hurts your competitors in their pockets as well as their aspirations. Calling yourself by whatever moniker you choose makes no difference to anyone except your own fans. The rider being that the Rangers brand has actually become quite toxic, synonymous with the negative aspects of the tax case.
The name/honours debate is just a diversion as far as I can see.
allyjambo says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 15:10
_________________________________
I agree about the titles. Although I also think this is another area where it is hard to find agreement. I think the deciding factor for me is that the players who may have been cheated out of those honours have no appetite for retrospective awards.
I agree that ‘history’ is what the individual wants it to be but surely the records (as in the wee red book for talking sake 😉 ) has to be ammended?
This is an old one but for me it is the whole point!
http://forweonlyknow.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/a-dangerous-precedent/
*amended …… oh and they can have the 5 stars on the jersey! That was a made up one anyway wasn’t it? ;
The problem (or at least one of them) through this debacle is that “Rangers” are a newco when it suits and the same “club” when it suits. And by that I mean when it suits “Rangers”, when it suits the football authorities and when it suits the MSM.
I think this duality translates on to the pitch. At Ibrox it is easy for the players to think they are still “Rangers”…same stadium…same fans…same big crowds (by Scottish standards at least).
However, away from home the truth hits home. They are a new 3rd division team and an average one at that. Hence the huge differential in results.
For me, they will always be Sevco, for no other reason than to remind them where the illegitimate incarnation came from, and why
History is important, but not when it is used to regale everyone else with supremacist views
I get the whole car branding analogies.
As discussed the fans can call it what they like.
It is a question of how everyone including the fans perceive them and can the brand survive.
Skodas used to get poor press but a switch of ownership into the Volkswagen group changed their fortunes. Now they are seen as reliable and dependable.
MG’s were fancy wee sports cars that people liked but the badge went on some dodgy motors and the brand eventually got sunk, albeith the Chinese or someone else is trying to relaunch it.
Then there are many famous brands that have gone down the pan but there are plenty owners clubs trying to keep the name alive. Sometimes a wee independant manufacturer produces a few cars in the same mould as the old brand and people are quite happy to buy them. However the brand never ever gets back to the heady heigths it once held in the market place.
I’m more than happy to call them T’Rangers or Sevco but the question for their fans is will the brand be a market leader once again or one that goes through various reincarnations until it dies all together and is only kept alive by a few anoracks holding a rally once a year?
You bleeding heart liberalist , They Deid get over it !
This has absolutely nothing to do with a tally of trophies and subsequent bragging rights.
The old Rangers fiddled the books over a number of years to amass a good percentage of their tally and walked away when the bill was presented. They can call themselves whatever they want, but the club of Parlane and Struth is on it’s death bed, the team playing at Ibrox and training at Murray Park is in it’s trophy free infancy.
Our history defines our future. Without history how can we gauge our success as a Club going forward. And I do not limit this to what happens on the football field. Celtic have a proud History over and above Trophies and Trinkets won on th park. We constantly man up to help out all over the world wherever there is a need for voulenteers,money or any other involvement. We need to constantly monitor our achievements in these fields to ensure we can always better ourselves whenever the need arises. Our history is not only important, Its essential in telling everyone and defining exactly who we are.
As far as the Tribute act is concerned they have had to change their name to ‘The Rangers’ this year. If they were the same team why would a change of name be required?
TSFM says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 15:30
One of the points I am attempting to make here is that there is an inordinate amount of importance being attached to the name of the club. There is absolutely no way of ever obtaining a consensus on this – especially since there is no legal barrier to the new club calling itself Rangers.
===========================
I have no problem with them calling themselves Rangers. I call them Rangers most of the time. There’s other clubs called Rangers. It would be like objecting to them calling themselves United, it’s meaningless.
What I object to is the nonsense that they are the same club. They aren’t, in footballing terms or in a business sense. That has been ably demonstrated many times.
It is also important. It’s really not a case of just saying move along, nothing to see here. There is a huge difference between the old club continuing after what it has done, and a new one being formed. The message being sent out is either “they got away with it” or they folded and a new club was formed.
The decent and honourable thing would be to let the old club die, reject it’s heritage of cheating lying and stealing, and having a fresh start.
It is never a good idea to pre-empt any tribunal especially a tax tribunal as the record of HMRC is all to indicative of, better to await the decision than suffer the embarrassment of pride coming before a fall.
alex (@thekublakhan) says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 17:06
Rangers clearly pre-empted the result as they never at any stage put contingencies in place to pay any tax interest or penalties.
As you say, that wasn’t a good idea.
paulmac2 says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 12:45
…and when the question is asked…”when Rangers PLC where caught…at it…what part did Celtic play in sorting out the mess?”
——
… the answer will come … “Eh? What have Celtic got to do with it?”.
Hi All
have missed most of the comments over the past week and now playing catch up,lots to go back over ,in Scicily at the moment and not had much time to read up on events ,Brenda whats got to you ,deep breaths for a day or two, I think Davis has had more than a fair crack at the whip ,if people are to drop off and feel they need to post this then there is something wrong that needs brought to the surface ,the last I was reading this blog was cementing itself in the boardwalk of the great blogs we have become acustomed too but seems to be ,at times,walking off the other end of the boardwalk ,I used to post under FIFA but have had difficulty trying to post hence the name change ,well of to dinner now and a bottle of a great gentlemans favourite tipple
The thing is more or less every club at all levels in every country in the world has their very own history.
Maybe formed by a few mates who regularly kicked the ball about together , or formed to help raise funds for charities/causes, formed through local rivalry, formed though foreigners living in another country or by people living in an area of a country they believed should have its own independence.
The list is endless and each fans history is more important to him than anything an opposing fan or court of law might tell them.
The way I see it Rangers F.C. are dead, gone and a brand new club has taken their place, the new club was not founded by “four young men with a dream” but by one middle aged man with (for him) an equally compelling dream.
They four young lads we are told dreamed of a glorious future for a club by playing organized senior football and building a team to compete with the best in the country.
The middle aged man however dreamed of any which way he could manipulate and control the football fans and authorities to extract as much money as possible from the train wreck that was Glasgow Rangers.
The history to the followers of those four young lads was everything, the history to Green means nothing, not a jot, except that it give him more power to relieve the fans of their hard earned cash.
I think before this saga is ended we wont need to worry about who calls which team what name as The Rangers will once again be in administration and this time there will be few men left in a position of power who can help.
In business terms the new Ibrox board scored an own goal in their staunch defence of the Rangers name; if Chas Green had asked any strategic branding consultants for advice; they would have told him to immediately drop the ‘Rangers’ from his product. An indisputable truth in marketing is that your name is only as good as your wares, service or reputation. When a brand name such as Rangers goes toxic no amount of marketing salve will convince the public to once again fully embrace the product. Concealing fiscal failure and tax avoidance might have been tolerated by the UK public, but when a sporting establishment is also charged with cheating – its game over; that name is forever stigmatised. Rangers fans have to realise, that by keeping their old name they also get to keep (forever) the tarnished image.
alex (@thekublakhan) says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 17:32
Agrajag says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 17:13
No you said that. I don’t know the strength of rangers or HMRC’s case apparently you do.
==============================
Do you find it absolutely impossible to believe that people may actually know more about a specific subject than you. Seriously, just because you claim to be totally in the dark about some of the issues here do you automatically assume that other people are in the same position.
For example do you think when RTC posted what he / she did that they were just making it up. No chance they might have a source of information not open to you.
In terms of brand loyality will not always remain Rangers because those that follow the team are LOYALISTS
On a more serious note I would be content with them calling themselves Rangers , content is possibly the wrong word, more of a reluctant acceptance that they will always be known as Rangers by their support. I would be content however if there was an official statement from Ibrox, SFA and even EUFA that announced that Rangers formed in 1872 have seized to exist. I’d like to see a new crest at the stadium and on the shirts that signified this.The team now playing in Div 3 is a new team, end of. I’m happy
I’m missing the word it between wiil and not
In the grand scheme of things, whether the team playing at Ibrox call themselves Rangers or The Rangers, their fans currently regard them as the same team. We may well feel differently but we shall never convince their fans that they are not the same team. Many of them will know, deep down, that they are a new team but so long as the SFA et al continue to treat them as the same team then the majority of their fans will have that straw to which to clutch .
In time, however, there will come an event which will lay out the truth to them and to everyone else. That may be the FTTT or it may be some UEFA action. My bet is that it will involve a court of law, either starting administration proceedings or sitting in judgement on the latest perceived slight. It will not be pretty, but it will be final.
TSFM says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 15:34
I think that if the titles and trophies are handed to the runners-up it will save Rangers a lot of embarrassment for there will be no lasting reminder of their cheating, but with their name scored out on the trophies their dishonour might not be written in stone, but will certainly be written in silver. Your never know, the Rangers support might just catch a dose of dignity and one day be begging Celtic to claim the the disgraced titles 😉
Agrajag says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 17:03
13 0 Rate This
TSFM says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 15:30
One of the points I am attempting to make here is that there is an inordinate amount of importance being attached to the name of the club. There is absolutely no way of ever obtaining a consensus on this – especially since there is no legal barrier to the new club calling itself Rangers.
===========================
I have no problem with them calling themselves Rangers. I call them Rangers most of the time. There’s other clubs called Rangers. It would be like objecting to them calling themselves United, it’s meaningless.
What I object to is the nonsense that they are the same club. They aren’t, in footballing terms or in a business sense. That has been ably demonstrated many times.
It is also important. It’s really not a case of just saying move along, nothing to see here. There is a huge difference between the old club continuing after what it has done, and a new one being formed. The message being sent out is either “they got away with it” or they folded and a new club was formed.
The decent and honourable thing would be to let the old club die, reject it’s heritage of cheating lying and stealing, and having a fresh start.
——————————————————————————
I’m with you on this one Agrajag. My mates who support the team from Govan still call them Rangers -fair enough. They are not however the same club no matter what they claim. It has been fairly (!!) established that although the SFA bent over backwards to accommodate them, they still regard them as a new club. The old club will fairly soon be liquidated. The problem I have is that the new club are still allowed to wear the kit registered by the old Rangers, five stars and all. What kit did Sevco register with the SFL/SFA for the 2012 * 2013 season? hhrrrmmph
Slightly off topic (apologies), I was at Celtic Park today and the Hearts goalie (McDonald?) appeared to take a fairly nasty knock in an accidental collision in the first half. He eventually had to be stretchered off. Celtic Hearts clashes are not always the friendliest of clashes but I was delighted to see and hear both sets of supporters giving the player a healthy round of applause as he was stretchered off. Sporting qualities still exist thankfully.
Get well soon young man.
I’m reposting something I posted on the previous blog, not because I think it’s a particularly good post, but to see if others agree with my premise that it might be a change in tactics by Green. My appologies to anyone who has already read it.
_______________________
I don’t know if anyone on here saw this article, currently being debated over on Jamboskickback, in yesterdays Daily Expess, but I’ve not seen it referred to on here, and think it might indicate a change in Green’s publicity bandwagon tactics.
Basically it’s a peice by Ian Black slagging Romanov over the non-payment of wages plus not re-signing him. While no one can argue that the non-payment of wages was a disgrace and a permanent embarrassment for Hearts, one has to wonder why Black is going to the papers with this story now. In fact, I really doubt he’s phoned the Express and said ‘I’ve got a great story for you’, certainly not without some encouragement at least. It is interesting, too, that it contains the following half-truths, very similar to those used by Green along with his nonsensical promises.
‘“But the top dogs at Hearts decided to cut the wage bill even though I had a year left. They just said, ‘We want you
to go’.
“I had a solid contract – it was their decision to tell me to go.
“They could have kept me and said I was going nowhere.
“It was pretty much the same as the manager’s deal – they ripped it up.”
Well yes, they may have told him to go, but he didn’t have a year left on his contract, Hearts had an option to extend it and chose not to do so. It was similar with Paulo Sergio, though I believe they did offer him a reduced contract which he refused but left on good terms.
As usual, the reporter doesn’t comment or appear to ask relevant questions. In fact, it could just be another ‘exclusive’ handed out by Media House.
What I’m wondering, though, in light of the recent ‘bringing the game into disrepute charges’ is this a change in tactics? Green has alluded to his club’s enemies within the SPL and Romanov did make a none too friendly statement about Rangers oldco, so are Hearts one of his enemies (I’d be proud if they were) and is Green, or his PR team, using Black as his way of getting a dig at said enemy? While Black has a perfect right to speak out about wrongs he sees as done to himself, Green wouldn’t, and might well be considered as, once again, bringing the game into disrepute by slagging the owner of an SPL club.
As I said earlier, why now? Ian Black seemed to accept the wage debacle without complaint and with good humour, as Hibs fans will know with his “I’m gonna paint this place maroon” tee-shirt. Hardly the actions of someone deeply upset by his employer. And if he’s so happy at Ibrox, why carry a grudge, and spout about it in the press, against the man who decided to let you go for free?
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/350401
RFC(IA) will shortly have no history. Sevco/TRFC have a history of no longer than a couple of months.
Supporters of RFC(IA), have a history and that history cannot be taken from them. Supporters of Sevco/TRFC want to claim that history and nothing will stop them.
However if Sevco/TRFC supporters want to claim that history, then they must accept the good history with the bad history.
If they do not accept that, then they cannot with any legitimacy state that RFC(IA)s history is theirs.
With regard giving the titles and trophies to other clubs I’m afraid I don’t see how that makes sense.
Take a cup for example, Rangers would have knocked several clubs out before getting to the final. Why give the cup to the team they beat in the final. The club they knocked out in the semi final may also have beaten the other finalist.
Or leagues, we are talking about 38 games. Each of which may or may not be changed to a 3-0 defeat. If the score stands because there were no ineligible players that makes no allowance for resting players, injuries and suspension, tactical changes, saving players for Europe etc.
In my view any record which is changed should simply have Rangers’ name removed and the record reflecting that.
I’m of the opinion that the misdemeanours of RFC should never be forgotten. Any titles and trophies that are deemed illegal should reflect this and should be left blank as a constant reminder to their wrongdoing. To do otherwise would the be equivalent of airbrushing a picture.
Charles Green – What Will Football’s Authorities Do?
Sorry to jump back to a previous article 1800 plus posts.
To summarise —- NOTHING !!! and here lies one of the biggest problems.
allyjambo says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 18:33
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A conspiracy theorist might suggest that Hearts repeated late payment of wages could be seen as the perfect advertisement for Wonga.com.
Does anyone know any conspiracy theorists? 😀
alex (@thekublakhan) says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 19:05
Agrajag says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 17:55
I don’t believe anything until the tribunal delivers its deliberations, again apparently you do.
=================================
I believe Rangers failed to pay somewhere in the region of £14m in PAYE / NI and VAT least year, because it’s a fact.
I believe that they failed to pay somewhere in the region of £3m previously because it is a fact.
I believe that they currently owe HMRC £94m because it is a fact. It remains until Rangers can prove HMRC got things wrong.
They may have some of that reduced at appeal. However even if they were to win the appeal 100% they would still owe HMRC at least £17m.
You believe what you want, those are the facts.
mdccclxxxviii says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 18:30
‘….and the Hearts goalie (McDonald?) appeared to take a fairly nasty knock in an accidental collision in the first half. …’
—–
Very glad to hear that the goalie’s ok, although they’ll watch him for 24 hours.
I wasn’t at the match, so I was listening to the radio commentary. Not for the first time I have wondered at the propriety of commentators describing injuries to players.
If I had been the goalie’s grandfather or other family member I think I would have been very worried to hear on radio that he was concussed and carried off ,or whatever.
I’ve noticed this before, and I wonder that there is not some broadcasting policy directive to commentators on the point.
Agrajag says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 19:11
Mr Whyte’s sins are not part of the tribunal, fact.
yourhavingalaugh says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 17:29
‘..,I used to post under FIFA .’
—–
Welcome back. If you’re within lava -throwing distance, say hello to Etna from me!
alex (@thekublakhan) says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 19:25
Agrajag says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 19:11
Mr Whyte’s sins are not part of the tribunal, fact.
===========================
It’s not “Mr Whyte’s sins” it’s Rangers’ sins. Another convenient myth. That was made perfectly clear in the recent Falkirk tribunal ruling, in relation to failure to declare PAYE.
================================
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2012/TC02262.html
27. The situation is rather different in regard to Mr Craig. Firstly, since he was Managing Director, he was in fact “the Club” and his actions in that role were as the Club. Accordingly, the fact that he did not ensure timeous payment, knowing as he did the problems in the previous year and the availability of TTP would make it very difficult to argue that he was unaware of the potential problems caused by late payment of PAYE. The Tribunal finds no reasonable excuse in his actions.
================================
Best case scenario from your point of view, Rangers have stolen £17m from the UK taxpayer.
Agrajag & Alex
Give it a rest please.
Because you use ‘brand’ and ‘history’, can I pick up on the following from your excellent ‘Naming the Rose’?
“…… Whichever way you look at it, the continuity of the “brand” is undeniable and as long those who wish to keep buying that package are satisfied that the wrapping is authentic – where’s the harm?
The red herring in the argument is that “history” is important. To the average football fan, it is nothing of the kind. As a Celtic fan myself, and a bit of a student of the history of the club …..”
The confused thinking of many who couldn’t accept that ‘brand’ and ‘history’ are not the same – the MSM; those responsible for the governance of our game; and in particular McCoist & Green – has seriously damaged the brand. Be that Scottish football, or any football team calling itself Rangers.
History will not reflect kindly on them.
The basis of Trfc’s claim to be the same club as rfc is incompetent governance by the football authorities, a media campaign by well known lamb takers and the fingers in the ears na na na-ing by a group of fans who have two choices, give up altogether, or cling to the new club and hope for the best.
Our clubs have been locked in sporting competition for well over a century. One club chose to operate outside the rules of law, of sport and of morality and if they had not been caught they would still be operating this way, with the scant regard for the rest of us that they showed Airdrie in their hour of need. This club had no conscience when it was racking up trophies, gaining financial reward and straining the other clubs to breaking point in an attempt to keep up. The rottenness extended to the rulers of the game and a compliant media and stems from a horrible divisive culture that haunts our society in general. That such a club did eventually get caught and was forced to liquidate due to massive tax debts amongst debts due to numerous clubs and other businesses is only right. That another company can buy some assets but not the debts and then claim a historical continuation to the football club is completely wrong, i did not spend my money supporting my team against a bunch of cheats and thieves to just allow this inconsistency to be accepted.
A club died. While cheating and stealing from me.
A new club started. I want it to fail due to its favourable treatment as a wrongful
continuation as the old rfc.
Any other new club can play where it likes, call itself what it wants and wear whatever it fancies, as long as it recognises the difference between itself and the old rfc.
I will never let this go.
For a team that’s supposed to be dead, you can’t stop talking about them. [Edited SFM]
Next time I’m at park head I’m expecting to now hear “…and if you don’t know your History,it’s enough to make your heart go etc ….”
allyjambo says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 18:33
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree AJ…it makes no sense whatsoever to either attack an ex employer..or to discuss the wage situation at an ex employer?
One can only assume that yesterdays result needs to be diluted and deflected as quickly as possible…the heat needs to be taken off Ally and more importantly Mr. Green…
If he is in it for the long haul…then you would expect a golden handshake to be taking place between Charlie and Ally..and a new lad stepping in…what better way to sweep that aside than a big Ian Black exclusive about Hearts wage issues…
dl2068 says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 20:18
====================================
To be pedantic, the licence was not transferred over. Sevco’s Rangers have no club licence.
You are probably referring to Rangers’ SFA membership which was transferred to Sevco. For the avoidance of doubt, if the new club was the same as the old club, no transfer would have been necessary.
dl2068 says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 20:18
For a team that’s supposed to be dead, you can’t stop talking about them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You will find due to the industrial size of theft and corruption Rangers FC PLC committed, they will be discussed…and as yet they are awaiting final liquidation.
You will also find that due to lack of honesty and clarity being provided by Charlie there is still a depth of discussion to have…otherwise SEVCO will attempt to similar dishoneties and deceptions..
Maybe you could clear up one of the issues that are discussed….who owns Ibrox?
paulmac2 says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 20:32
Green’s consortium own Ibrox and Murray Park ( seen by SFA and RFFF.
stmungo69 says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 17:51
When a brand name such as Rangers goes toxic no amount of marketing salve will convince the public to once again fully embrace the product.
—-
Perfectly correct.
Perhaps Rangers should have chosen a new name which was broadly similar but not quite the same.
Like … um … “Ratners”, maybe?
🙂
AJ…Maybe a current player at Hearts could provide a sound bite to a newspaper that if the £800k owed to them by Rangers FC PLC had been paid…this may have eased the wage situation some what…
paulmac2 says:
history will demonstrate how Dr John Reid and Mr Peter Lawell publicly held documents and promised to publish them if proper reform did not take place.
dl2068 says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 20:36
Green’s consortium own Ibrox and Murray Park ( seen by SFA and RFFF.
——
Sorry, I must’ve missed something. Who exactly are Green’s consortium again?
dl2068 says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 20:36
paulmac2 says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 20:32
Green’s consortium own Ibrox and Murray Park ( seen by SFA and RFFF.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And who is in the consortium?
Can you explain why Donald Finlay QC has stated he is yet to see the deeds to Ibrox to establish who owns it?
I agree. Which is why I would have thought that anyone attempting to restore the brand’s integrity would have gone about their business in a more conciliatory way than CG has.
The fans may well forgive, but over the piece, I think that the perception of Rangers held by fans of other clubs (not just Celtic) will be such that the club will be damaged in a commercial sense. Sponsors will think again before allying themselves with the club, investors (as we speak) will keep their hands in their pockets, and players and agents will be less likely to get involved.
As people have said, the only sensible conclusion to arrive at here is that Green is on the make, and will bail as soon as he has his pound of flesh (if I can mix a metaphor or three).
Looks like we’ve got another troll 🙂
briggsbhoy says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 02:28
Now as for that clip of the radio show and your correspondence with chap at Clyde I believe you misquoted Mr Guidi. No matter how many times I listen to that clip he never used the words, I hope it’ll kick off, he just said “it’ll kick off”. He may have been close to it but he didn’t say I hope. As for “civil war” not well chosen words I agree but I know what he means.
—————————–
I have to answer this.
Graham Bryce is MD of Bauer media and effectively in charge of Radio Clyde. On 24th September I put to him in an email that the following was a true transcript of the SuperScoreBoard of 18th Sept:
Jim Delahunt: “… if they do strip (Rangers of) titles, what do you think will be the reaction of supporters on the ground?”
Mark Guidi: “The Rangers fan’s will be up in arms and I hope it’ll kick off.”
Jim Delahunt: “Civil war, isn’t it?”
Mark Guidi: “Yeah”.
You can see from Mr Bryce’s reply to me below that he does not dispute that this is a true record of the broadcast.
More – he says that there is no disputing my transcript AFTER he met with Guidi & Delahunt to hear their explanation of this broadcast.
Ie: neither Guidi nor Delahunt disputed with their boss that they said what I averred that they had said.
http://www.btinternet.com/~k.miller18/SSBOfCom.html
Now, briggsbhoy, when you posted a lengthy attack on me over this issue last night, you admitted having seen the above sequence of emails between me and Graham Bryce.
So you were essentially accusing me of putting words into Mark Guidi’s mouth, ie calling me a liar.
That is not on. But I won’t hold my breath for an apology.
I was interested in allyjambos post.
I am a Partick Thistle supporter, And yes, I was there in 1971. For me, that was the high spot of supporting Thistle. I have that team memorised, I remember the goals as if it were yesterday,
Neither of my sons were alive in 1971. They remember the promotions under Lambie as the most important part of our history.
Neither they nor I are right. Indeed there is no right or wrong about it. We are creatures of our eras. My hope is that they will continue to follow the Jags come what may. And, whilst I’d likely want to skelp them, if a grandchild didn’t know who John Lambie was, that is hardly their fault. They will have been introduced to an era where McNamara is the new hero.
It takes all sorts to support a team, and, to be honest, that win in 1971 ought to fade. We need new trophys!
dl2068 says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 20:36
Green’s consortium own Ibrox and Murray Park ( seen by SFA and RFFF.
==============================
Fascinating! Do you have a source for this? And can you let us know which company has ownership, and where it is registered?
rab says:
Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 20:14
‘…The rottenness extended to the rulers of the game and a compliant media..’
—–
It is this aspect of the business that I am most concerned about, the attempt to ‘transfer’ membership of the SFA as if to an existing club, and the connivance by the media in such an unprecedented breach of the SFA’s own rules.
An important secondary effect of that corrupt attempt to legitimise a wholly false entitlement to SFA membership is the scope it gives to the misguided to claim that ‘new’ is ‘old’, and that the history of the old carries on in an unbroken seam into the new.
We will see how quickly that absurd second claim is got shot of if Hector asks CG for the £95M.
If or when the enthusiasts who are trying to restore Cathkin, and field a team called Third Lanark, succeed in that venture ( and good luck to them) they can pretend to be the same club that Jimmy Delaney played for ( like I used to be Willie Fernie), but the actual facts will be quite different.
Likewise, people can, if they wish, pretend to themselves that ‘The Rangers’ are the same as the Rangers they were watching just a few months ago.
But it would be a pretence.
The old Rangers FC is actually dead, and will be legally pronounced so in a short while.
It cannot, either legally or actually, be ‘The Rangers FC Ltd.’
.
Main investor
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/arif-naqvi-donation-to-orphans-1280548
CG thinks history is important.He’s spent his time travelling to the U.S.,N.I,anywhere he can sell the mantra “Rangers Then,Rangers Now,Rangers Forever”.
All to raise badly needed funds,of course.
I’d like to ask our legal friends,though,how can he claim to be the same club when publishing his much anticipated prospectus.
Is he willing to tell possible investors that,as we’re the same club,we’re facing possible expulsion from football.Crown Office investigations,FTT result,possible £94m bill,CoS with Lord Hodge,etc.We still have our history,though.WATP,No Surrender.Gie’s yer money.
Or,
We’re brand new,starting from scratch,what happened before is nothing to do with us.We’ve no debts,no sanctions,No History.We’re new.Gie’s yer money.
Somewhere along the line,CG is going to have to state what the status of his club(or its legal entity 😆 )is and what his plans are.