Rangers To Go into Scottish 3rd Division

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,891
31
48
I would assume they did think that seeing as its Rangers, rather than another club. The same rules didn't apply to them. It's obvious the SFA did everything in its power to save rangers. Even Alex Salmond was making statements spelling out the reasons why rangers should not allowed to go bust or get demoted not long ago: the institution of Scottish football, part of the fabric of Scotland etc etc.

Would love to the see the title race go to around march to keep it interesting, and hopefully all the teams in Scotland have a good season in Europe.
He is partly right, Rangers aren't just another club. The implications are massive. Clubs have already admitted that they have no idea how they are going to survive without the money despite it being the right decision. There are 3 clubs who could already go into administration because of it. The title race is moot. Scottish football is slowly sliding towards the drain.
 

maxy67

Member
Aug 13, 2011
1,436
0
0
29
He is partly right, Rangers aren't just another club. The implications are massive. Clubs have already admitted that they have no idea how they are going to survive without the money despite it being the right decision. There are 3 clubs who could already go into administration because of it. The title race is moot. Scottish football is slowly sliding towards the drain.
Well you are right about the comments made about some of the small clubs going under etc. Wasn't exactly the point I was making though. I'm not sure Salmond alluding to Rangers being an institution and part of the fabric of Scotland, don't think he was alluding as much to footballing consequences as such, he was talking about what it would do to Scottish society. Think that was a huge reason why many people wanted Rangers to be saved, rather than with any thought to saving the Scottish game.

We will have to see if Scottish football really will be in that much of a bad state in the future, it looks slightly bleak, but most of the leagues outside England, Spain and Germany (even heard a lot of people declaring Italian football to be dying.) are in a bit of a state.
 

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,891
31
48
Well you are right about the comments made about some of the small clubs going under etc. Wasn't exactly the point I was making though. I'm not sure Salmond alluding to Rangers being an institution and part of the fabric of Scotland, don't think he was alluding as much to footballing consequences as such, he was talking about what it would do to Scottish society. Think that was a huge reason why many people wanted Rangers to be saved, rather than with any thought to saving the Scottish game.

We will have to see if Scottish football really will be in that much of a bad state in the future, it looks slightly bleak, but most of the leagues outside England, Spain and Germany (even heard a lot of people declaring Italian football to be dying.) are in a bit of a state.
In fairness, most people mean the finances when they talk about it as well as the history. They are an institution, and part of the fabric, whether Celtic fans like it or not. The huge reason is the financial implication, which everyone has spoken about. Reading the papers here you get a less partisan viewing, and anyone with an ounce of financial knowledge can see the game is in big trouble.

3 clubs facing admin, a whole league in trouble because of 1 club. That is a dire state, there is no escaping that. That's like having 5 premiership clubs fold because United disappear. Scottish football is dying, whether they save it by restructuring is another question.
 

maxy67

Member
Aug 13, 2011
1,436
0
0
29
In fairness, most people mean the finances when they talk about it as well as the history. They are an institution, and part of the fabric, whether Celtic fans like it or not. The huge reason is the financial implication, which everyone has spoken about. Reading the papers here you get a less partisan viewing, and anyone with an ounce of financial knowledge can see the game is in big trouble.

3 clubs facing admin, a whole league in trouble because of 1 club. That is a dire state, there is no escaping that. That's like having 5 premiership clubs fold because United disappear. Scottish football is dying, whether they save it by restructuring is another question.
I've noticed the papers (broadsheets, not red tops) here in England have highlighted and questioned the hidden meanings behind statements about Rangers being an institution, part of the fabric of scotland etc on numerous occasions. Something which would never be said in Scotland, or even thought of.

Well were the institution of Scotland, will lose a lot of power now.

It's in huge trouble no doubt, and it has been since Murray took over Rangers back in the late eighties, effectively killing off all competition in Scotland (even Celtic for most of that time up until the present, and Martin O'neil taking over as manager).
 

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,891
31
48
I've noticed the papers (broadsheets, not red tops) here in England have highlighted and questioned the hidden meanings behind statements about Rangers being an institution, part of the fabric of scotland etc on numerous occasions. Something which would never be said in Scotland, or even thought of.

Well were the institution of Scotland, will lose a lot of power now.

It's in huge trouble no doubt, and it has been since Murray took over Rangers back in the late eighties, effectively killing off all competition in Scotland (even Celtic for most of that time up until the present, and Martin O'neil taking over as manager).
It's not all about Murray, the issue isn't down to him. much more to do with Setanta going bust and the total lack of thinking in the SFA/SPL for years. The league has always been about Rangers and Celtic, not terms of winning, but in terms of structure and no one ever bothered to look at that. The league format cannot continue as it is, and im amazed its been like this for so long.
 

maxy67

Member
Aug 13, 2011
1,436
0
0
29
It's not all about Murray, the issue isn't down to him. much more to do with Setanta going bust and the total lack of thinking in the SFA/SPL for years. The league has always been about Rangers and Celtic, not terms of winning, but in terms of structure and no one ever bothered to look at that. The league format cannot continue as it is, and im amazed its been like this for so long.
Well not so sure about the sentanta argument, the smaller Scottish teams were in huge decline by that time, and competition was effectively ended way before that.

Not so true about its always been Celtic and Rangers, before Murray took over Rangers were getting 20k a game and hadn't won anything in years. The league was very competitive during the 80's.
 

Raikan007

Member
Feb 6, 2009
20,599
4
38
sad to hear this.. however, for all you Rangers fans, at least it will be a cool challenge in Fm13 :) I might even start with them...
 

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,891
31
48
Well not so sure about the sentanta argument, the smaller Scottish teams were in huge decline by that time, and competition was effectively ended way before that.

Not so true about its always been Celtic and Rangers, before Murray took over Rangers were getting 20k a game and hadn't won anything in years. The league was very competitive during the 80's.
Murray isn't the issue here. To blame him is past the mark. Its pretty much always been Rangers and Celtic, with a few in between. Murray didnt kill the league with his spending. Celtic won it 9 on the trot the decade before, didnt kill the league. The 80's is pretty much an exception, and even then 7 of the 10 titles when to Rangers or Celtic. Setanta was the hammer blow.
 

AldoKemp-1

Member
Nov 28, 2008
3,302
0
0
29
I hate murray with a passion, but regardless of how much money we spent on players Rangers and Celtic both buy the league, Any player too good for hibs,hearts aberdeen etc are all signed by the old firm which stops other teams from having any chance of competing and thats the same issue the old firm had with europe because all the better players too good for the SPL went to england where it was better quality of football and more money.
 

LFCMarshall

YNWA.
Aug 21, 2009
14,837
0
0
26

maxy67

Member
Aug 13, 2011
1,436
0
0
29
Question simply for my update due to many different opinions on the situation...

Are Rangers a New Club, just with everything transferred OR are they the same club?

Rangers F.C. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newco Rangers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


although it is wikipedia i think these explain it quite well to me, and is what is being reported on all media outlets..

I followed this every step, but other opinions on this would be appreciated!

Cheers
They've transferred the assets such as the Stadium, training park and some of the players contracts etc.

But I don't know if the newco has 0 trophies won, or keeps any of the history of the old rangers. I'm guessing no, since the old co has been liquidated?
 

Kezza96

Member
Jan 9, 2012
1,054
0
0
Question simply for my update due to many different opinions on the situation...

Are Rangers a New Club, just with everything transferred OR are they the same club?

Rangers F.C. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newco Rangers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


although it is wikipedia i think these explain it quite well to me, and is what is being reported on all media outlets..

I followed this every step, but other opinions on this would be appreciated!

Cheers
"Newco Rangers" are called "The Rangers" as they can't use the name "Rangers". It is a new club, they have not played a single competitive match. Just transferred all the assests of "Oldco Rangers".

:p
 
Last edited:

LFCMarshall

YNWA.
Aug 21, 2009
14,837
0
0
26
This is what i thought but a couple are sure i have done it wrong

Only thing i am unsure about is the history

whether its carried over or if it just meant old Rangers could keep their history intact
 

Kezza96

Member
Jan 9, 2012
1,054
0
0
This is what i thought but a couple are sure i have done it wrong

Only thing i am unsure about is the history

whether its carried over or if it just meant old Rangers could keep their history intact
That's the thing I'm not sure of either. I am assuming that they don't keep their history but I may be wrong.
 

Kris

Member
Sep 17, 2005
11,006
0
36
32
This is the issue at the moment. If the old clubs history and assets get transferred over then it’s essentially just the same club with a different licence. Giving the SFA/SPL the power to impose further sanctions like the transfer embargo because if they want to be the same club with the same history then they should face the same punishments.
Also, they are still called Glasgow Rangers, not Rangers Newco or The Rangers football club. As far as I am aware, it was only the company running the club whose name has changed.
 

Adi1974

Member
Sep 4, 2011
597
1
18
45
the spl still want to own the media rights of rangers while they are in division 3 and are trying to get a new tv deal which will show all rangers away matches which i think is wrong! and to be honest this is dragging on and on now they have been punished enough now! but they still have the tax case to answer lets just get on with them playing football and getting back to the spl and challenging for honours again! the sfa and spl have made scottish football a laughing stock
 

LFCMarshall

YNWA.
Aug 21, 2009
14,837
0
0
26
Only thing i thought was if they get to remain the same club ETC what was the point in them being liquidated, surely them being liquidated means charles green had to 'officially' create a new club with a different name?
 

Kris

Member
Sep 17, 2005
11,006
0
36
32
Only thing i thought was if they get to remain the same club ETC what was the point in them being liquidated, surely them being liquidated means charles green had to 'officially' create a new club with a different name?
They were liquidated because the oldco had outstanding debts that could not be paid back. Again I think it's the company which own the club that has been liquidated and Rangers are now owned by "The Rangers"

Something similar happened when Fiorentina went bust, had to start again from the bottom and bought back the clubs history.
 

Aannddyy

Super Duper Moderator
Jun 30, 2009
7,837
0
36
www.fm-base.co.uk
Only thing i thought was if they get to remain the same club ETC what was the point in them being liquidated, surely them being liquidated means charles green had to 'officially' create a new club with a different name?
Rangers Football Club are still called Rangers Football Club. The Rangers Football Club is the company that Sevco 5088 are using as Rangers' official owners.. Just to be ******* awkward!

Rangers FC still have their original assets including history, this was purchased by The Rangers FC. Nothing about Rangers has changed (yet) apart from the staff and finances.

Hope that clears it up?

BTW, Rangers FC haven't yet been accepted by the SFA (they have only been accepted by the SFL) so any of this could change.. They could take away all of Rangers FC's history and make them start as a new club founded in 2012, but as far as I know, this hasn't happened yet.
 
Last edited:

LFCMarshall

YNWA.
Aug 21, 2009
14,837
0
0
26
Rangers Football Club are still called Rangers Football Club. The Rangers Football Club is the company that Sevco 5088 are using as Rangers' official owners.. Just to be ******* awkward!

Rangers FC still have their original assets including history, this was purchased by The Rangers FC. Nothing about Rangers has changed (yet) apart from the staff and finances.

Hope that clears it up?

BTW, Rangers FC haven't yet been accepted by the SFA (they have only been accepted by the SFL) so any of this could change.. They could take away all of Rangers FC's history and make them start as a new club founded in 2012, but as far as I know, this hasn't happened yet.
ok thanks, they are making this so dragged out and complicated its unreal,

dont help the scottish game one bit.
 
Top