The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The Ne’erday Game

Posted on January 01, 2015 by

We’re technically on holiday today, folks, so for the first time in a very long time we’re going to write something about football and if you don’t like it that’s just your tough luck. Nobody’s making you click the “Read more” button.

Two fairly remarkable things happened in Scottish football today. The first was that Aberdeen went top of the Premiership for the first time in about 20 years, but the second was of a bit more relevance to this site’s political and media-monitoring brief.

donkeycaster

That’s because, for the very first time that we’re aware of since Rangers went bust in 2012, the chief executive of the Scottish league’s governing body, Neil Doncaster, explicitly and directly stated that the club currently 15 points adrift of Hearts in the game’s second tier was the same one that died two and a half years ago.

And that matters more than you think it does.

This site exists because we were sick of professional journalists not doing their jobs properly and not asking the questions people were entitled to expect them to ask. And in all the millions of words that have been written about the ongoing Nightmare On Edmiston Drive in the last 30 months, it’s astonishing that not a single interviewer or reporter has ever pressed the SPFL’s top man to answer that once and for all.

Doncaster’s long-overdue response couldn’t provide a clearer illustration of why there’s a Wings Over Scotland, because it’s a flat-out falsehood that’s simply allowed to pass unchallenged, despite not only being untrue but actually nonsensical. We live in a media environment where those in power and authority are too often allowed to assert that black is white and have it not only go unquestioned, but have it casually repeated as fact without so much as the suggestion that it may be contested.

And the really weird thing is that Doncaster appears to have spontaneously and voluntarily answered the question WITHOUT actually being asked it.

How concerned should the league be about what’s currently on-going at Rangers?

“It’s very difficult for a league to get too concerned with the individual affairs of any one member club.

“We have a rule book, which is agreed by all member clubs. Any club within the league has to play by those rules and our job as a league is to apply them, so that’s what we do.

In terms of the question about old club, new club, that was settled very much by the Lord Nimmo Smith commission that was put together by the SPL to look at EBT payments at that time.

The decision, very clearly from the commission, was that the club is the same, the club continues, albeit it is owned by a new company, but the club is the same.”

Wait, what? Nobody asked you if it was the same club. But to his partial credit, the BBC’s Chris McLaughlin picked up the sudden outburst and double-checked it.

So the official take from the SPFL is that Rangers Football Club continues, it’s the same club?

“Yes, it’s the same club, absolutely.”

People have extreme views on this, so what’s the difference between a club and a company?

“The member club is the entity that participates in our league and we have 42 member clubs.

“Those clubs may be owned by a company, sometimes it’s a Private Limited Company, sometimes it’s a PLC, but ultimately, the company is a legal entity in its own right, which owns a member club that participates in the league.”

So, once and for all, the league is putting this to bed, it’s the same club?

“It was put to bed by the Lord Nimmo Smith commission some while ago – it’s the same club.”

At this point, though, with the ball rolling across the six-yard line and the goalie nowhere in sight, McLaughlin doesn’t take the shot. Any hack worth their salt would have been in for the kill and asked Doncaster the two blindingly obvious questions that arise from that assertion – if the demise of the company didn’t affect the club, why did a club that finished second in the SPL find itself playing in SFL3 the next season, and why were its players allowed to walk away from their contracts*?

The SPL had penalties for clubs going into administration, which were fully applied in the case of Rangers: a 10-point deduction, which didn’t affect its league position. The team wasn’t relegated and no subsequent football penalty was imposed on it which would explain it dropping three divisions. That it did so, then, is an extraordinary event for which the league’s CEO has offered no rationale.

There’s no getting around the fact. If the club exists separately of the company, and was bought as an ongoing concern separate from the liquidation of the company, then its football activities continue uninterrupted and it plays in the SPL. Its players remain under contract. Manchester United didn’t drop three divisions and have all its players released when the Glazers bought the club in 2005. Merely changing owners is an event which has no effect on a club’s league status.

The reason that wasn’t the case with Rangers is that the club DOESN’T have a separate legal existence. Charles Green bought the physical and intellectual assets of the liquidated company – its buildings and trademarks – but he didn’t buy it as a going concern. He didn’t own the players’ contracts and he had to apply to be admitted to the SFL as a new club, with no voting rights, having been denied entry to the SPL.

“Green’s Sevco consortium had been forced to apply for entry to the SFL after Scottish Premier League clubs voted against the new Rangers being admitted to the top flight.”

Neil Doncaster said today that “The member club is the entity that participates in our league”. The fact that Charles Green’s “Sevco” club had to apply (unsuccessfully) to be allowed to join the SPL – a matter on which the old Rangers had a vote – leaves no wiggle room at all.

“Rangers will not play in the Scottish Premier League this season.

SPL chairmen met at Hampden to vote on the new club’s application to replace the old Rangers in the top flight.

BBC Scotland has learned that 10 of the 12 clubs were in opposition, with Kilmarnock abstaining and Rangers voting in favour.”

You don’t have to apply to join an organisation that you’re already a member of, and if Old Rangers existed at the same time as New Rangers and got to vote on their application, then they plainly can’t be the same “member club”. It’s a nonsense so colossal in its scale it defies even the concept of debate, like trying to argue with someone in a rowing boat on a lake who’s insisting that he isn’t surrounded by water and could walk back to shore any time he liked.

The empirical facts simply couldn’t be clearer. Old Rangers and New Rangers – the football clubs, not the companies – CANNOT be the same, because both existed at once and one voted on the fate of the other. You don’t give the accused in a murder trial a vote in the jury. And so far as courts of law are concerned, the incontrovertible established fact is that the clubs were different, because Old Rangers players were allowed to leave and join other clubs without breach of contract or transfer fees.

So why, as Neil Doncaster claims, would a learned judge like Lord Nimmo Smith find otherwise, in contravention of all logic and reason? And the answer, of course, is that he did no such thing.

nimmosmith

The findings of the Nimmo Smith commission can oddly no longer be found on the SPFL website. But they exist on archive.org and can be read in full. As early as page 3 in his report, Nimmo Smith summarises the history thus:

“Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872 as an association football club. It was incorporated in 1899 as The Rangers Football Club Limited. In 2000 the company’s name was changed to The Rangers Football Club Plc, and on 31 July 2012 to RFC 2012 Plc. We shall refer to this company as ‘Oldco’.

[…]

Oldco is now in liquidation; a winding up order was made by the Court of Session on 31 October 2012, and Malcolm Cohen 4 and James Stephen, both of the accountancy organisation BDO, were appointed joint interim liquidators.

On 14 June 2012 a newly incorporated company, Sevco Scotland Limited, purchased substantially all the business and assets of Oldco, including Rangers FC, by entering into an asset sale and purchase agreement with the joint administrators. The name of Sevco Scotland Limited was subsequently changed to The Rangers Football Club Limited. We shall refer to this company as Newco.

Newco was not admitted to membership of the SPL. Instead it became the operator of Rangers FC within the Third Division of the Scottish Football League. It also became an associate member of the SFA. These events were reflected in an agreement among the SFA, the SPL, the SFL, Oldco and Newco, which was concluded on 27 July 2012.”

That’s clear enough. A football club was founded in 1872, then it became a limited company in 1899 (note “became”, not “was purchased by”), it changed its name a couple of times and it went into liquidation in 2012. Its assets were purchased by a new company and a new club formed, which applied unsuccessfully for membership of the SPL and subsequently joined the SFL.

Note that Doncaster and Nimmo Smith’s accounts are already at odds here. Doncaster claims that the club is separate from the company, Nimmo Smith says the club IS the company. The club name (“Rangers FC”) is in essence simply a trading name for the company (“The Rangers Football Club Limited”). On page 32 Lord Nimmo Smith makes it absolutely explicit:

“We see no room or need for separate findings of breaches by Rangers FC, which was not a separate legal entity and was then part (although clearly in football and financial terms the key part) of the undertaking of Oldco.”

(All emphases in these quotes are ours.)

That’s the exact opposite of what Neil Doncaster claims the Nimmo Smith report said. Nimmo Smith found and stated directly that the club and company were NOT separate. Chris McLaughlin has followed events at Ibrox very closely for several years and knows this perfectly well, yet he not only allows Doncaster to tell an absolute lie unchallenged, but fails to ask the simplest and most obvious of follow-up questions.

Any reader who listened to James Naughtie interviewing Alistair Darling during the referendum campaign, or watched Gordon Brown given free reign to say whatever he wanted on the BBC at seemingly limitless length, or any of a hundred other examples, shouldn’t need the parallels pointed out to them.

Neil Doncaster and his SFA counterpart Stewart Regan infamously warned of “Armageddon” if New Rangers weren’t given privileged admission into SFL1 in 2012. In the event, they weren’t, yet Armageddon has failed to materialise. The Premiership is now almost debt-free, the lower leagues have enjoyed a huge cash boost as New Rangers have passed through the divisions, crowds are up and the top tier now has just five points separating the top five teams at the halfway point of the season.

We were told a similar apocalypse would result from Scottish independence. The electorate was told lies equally breathtaking in their scale by the No campaign, and those lies went similarly unchallenged.

When we talk about football – and we’re regularly berated for doing so on Twitter – we try (if we’re in a patient mood) to explain the connection between the two things, how reality is routinely twisted, no matter how absurdly, to protect the establishment and vested interests. Whether the subject is football or politics, the rules are the same.

(The SPFL and SFA are terrified that if they admit New Rangers are a new club their fans will be lost to the game. Ironically, pandering to the delusion that they’re not has left the new club in such a mess that those fans are walking away anyway, not unlike the way that winning the referendum has destroyed Scottish Labour.)

If the events of today don’t help people to see it, we don’t know what will.

.

—————————————————————————————————————-

* Nimmo Smith’s commission, in a document it issued eight days after its report to explain some of its reasoning, made some interesting comments in this regard.

“It will be recalled that in Article 2 ‘Club’ is defined in terms of ‘the undertaking of an association football club’, and in Rule I1 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club.

Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.

While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.”

Emphasis ours again. In other words, Lord Nimmo Smith’s MINIMUM definition of a “club” includes the player contracts, which Charles Green did NOT get when he purchased Rangers’ assets.

Therefore, in Lord Nimmo Smith’s view, Green was NOT purchasing a “club”, but merely some of the raw materials with which to construct one of his own.

The document goes on to add:

“In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator.  

In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold.  

This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not.

Which seems pretty unequivocal evidence that Neil Doncaster’s claims are false. The Commission stated unambiguously that the “club” has no separate legal status to the “company” – the polar opposite of what Doncaster told Chris McLaughlin it said.

Any company can change owners, and the business – in this case a football club – naturally continues in those circumstances. But if the company dies the club cannot survive, because it has no independent existence. If you buy a dead man’s clothes and his house, you don’t become him and you don’t get custody of his kids. Lord Nimmo Smith could scarcely have been clearer on that.

Print Friendly

    3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 01 01 15 19:42

      The Ne’erday Game - Speymouth

    2. 01 01 15 20:50

      A Moment Of Clarity? | On Fields of Green

    3. 02 01 15 13:22

      Neil Doncaster | Phil Mac Giolla Bhain | Freelance Journalist, Author & Blogger

    274 to “The Ne’erday Game”

    1. Andy-B says:

      Old Rangers New Rangers, I couldn’t care less if there were NO Rangers, with a bit of luck they’ll be playing against Third Lanark next season.

    2. robert urquhart says:

      You proceed from a false position Rev. You seem to assume Doncaster is in any way competent.

    3. caledonia says:

      They are a new club everyone and his dog knows that

    4. Mealer says:

      Rotten.Rotten.Rotten to the core.Rangers.The UK. The media.

    5. One_Scot says:

      Would it be fair to say that a Celtic New Rangers match can no longer be called an Old Firm game.

    6. Charles says:

      It is the same club. Rangers will be back in the SPL again next year and before too long will be winning the SPL once more. Yes, I know for a lot of people that idea hurts, but the reality is unavoidable. Pick your toys up off the floor and move on.

    7. One_Scot says:

      ‘New Rangers’ has a nice ring to it.

      I don’t talk about football much, but if I ever hear anyone referring to Rangers, I’ll politely say,’ I take it you mean New Rangers.’

    8. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “You seem to assume Doncaster is in any way competent.”

      I have no clue where you’d get that idea from.

    9. caledonia says:

      the sheep are on fire

    10. Nod Bruce says:

      I’ve never supported a football team, though I did go to two matches in 1973 (maybe ’74), so I’m shocked that I read this post with interest.

      Of course, I was never interested in politics, either, until recently.

      I just wonder: if all journalism was of this quality, how much more interesting would my world be?

    11. Geoff Huijer says:

      ‘You don’t have to apply to join an organisation that you’re already a member of…’

      Except, obviously, the EU coz Better Together said so.

    12. John Young says:

      A brilliant piece Rev.thank you.

      As one who has followed Scottish football all my life and who fully appreciates the Aberdeen team which won more ‘major’ trophies than any other Scottish team this absolutely nails the travesty that the SFA complicit with the SMM has inflicted on our nation.

      A guid new year to you and yours.

    13. Garve says:

      Why does it matter?

      Do Airdrieonians fans lie awake at night wondering if their history started in Airdrie in 1878, in Clydebank in 1899 or 1965 or Airdrie in 2002?

      As far as I’m concerned they can choose any of the above and it’s no skin off my nose. Same goes for Rangers.

      99% of the people who worry about this (and that probably includes the Rev) do so simply to wind up Rangers fans. Nothing wrong with that of course, but is insisting that football journalists should do it for you really valid?

    14. bjsalba says:

      I think the BBC staff have forgotten how to do journalism.

    15. lumilumi says:

      Bah, football.

      Ice-hockey is more interesting.

      😉

    16. Lesley-Anne says:

      “Those clubs may be owned by a company, sometimes it’s a Private Limited Company, sometimes it’s a PLC, but ultimately, the company is a legal entity in its own right, which owns a member club that participates in the league.”

      Is it just me or does anyone else think that this *ahem* intelligentsia Neil Doncaster has had a David Cameron moment here? 😉

      We all remember Cameron’s comment don’t we, “simultaneously and at the same time.” Well surely Lancaster has had a similar event with his “sometimes it’s a Private Limited Company, sometimes it’s a PLC.” I may be wrong here but isn’t a Public Limited Company EXACTLY the same thing as a PLC? 😛

    17. Clootie says:

      An old political trick. You make a statement (the Doncaster Lie) you then hope it slips through and goes on record. Then someone else quotes it as a reliable source and the lie is built on this false foundation.

      Well spotted Rev.

      The facts laid out in your article are beyond challenge. They will therefore just ignore you.

    18. snode1965 says:

      Unbelievable, corruption and State propaganda engulfs every level of British media! Come on “The National” this is exactly the type of journalism we want, time to man up! Thanks Stu.

    19. handclapping says:

      Anyway what does it matter? Berwick is in England.

    20. Fuctifino says:

      How on earth can anyone have any feelings about this trivial matter in any way whatsoever? It’s possibly the least important debate ever in the history of Scottish football and to be brutally honest it matters to no-one, including Rangers or whatever anyone wants to call them.

    21. yesindyref2 says:

      I don’t follow league football, but for me a club is its fans, whatever the legal entity, same as Scotland is our People.

      League organisations should exist to serve the fans via the clubs, it often seems to me they are self-serving instead. Parliaments exist to serve the People, some do, some don’t and some do part of the time.

      Whatever the ins and outs of Rangers the club, its fans were treated shamefully.

    22. Gene Randell says:

      Here’s a couple of things for you.

      l notice from this site and Bella Caledonia,that there seems to be an assumption that the hatred of Rangers FC is somehow a sine qua non in the movement for Scottish lndependence.

      Well l have followed the former and supported the latter for most of my life and have no difficulty in separting the two. I find it highly ironic that the hate-filled language used to describe RFC and its fans,by many Independence supporters, is justified on the grounds that their perceived hatred is greater than, er, the hatred of those expressing their hate of RFC.

      It is such attitudes, sanctioned, apparently, by sites like WoS &c,that has made me reluctant to donate to your funding appeals (and my donations to more mainstream lndependence campaigns have been considerable in nature).

      Your argument that an SPFL/SFA, totally dominated by people who have the ingerests of every club except, The Rangers at heart, many of whom owe their positions in tbe hierarchy to the patronage of a big football club, based in the East End of Glasgow, is somehow feart of losing moneybe ause kf Rangers’absence, is laughable.

      I could waste time explaning that, if Rangers is a new club, then Celtic are in their fourth incarnation (Pacicic Shelf 595 being the most recent)and several Scottish clubs such as Motherwell, Livingston, Dundee &c are all in the same position. But of course, to quote Paul Simon:

      “A man hears what be wants to hear and disregards the rest”.

      And of course, there are all tbose internet expert to contradict me, even if, uike me they have no legal quaications, Company Law or otherwise.

      In the next year many things will change. When those who have taken over and tried to destroy RFC are routed and replaced, by those with the club’s interests at heart, information of those behind the plot will come to light, legal action will follow, the real guilty men will, as always, go free, fot to do otherwise would sit Scottish society in a similar but less
      civilised fashion than the Referendum.

      All this will be ignored by the BBC, whose bossses hate RFC as much as they fear lndependence.

      Not to worry, you can read about it in my book, which, of course, will be published abroad – thank goodness for Amazon and tbe Internet.

      Feel free to allow your followers to attack my view. As l. ieve in free speech l won’t bave you sued and silenced.l reserve that sanction for much larger ventures – ones eith money.

    23. The fact Doncaster is still in a job highlights the incompetence of the SPFL. No sponsor but still he dictates how the hundred or so year old clubs (3 year old in 1 case) should be run to survive.

    24. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      @ handclapping

      But for how long?

      Happy New Year!

      I don’t give a monkey’s what the mugs call or believe what their chosen fitba’ team is called.

      I have long since moved on.

    25. Dan Watt says:

      Seems to me pretty obvious that Mr Doncaster is just trying to put that argument to bed, albeit rather unsuccessfully. Everyone know that Rangers ceased to exist as they were liquidated, that is what happened to Wimbledon who then became the MK Dons.

      Rangers are now “Rangers International Football Club” anyway.

    26. Marie clark says:

      Rev, Doncaster & Reagan are the most incompetant pair o’ eejits that it’s possible to find. They should both have lost their jobs at the time o’ RFC boorach. Thank god for sensible fans and Turnbull Hutton putting a stop to their grandios ideas.

      Your quite right though in comparing fitba and the referendum because their was no decent journalism ( with one or two honourable exceptions). I used to get annoyed and shout at the telly about it, but it’s better for the blood pressure these days as I don’t watch EBC, licence cancelled and don’t buy the papers.Only the Sunday Herald and the National.

    27. snode1965 says:

      @ Grave, YES it is valid. You are either a Journalist or a reporter…..big difference! ?

    28. Gary says:

      Rev can this article be re-produced for a free to read ezine? E-mail me if you need further details.

    29. David Yule says:

      Membership was TRANSFERRED , club is the same club as it always has been.

    30. Dr Jim says:

      Rangers used to be my team i watched them whenever i could but my work made it difficult most of the time and then i was abroad for quite a few years but i was always still interested in the game, i used to enjoy football no matter who was playing though.
      My turnoff if you can call it that was the build up to the Referendum and what i saw in the supporters, not all i hasten to add but many, and then in the management themselves i had always had respect for Ally McCoist as a decent sort but to use his undoubted influence over fans in his open and vocal support for NO in the hope of one day Rangers playing in the English league was the most selfish behaviour i could have believed, that someone would put a game of football before the future welfare and fairness of their country just appalled me, so i ceased my interest in the whole game altogether, i then learned a good friend for years had the same experience at Celtic and had done the same, i find it tragic that our two biggest football clubs, one openly Royalist in the hope of one day being English and the other pretending indifference but secretly beavering away in the background for the same result MONEY before country, so with that off my chest i wish neither of them what they want and i’ll watch clubs who don’t care about money like Real Madrid or Barcelona… WELL…you want to watch somebody good don’t you…

    31. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Rev can this article be re-produced for a free to read ezine?”

      Feel free.

    32. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “How on earth can anyone have any feelings about this trivial matter in any way whatsoever? It’s possibly the least important debate ever in the history of Scottish football and to be brutally honest it matters to no-one, including Rangers or whatever anyone wants to call them.”

      Don’t read articles about it, then. You were warned at the start, if you then continued to read something in which you had no interest you’re a fucking idiot.

    33. Joemcg says:

      Was there not multi million pound HMRC issues regarding this point with previous superstar players contracts that the taxman was battling the old club for? Methinks Doncaster has put his foot in it.

    34. tartanarse says:

      Say what you like about them. To amass 50 championships since 2012 (as signified by their current shirt) is truly amazing.

      Mccoist taking his loyalty bonus before the club can again not afford to pay up?

      Good riddance I say. I hope the new club continue to keep one half of stupid sectarianism in the lower leagues for a very long time.

      So do police forces and battered wives.

    35. EF says:

      Old or New, we still end up with a core element who are there to promote bigotry. This group are more concerned with what happened with what happened in 1690 than what will happen in 2015.
      As a reformed Rangers supporter, I would ask other fans to accept
      that they have been used and abused by a procession of Board members who seem to make ever increasing salaries as “their” club
      heads from financial disaster to another.
      The next round of financial farce will see loans given out against the club’s assets, Ibrox, and Murray Park.
      The loans won’t be repaid, and the elite can again fill their pockets when the land is sold off to the highest bidder.
      My sincere condolences to the fair minded supporters who have given so much over so many years.

    36. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Your argument that an SPFL/SFA, totally dominated by people who have the ingerests of every club except, The Rangers at heart”

      Don’t be so fucking ridiculous. The SPFL and SFA have bent over backwards for New Rangers, because they’re absolutely terrified of losing the tens of thousands of fans who pay to watch them every weekend.

      But blah blah whataboutery whine whine Pacific Shelf blah blah. Just answer the questions. If you finish 2nd in the SPL and the club affairs are completely separate to the company affairs, how do you end up in SFL3 the next season and why are your players not required to uphold their contracts?

    37. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “It is the same club. Rangers will be back in the SPL again next year and before too long will be winning the SPL once more. Yes, I know for a lot of people that idea hurts, but the reality is unavoidable. Pick your toys up off the floor and move on.”

      So you can’t answer the questions either? Righto, thanks for playing.

    38. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Membership was TRANSFERRED , club is the same club as it always has been.”

      So why did it drop three divisions, and why were the players’ contracts no longer applicable? Isn’t it weird how you’ll do anything but answer those two simple questions?

    39. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      I wonder which of the print media will syndicate this story in tomorrow’s editions?

      Well done Rev Stu!

    40. thomaspotter2014 says:

      Bang on the money as usual Rev.

      Of course they’re all part and parcel of the same BTUKOK cartel so nothing will be done about it unless we take it and shout it from the rooftops.

      The days of these people getting away with this are numbered.

      Things just ain’t like they used to be.

      But it shows the strength of their arrogance.

      You are the MAN Rev.

    41. handclapping says:

      and to you Jim

    42. De Valera says:

      Another good example of how the media of this supposedly free country is simply propaganda. Perhaps a new name as in Airdrieonians/Airdrie United would have made things clearer?

      Can’t help feeling since September that Rangers and Celtic are two sides of the same unionist coin.

      Happy New Year to you all.

    43. Doug Daniel says:

      “Pick your toys up off the floor and move on.”

      Did anyone else read that and imagine a unionist saying “you lost the referendum, just accept it and move on”, or is it just me?

    44. Harry McAye says:

      Excellent summation Rev. I used to have a wee bit of sympathy with their fans over the Old Club, New Club argument. Middlesbrough were liquidated in 1986 and re-emerged with their history intact. Not that they had much history in terms of success to boast about, indeed all their major achievements have come since 1986. But I don’t suppose Boro were ever in a position where the old club could vote for the new club!

      As a Hamilton Academical fan, I am glowing tonight. A thumping 5-0 derby win and Accies nicely ensconced in the top four, just four points behind the Dandies. Hopefully all the top five, except Celtic, keep on winning and we might just have an extraordinary end to this season. Loving this Armageddon!!!

    45. Early Ball says:

      Why will the journalists not demand to know how much the BBC pay for Scottish Football? It is just ridiculous that both parties refuse to say when it is public money. It is obviously embarrassingly low.

    46. He who controls the media,controls the masses!!
      Helps perpetuate the myth the they are one and the same,the two teams were in existence at the same time,so how is this possible? I personally dont like being lied to,they are and were both rotten to the core with their supremist divine right to dominate scottish football and society!

    47. Harry McAye says:

      If the old club finished second, why did it not compete in Europe the following season?

    48. Bill Hume says:

      Sorry Rev. I think this is one of the weakest articles you have ever posted. As one who would ban pro. football (sick of the green/blue, pape/proddy shit that goes with it), I really don’t care much either way. That said, I’d go along with yesindyref2……….the fans are the club.

    49. laukat says:

      Completely agree with the need to expose the lie that the Media is presenting here. If they can be complicit in a lie as big as this what else will the do?

      To that end why did the SFA have to grant a conditional membership to Sevco Scotland Ltd as per this article on the SFA website if Mr Doncaster’ quote today is to believed ? http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1957&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10252

      You don’t need to transfer membership or issue a conditional membership if the club continued. Unless as the link above states you are transferring memberships between Rangers FC (in Administration) and Sevco Scotland Ltd.

      Surely Mr Doncaster could have spoken to the Chief executive of the SPL quoted at the bottom of the article and clarified the position before speaking today?

    50. Harry McAye says:

      Gene Randell – Celtic, Dundee and Motherwell have never been liquidated. Can’t wait for the book by the way, trust your proof reader is on a goodly amount!

    51. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “As one who would ban pro. football (sick of the green/blue, pape/proddy shit that goes with it), I really don’t care much either way.”

      Then DON’T READ A FUCKING ARTICLE THAT STARTS OFF BY SAYING “This is about football, don’t read it if you’re not interested in football”.

      Jesus.

    52. George Ferguson says:

      Well written from a supporter of the other half of the new firm. I am going to hand my MBA back if Rangers are the same club. Nonsense of the first order. You cover the points very well. Today I enjoyed the football. The SPL is very open just now. Debt is being reduced it is great to see. My point is cultural in nature. Take care in what you say. On the First of May 1977 I was a member of the spearhead battalion sent to Belfast for a Loyalist strike. I saw the dark side of Loyalism close up at the young age of 18. One of the many reasons I am not British anymore. Rational debate is not their strong point. Just as an aside United will finished ahead of Aberdeen! Happy New Year Stu. PS I haven’t blocked anybody before… better find out how to!

    53. anton le grandier says:

      He would not agree I am sure but I think Doncaster has scored a glaring OG with these remarks today.Finally,after 2 years of silence,an open statement of the SPFLs position on this and he,unsurprisingly,follows the party line.Well,whatever people think,football fans are not all alcohol sodden halfwits and the fans of Scotlands clubs know this position on Rangers stinks.Doncaster,it appears,seems to believe he can make statements like this and get away with it with no scrutiny,no retort.Well,that is certainly true of the BBC but not of the games’ supporters.As the Rev points out there are many incoherences in this position and it drives a coach and horses through Scots company law.this position condones dumping on creditors after decades of overspending and questionable tax avoidance and then sailing off into the sunset claiming nothing has really changed.The fans of the game in Scotland know differently.Doncaster has been foolish in making these remarks because this is a subject that has largely been confined to social media but his statements today bring it right up into the spotlight.Excellent.let the debate begin.Whatever Rangers fans may think,the facts are overwhelmingly against “Club/company” dichotomy and the quicker that can be publicly established the quicker the game can move on.

    54. Joemcg says:

      Anyone remember the flag almost the size of one of the stands flown by this clubs fans at one of their home matches telling us to vote no on the 18th? Also I bet a few of this mob attended the no rally/OO parade through the capital the weekend before the vote. They are fair game Rev.

    55. Doug Daniel says:

      Dunno why folk don’t think any of this matters, Stu makes it clear what it’s really about – a compliant media bowing down to the establishment. The same can be said about things like the monarchy, where all critical faculties go completely out the window.

      Jim Spence tweeted today that 2014 was the day folk stopped bowing down to establishment shibboleths. It’s no coincidence that this came hand in hand with growing support for independence. We’re not going to win until Scotland finally casts off the shadow of deference, and that’ll never happen as long as people keep allowing these “establishment shibboleths” to carry on unchallenged.

      So aye, it’s just a football club (well, two…), but it highlights a much more important truth that people need to open their eyes to.

    56. Robert Bryce says:

      “Do Airdrieonians fans lie awake at night wondering if their history started in Airdrie in 1878, in Clydebank in 1899 or 1965 or Airdrie in 2002?”

      This one doesn’t and accepted our fate.

      I think half the problem with Rangers fans (aside the fucking stinking obvious) is that they weren’t and still aren’t capable of admitting that their club died the second a court signed the chit for their liquidation.

      I know my club died and I’m under no illusion of the history of the club I support now.

      Rangers fucking off altogether would see the continued improvement of Scottish football if you ask me. Teams in the top flight are no longer tied to a financial death spiral of buying in players in a futile attempt to compete with a team who were so obviously living a lie. The fiscal position of the top flight speaks for itself and backs my assertion.

      What we’re seeing now are teams finally able to get back to doing what we always done best and that was bring talent through. The blooding of these young players has been set free again and our game will be the better for it.

      As far as I’m concerned we threw out a pale of shite when they died (and they did die!!). With a bit of luck it’s newco ghost will be gone shortly too.

      Cue shouty abusive Newco fans……..

    57. steveasaneilean says:

      The Airdrie situation is different. They went bust then reformed but couldn’t get into the league. So they got round that by buying another ailing club (Clydebank), effectively taking their league status (like some kind of franchise), renaming them and relocating them.
      But most Airdrie fans accept that the old club died but, by whatever means, they still have a club carrying their town’s name playing in the senior leagues and that’s what matters now.
      After all without the fans there is no game so whether Rangers fans think their club is the same club or something new doesn’t matter if they want to support it.
      I have long since lost my interest in football but I do remember that the only club that matters to you is your own because they are your club. You don’t care about the fans of other clubs beyond trying to shout louder than them on a Saturday, and you don’t care what other fans think of you or your club (although I do recall Airdrie fans of old revelling in their notoriety as being the team everyone loved to hate).
      But the whole point of the Rev’s post I think is not about Rangers per se but actually about the inability of the modern crop of journalists to do their jobs properly by asking the right questions and not accepting anything at face value. That’s something we can all agree on surely?

    58. Chris Connelly says:

      End of the day they came second to Celtic and never played in Europe the following season. If it was the same club they would have been demanding their place in Europe. Dead as dodo fc.

    59. Robert Bryce says:

      steveasaneilean

      Correct on all fronts mate.

      The media will never do their job on this because they need the continuation of Newco in order to stay in a job. They’ll continue to keep the Newco gas on a peep for as long as they can in the hope that they will get back into the top flight and they can get back to business as usual (which is fuelling the flames of division in the West of Scotland).

      The lot of them sicken me. McLaughlin is no fool and new exactly he had an open goal. He choose not even to shoot at it. Them and the bigots they provoke are beyond contempt.

    60. badgerboydarling says:

      Mon the Dons.

    61. Graeme Doig says:

      As a Celtic supporter i couldn’t care less whether Rangers were old, new or on constant life support. They are a club which lurches from one drama to another as a result of years of financial impropriety.
      The point of your article, however, has been well made. The lack of journalistic integrity in the media is astonishing.
      I thank you for your continuing tenacity in showing up their duplicity.

    62. Wullie says:

      The journalists ( no laughing at the back ) are and Doncaster who peddle this myth are LIARS, CORRUPT and COWARDS and possibly scared of death threats

      I totally stand by my comments and have no problem with this website handing my IP address to police scotland if they wish to challenge my allegations in a court of LAW!!

      Neil you are a CORRUPT COWARD!!

      PS Enjoy playing in an empty stadium soon Celtic if you dont stand up to this

    63. donald anderson says:

      The footballing and other authorities have allowed the Old Firm cancer to go on too long and owe it to the rest of society sort them out. The ideal solution would be a forced amalgamation, Glasgow United, playing in blue and green. That’s not going to happen and the Old Firm is not worth one life and should be abandoned.

      As for Aiberdeen, fit’s fit fit’s fit?

    64. Joemcg says:

      Always remember the Georgia away game where if I think my calculations are right 3 points would have seen us qualify for a major tournament for the first time in years. Alas one of these parochial old firm games that nobody cared about outside Glasgow resulted in mass call offs. A weakened Scotland lost the game with a compliant Alex McLeish not saying a dicky boo (no voter of course) fucking raging I was.

    65. Juteman says:

      Maybe Schrodinger actually used a bear?

    66. unclebob says:

      Thanks for the warning at the start.
      I’m personally not a footie fan but live with one so I read on.
      Loved it all from start to finish. Straight to the point, no messin, great discussion and I particularly like your replies.

    67. Early Ball says:

      @joemcg

      Think it would have put us in a great position if we had won. We would have still needed a point against Italy. There was definitely call offs.

    68. Graeme Doig says:

      On a slightly related topic.

      Have tried to find highlights of todays games in the SPFL either tonight or tomorrow night (some cracking games by all accounts)

      Plenty english football right enough.

      Aye ok, what do i expect from ebc? FFS!! This is a shite colony to live in.

    69. Macart says:

      The meeja… gotta luv em. They’ll sell anyone’s narrative if the price is right, or if they’re basically telt tae toe a line by the powers that be.

      Makes you wonder though, just what are they good for?

    70. Stu – where does your thinking place Hibs regarding the Scottish Cup? I read a while back that the company which ran Hibs when they won the Scottish Cup over 100 years ago was liquidated a few seasons later. According to the SFA records and also Hibs records, even though it was a new company which took over the club it is still the same Hibs which won the cup. Are the Hibees incorrect in thinking that?

    71. muttley79 says:

      @Charles

      It is the same club.

      No, it is not.

    72. AnneDon says:

      The similarities between the media treatment of indyref and Sevco were very striking, especially the name calling by professional journalists, where “internet bampots” became “cybernats”, though it turns out that the truth was online, and not in the inky pages or TV studio. Because paid hacks are afraid, on the whole, to speak truth to power.

    73. caz-m says:

      Rangers are the oxygen of life for Celtic and vice versa. They need each others bigoted sectarianism to survive. Peter Lawell said as much a couple of months ago when he admitted to “missing” Rangers. We all know why, bigotry breeds money.

      We are trying to get away from religious in-fighting in Scotland, please don’t be conned by this out of date Old Firm garbage. It’s so seventies.

      Rangers nailed their colours to the mast during the referendum campaign, letting the Orange Order rule the Ibrox Stands.

      Boycott Ibrox, the same way you would boycott BBC Scotland and the Daily Record. All are enemies of an Independent Scotland.

      O/T
      Catching up with Greame Doig post. The weather is howlin out here Greame. They have pulled the accommodation barge away from the rig because of high seas. Will see you and Ronnie and all very soon. All the best to all of your families.

    74. Joemcg says:

      Early ball-maybe I’m wrong but how the games panned out a win in Georgia would have seen us through as we required 3 points against the Italians.

    75. Dair Allan says:

      This entire article is completely out of place in a site about Scottish Independence.

      It seems to be premised on the expectation that Rangers supporters will not be independence supporters, something which is simply not born out by facts. Obviously there is a hardcore Loyalist section within the support but to apply this to all is both ridiculous and wrong. It is no different than accusing all Celtic supporters of being IRA supporting child killers or Big Jock Knew paedophiles.

      The corporate structure of a football club is of very little interest to the supporters of the club, no-one goes to a game to support a company, they support a team and that team is and always will be detached from its corporate structure. As these structures change often and without supporters having any control, the idea that the company is an important factor in determining the Id of the team is frankly ludicrous.

      The club was bought by Sevco, this transferred everything that anyone identifies as the club to Sevco, the name, the crest, the colours and the claim to historic results, a claim which only depends on whether the relevant football authorities support it – both Uefa and the SFA have confirmed that the history is considered to have transferred.

      And that’s the only salient point of the argument. Whether those who despite Rangers like it or not the history has transferred.

    76. Rod Robertson says:

      For all the Rangers haters and there are plenty including the Rev.
      Why do you hate this new club so much then?
      Seems illogical to hate a new entity for no apparent reason.
      Unless of course like the SPFL UEFA and FIFA you truly accept the Rangers of today as the same Rangers of pre 2012.
      That can be the only explanation for this obsession on Rangers.

    77. Early Ball says:

      @Joemcg

      Didn’t work like that. If we had beat Italy it meant that they could not have got the points available.

    78. Iain Gray's Subway Lament says:

      I must admit I’ve been watching the lengthy and incredible spectacle surrounding all this wondering to myself where on earth were the serious football or sport journos had gone. The way this has been covered so far in the media has been pitiful. It’s simply one revelation after another presented as a sensation (and some of it was to be fair) but with absolutely fuck all in the way of serious analysis of how things got to this state and where the blame lies.

      Seems there is more than a grain of truth in the jibe that most of the newspaper and TV fitba talking heids have either one foot in the old firm or the SFA/SPFL. Vested interests indeed. No wonder the papers are struggling to hold on to their readerships if even their sports sections are being written by timeservers hoping for a nice wee earner and a job for the boys.

      This isn’t about blue or green BTW. It’s about money and power. So those who may have a natural instinct to jump in for one side or another should remember that. As should those who may roll their eyes and tune out because it’s fitba.

      The problem is it’s supposed to be about fitba but ye wid huv tae huv hud yer heid up yer arse no tae huv spotted it stopped being about fitba a long, long time ago.

    79. crisiscult says:

      an interesting read. Can anyone explain what the situation with Clydebank FC can tell us about the Rangers situation? The ‘club’ Airdrieonians’ berth in the league was utilised somehow, as far as I understood it, by Clydebank supporters. I’ll freely admit to not understanding all this too well, but does it not support the idea that a ‘club’ holds a position in the league regardless of who owns its brand and other assets? If that is correct, then I’m also puzzled why Rangers had to reapply to join the league. However, if that is correct, then what happens when no-one takes advantage of the club’s berth – did Rangers’ buyers choose to become a new club?

    80. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      I rather wish folk would stop talking about Rangers and Celtic as if they were two sides of the one coin.
      Rangers ran a nakedly and entirely disgusting sectarian policy for nearly a century and this went largely unremarked in Scotland’s civic society and media. To Scotland’s great discredit it should be added.
      Evans, Stein and Peacock – a Celtic half back line of Orangemen and Masons and some considerable distinction tells another tale.

      Doncaster merely articulates what too large a continuing regressive element in Scotland would like to be the case and knows he will get away with it.

      On the football issue I rather wish Hibs will overtake Rangers. The longer we are without the Old Firm duopoly the more likely we will see our football sorting itself out. Rangers and Celtic have acted like parasites in the Scottish game for decades and like all parasites they eventually kill their hosts.

    81. Graeme Doig says:

      Rod Robertson

      New club, same old paranoia 😉

    82. Brian Hill says:

      I would suggest that Neil Doncaster’s comments are consistent with the judgement of Lord Nimmo Smith’s commission, and that it is the Rev’s analysis which is flawed. The football club, is referred to in the judgement as “Rangers FC”, and is described as being part of the undertaking of Oldco; the judgement goes on to state that Rangers FC is of course owned and operated by Newco. In other words, the club was like the stadium, part of the undertaking which continues under the new ownership.
      Perhaps, however, the Rev. accurately identifies that the decisions of the football authorities about the club following liquidation of the old owners were not at the time consistent with the position that the club was a single continuing club.

    83. Paula Rose says:

      So maybe the runner-up in the premiership should start the next season in the third division, that way the prawn sandwiches get shared around?

    84. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “The football club, is referred to in the judgement as “Rangers FC”, and is described as being part of the undertaking of Oldco; the judgement goes on to state that Rangers FC is of course owned and operated by Newco.”

      “Rangers FC” is a trading name. It was bought by Charles Green and can be used perfectly legally by the new club. It does not mean the new club IS the old club.

    85. Rod Robertson says:

      Dave Mcewan Hill
      Rangers ran a nakedly and entirely disgusting sectarian policy for nearly a century and this went largely unremarked in Scotland’s civic society and media

      Ignoring the fact that CFC or pacific quay if you prefer have never had a Protestant ,indeed a non RC Director in their history.
      so accussing anyone of sectarian behaviour is a bit rich , n’est pas?

    86. Iain Gray's Subway Lament says:

      It shouldn’t need saying but let’s at least remember some of THE most angry and upset people of all were the fans who were fed massive piles of bullshit from the top of the club and the SFA and expected to swallow it.

      Not hard to see why they would want to finally get to the truth of all this. Because if they don’t expose the truth and why this all happened then that nagging feeling that there’s nothing to stop it all happening again in a few years (or something pretty fucking similar) might just be proved right. Not just for any one team in particular either. Plenty of other clubs should be worried too.

    87. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “an interesting read. Can anyone explain what the situation with Clydebank FC can tell us about the Rangers situation? The ‘club’ Airdrieonians’ berth in the league was utilised somehow, as far as I understood it, by Clydebank supporters.”

      Short version:

      1. Airdrieonians went bust and were dissolved in 2002. Clubs were promoted up to take their place, creating a gap in SFL3 which was taken up by Gretna.

      2. A local businessman then took over Clydebank FC. He renamed them Airdrie United, changed their strip to a facsimile of the Airdrieonians one and moved the stadium to Airdrie.

      3. In 2013 the SFA allowed Airdrie United to change its name to Airdrieonians. The club is officially a continuation of Clydebank with a new name.

    88. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “It seems to be premised on the expectation that Rangers supporters will not be independence supporters, something which is simply not born out by facts.”

      No it’s not. You’ve completely invented that. It’s premised on what it says it’s premised on.

    89. Garve says:

      @crisiscult

      In 2002 Airdrieonians FC were liquidated. Some fans in Airdrie bought Clydebank FC, moved them to Airdrie and renamed them Airdrie Utd. More recently they were renamed again to Airdrieonians FC.

      So in theory, if it’s essential that the history of a club has to follow its company history, the current Airdrieonians were 2nd Division champs in 1976, (when they were named Clydebank).

      However, I doubt very much if any Airdrie fan would claim that. The club’s own website has a History page which mentions the record of the old Airdrieonians and the new one, but has no mention of Clydebank at all.

      To me the history should go with the club the fans follow, whatever the record of ownership or liquidation. It’s the only option which comes close to making any sense. In which case the history of Rangers is unbroken.

    90. Ronnie Boyd says:

      I’m a lifelong supporter of Scottish independence.

      I’ve voted for the SNP in all but one general election.

      I’m a passionate Scotland supporter. I’m also a lifelong Rangers fan.

      And to be frank, I am sick to death of the hatred poured towards Rangers Football Club by some of my fellow independence supporters.

      I have always rejected the British-unionist leanings associated with the Rangers support. To me, it is simply the club I was brought up to support.

      However, the hypocrisy of some of you is staggering; you’re the first to wail about attacks upon yourselves, wail about attacks on your own points of view by others, yet you happily and indiscriminately slaughter Rangers any chance you get.

      Frankly, some of you come across more as obsessive zealots in your hatred for my football club than rational supporters of Scottish independence.

      Do me a favour and try to understand this: there are lots of Rangers supporters who support Scottish independence and vote SNP.

    91. yesindyref2 says:

      Gene Randell
      The problem is that there are all these categories that apparently are not Independence supporters because of that category, or should not be. So there’s employers who have people on minimum wage or zero contracts, there’s the people not prepared (or able) to pay more taxes for a “fairer more just society”, then there’s those working in the financial sector or for a self-confesssed Unionist business – or even shops at one – then there’s those who like the Union Jack and agree with some of British history, then there’s those who believe in nuclear pwer or dare I say the deterrent, then there’s those that hate windmills and the EU …

      … by the time that’s all done, we’re left with about 265 supporters of Independence who would vote YES. Mmmmm. Everyone seems to be able to forgive “imperfections” in themselves while criticisng others for having no worse.

      As for Rangers, the fans think it’s the same club, therefore it is. Same as the people of Scotland think that Scotland is a country, not subsumed into an enlarged England, therefore it is a country (though there are other reasons like the Treaty of Union, as well).

      I wait the rattling of spears and firing of blanks.

    92. Edulis says:

      I must be one of those rare creatures who have been both Rangers supporters and subsequently Celtic supporters. I welcome the analysis here and the insight it gives of Scottish society, generally. We are badly served by the mediocrities who inhabit the higher echelons of Scottish life, no matter whether it be politics of the unionist persuasion, the media with the odd exception or two, or football.

    93. Fred says:

      A Rangers fan myself but I lost the plot way back. Remember Glasgow voted YES, Celtic, Thistle & Rangers supporters.
      The actual membership of the Orange Order is about as dubious as that of the Scottish Labour Party. One “Walk” I saw back in August had more bandsmen than lodge members, so a “paid” demonstration therefore.

    94. tartanarse says:

      OT but I was elated a moment ago when I heard the statement “jailed for journalism”, only to be deflated when I realised that it was the unfortunate situation in Egypt.

      I thought the four amigos from WOS New Years’ quiz March question had been collared.

      But then again she did say journalists.

    95. geeo says:

      @rod robertson.

      I have no ill feelings about the new club,none at all.
      The young guy they just sold is a decent wee player.

      If the new club had began with better fiscal responsibility, exercised a youth policy and lived within its means instead of pretending to be livingston/previously meadowbank/previously ferranti, and not pretended to be who they clearly were not(as explained here and elsewhere)simply to con the previous club (liquidated) fanbase into parting with ST money.

      Those seeking to make a quick buck had to convince the old club fans to believe their club was alive as before so the cash flowed firstly in, and then out.

      The easiest way to propogate the con was to do what the old club did, sign shite players on ‘big money’, after all, how many ST would have been sold otherwise ?

      What is utterly incredible is that there are so many who are still in denial over the whole con, despite all the evidence especially at boardroom level.

      It really is comical to the rest of us, not because of our “obsession”, but rather, because of your denial.

      If the post 2012 liquidation club really is the same club, why are you allowing it to be financially gangbanged on a regular basis ?

      Do you not care about your “club” ?

    96. Graeme Doig says:

      Comment at 9.35 was childish.

      Apologies to Rod and Stu. Don’t want to add to any degeneration of this thread by missing the point.

    97. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “To me the history should go with the club the fans follow”

      How can you possibly establish that, though? How can you tell which of the current Airdrie’s fans were Airdrieonians fans, which were Clydebank fans and which were completely new fans who’ve just shown up since 2002? Short answer: you can’t.

      If New Rangers supporters want to pretend that it’s the same club, grand, they’re not hurting anyone, let them delude themselves if they like. The SFA and SPFL shouldn’t be pandering to it, though. The official records should state the truth.

      And if fans try to insist that it’s REALLY the same club they should be corrected without mercy. I don’t care if you want to think that fairies live at the bottom of your garden, but if you try to tell me I can’t walk past your house on my way to the chip shop at 10pm because it disturbs the fairies when they’re trying to sleep you can fuck off.

    98. Iain Gray's Subway Lament says:

      @Edulis

      “We are badly served by the mediocrities who inhabit the higher echelons of Scottish life”

      Frankly mediocrity would be a huge leap forward for most of the balloons in the SFA. I’ve lost count how many times these idiots could have easily been replaced with a wee voicebox that says “no comment” when you hit a button.

    99. handclapping says:

      Man, lots of heat and little light.

      It does seem as if the sports editors are a chip off the old first Executive Cabinet; ‘we won’t do anything as anything we do might upset somebody’. More credit to Stu for taking this on whether he is right or not and he is only human, he might be wrong.

      Nor is it a question of personal belief like Alan Cochrane spiking a story of public interest for his own private interest. It is much closer to the amazement we peasants feel about Schroedinger’s cat in his bafflement that Rangers can be both alive and dead simultaneously and that none of the paid pundits on the back pages have been able to act the role of Schroedinger to this dilemma

    100. jimnarlene says:

      I don’t follow football but, this is an interesting article, so I ignored the warning and read on. I’m glad I did.

    101. macbeda says:

      I’ve never followed football and occasionally wondered if I was missing something. Apparently not, reading the comments on the article. Makes politics look simple – football has too many sides or maybe that should be tribes.

      Enjoy 2015 and remember “it’s only a game”.

    102. crisiscult says:

      thanks for responses Rev and Garve:

      my own feeling is along the lines Garve and yesindyref2 go along i.e. the club is the same because the fans believe it to be so, and I also agree that Scotland is a country because I believe it to be so – in fact, one of the by products of the referendum has been to re-assert that idea, in particular by No supporters e.g. this (the UK) is a union, not a single nation, even if their actions bely that message.

    103. Dair Allan says:

      Rev Campbell wrote :- “No it’s not. You’ve completely invented that. It’s premised on what it says it’s premised on.”

      You spend time criticising the media and analyse the subtext of why articles are chosen and published so it seems fair that a reader can take their own opinion of the subtext involved when you decide to include articles which have nothing to do with Independence and nothing to do with politics.

      The weak attempt to claim the article is legitimate because you feel a BBC journalist failed to press Doncaster doesn’t come across as compelling in any way.

      Not only that but the claim is wrong.

      The BBC journalist IS at fault. But it’s not for the reasons you spend so long trying to claim. He is wrong because he has asked questions which contravene the Editorial policy of the BBC as specifically set out by the BBC Trust in its ruling that Rangers is the same club.

      http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/apr_may.pdf

      By claiming that Doncaster’s assertion is “controversial” the BBC journalist has breached the guidelines. It is not “controversial” or even contestable as the BBC Trust has already ruled and Editorial policy for BBC journalists requires them to accept that Rangers is the same club.

      If that was your criticism of the BBC, it could well be valid, The BBC broke their own guidelines. As they repeatedly did in the Referendum and in coverage of Scottish Politics. However as this would not match your own deeply held view that Rangers as a club was extinguished you manufacture an entirely eronious article.

      One which has nothing to do with the concept of Scottish Independence.

    104. Stoker says:

      Dair Allan says:
      “This entire article is completely out of place in a site about Scottish Independence.”

      WRONG!
      The Rev even gives you a wee clue in the article above.
      Nah, scrub that, he bloody well tells you outright what this site is all about when he states the following words:
      “this sites political and media-monitoring brief.”
      The clue is in those last 3 words.
      😉

    105. Training Day says:

      The point of the article is simple. Anyone with a brain realised – and at the time – that the MSM whitewash of what was actually happening at Rangers in 2012 portended what would be their coverage of the independence option in the referendum. It did so exactly. Lies, misrepresentations, omissions and a craven subservience to ‘power’ and orthodoxy.

      I support Partick Thistle and have no love for Rangers. I detest, however, the ‘Scottish’ MSM.

    106. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Rod Robertson

      It will come as a bit of a surprise to Brian Wilson to find out that he is a Catholic. I have no idea of the religious denominations of others though I remember Craig Brown’s brother as a chief executive.
      I am not accusing Rangers of a century’s sectarianism. I am stating a fact.

    107. Brian Hill says:

      Thanks for the earlier response Rev. However, I’m not convinced. If “Rangers FC” is just a trading name, then what does it represent? The Nimmo Smith judgement used the term to describe a big part of the undertaking of Oldco. Is that not a reference to what might be called “the club”. When it was bought by the Newco, why would it then represent a different, or “new”, club?

    108. tartanarse says:

      I know I made a wee joke about it earlier but can anyone explain why the authorities responsible for this new club allow it to actually wear the history of Oldco?

      I fully understand that they wouldn’t be expected to clear the trophies out of Ibrox, although perhaps some of them should go.

      This strikes me as a blatant collusion by the blazers and the newco in order to fool the gullible into attending/buying the merchandise as some others have already pointed out.

      I find it amusing that some Bears (former Bears)see normal folks’ reading of it all as hatred.

      I wouldn’t shy away from calling it paranoia.

      And Rod, I wouldn’t go typing in French until I had perfected English.

    109. dakk says:

      Famous teams are a brand that people superficially buy into.Rangers,Airdrieonians,Fiorentina etc.It’s all about perception rather than technical legal status.Just like the rotten disunited kingdom or the Labour Party trading on its heritage.

      Rangers will however lose a few thousand fans permanently from the fall out from their Brit-Nattery.

    110. Joemcg says:

      Curious where these Indy supporters sit at ibrox as last time I was there it was a sea of union flags.

    111. Wee jock poo-pong mcplop says:

      @Harry McAye says:
      “1 January, 2015 at 8:20 pm
      Gene Randell – Celtic, Dundee and Motherwell have never been liquidated. Can’t wait for the book by the way, trust your proof reader is on a goodly amount!”

      Got there before me! Apart from the questionable content, an oddly illiterate contribution from one who claims to have written a worthwhile book! In any case,the Rev’s original post was clearly more about the ineptitude of the Scottish establishment than about the Rangers fiasco. As a Caley supporter, I wouldn’t give a stuff about the private grief of different subdivisions of soap-dodging Weegies – but the Rev’s point is important. Mind you, his language in responses tonight suggests a short-tempered hangover…:-)

    112. Stoker says:

      Just recently i was flicking through the channels at a relatives house whilst waiting on them getting ready to go out.

      I came across a Scottish football match, Hibs were giving Sevco a jolly good old humping and i thought, YA DANCER.

      So i decided to watch the remainder of it, at this stage it was already 3.0, while i waited on the troops getting ready.

      BANG, in went the fourth and the joy on my face couldn’t have been any more obvious.

      For a few minutes the tripe the Sky commentator was trying to ram down our throats was just about bearable due to the scoreline.

      The game quickly came to an end but the shite from Sky TV continued. Guff such as – Hibs haven’t beaten Rangers by this margin since nineteen-whatever etc etc etc.

      Time to go and turn the tv aff and GIRFUY’ happily went through my head as the troops were now ready to hit the road.

      The thought of not financially contributing to Sky shite also added to my current state of extreme pleasure.

      BTW, i’m not a football fan but it’s still great to see the the old home town giving our local rivals a drubbing for about the 3rd time this season.

      ((( GAUN YERSEL ACCIES )))
      🙂

    113. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Editorial policy of the BBC as specifically set out by the BBC Trust in its ruling that Rangers is the same club.”

      Learn to read. The Trust made absolutely no such finding.

    114. James Forrest says:

      Amazing exchanges of views on this thread …

      I’m with the Rev, not that this will surprise anyone who’s read the many, many, many blogs I’ve written on precisely this subject. In fact, I’m pretty clear that my path to the independence campaign was via the Internet Bampots campaign to have Sevco recognised for what it was, and made to start in the bottom tier accordingly.

      Everything about the campaign mirrored what we saw in the independence referendum. We were a small bunch of guys who organised online, who were seriously outgunned by a coalition of media interests, governing bodies and so-called “experts” … who even threw in a wee bit of “too wee, too poor, too stupid” for good measure.

      The only difference is we won. Or seemed to. Because Sevco is on the verge of collapse and I see in today’s statement the laying of the tracks for a smoother ride if they go nuclear again.

      This issus is NOT about football; it is about failures of governance and the way the media covers for them, to protect its own interests.

      And by the way, the people who have been screwed most by the media and the association’s handling of this affair have been the fans of the Ibrox club themselves. Had the press and the governing bodies not treated those people like idiots, like children who had to be protected from the truth, had they not gone out of their way to make excuses for, and even lie for, the people who were ripping the club apart, we might not be here today.

      I would think the average Rangers fan would be thanking us. We gave them more information, more truthful information, than the press or football bodies ever did. And many of them hate us for it.

      Instead of continuing to wander around like Norman Bates in his mother’s clothes … this might be a good time to actually suck it up and accept reality.

      Doncaster has done nobody in Scottish football any favours tonight, and McLaughlin simply did what the BBC is becoming famous for doing. It ignored the basic precept of telling “truth to power.” It’s abrogated its responsibility to educate and inform.

      You only have to look at the way the media in general is handling the latest twist in the boardroom battles there.

      They don’t call the new shareholders The Three Bears for nothing.

      Too many people still want to believe in fairytales.

    115. Justin Kenrick says:

      Doug Daniel asks:
      “Did anyone else read that and imagine a unionist saying “you lost the referendum, just accept it and move on”?

      Yes, and we are moving on, just not in the direction they expected. And the same goes for Hearts and Hibs. We need democracy and community or public ownership everywhere – not nust politics, not just football, but the media and the workplace.

      Just to add, I do t take this article as attacking Rangers fans any more than a pro-Indy article attacks No voters, but it’s a crying out for seeing the world as it is not as the powerful try to persuade us to believe it is.

      It is a far better world.

    116. mogabee says:

      I’m no footie fan, but enjoyed this article.

      Not being a footie fan I also understood why this article shows me absolutely why Stu is deserving of plaudits and not the ignorant comments of some fuckwits!

    117. Calum Craig says:

      “I don’t care if you want to think that fairies live at the bottom of your garden, but if you try to tell me I can’t walk past your house on my way to the chip shop at 10pm because it disturbs the fairies when they’re trying to sleep you can fuck off.”

      Stuart, possibly my favourite piece of your writing this year.

    118. geeo says:

      “My Grannies House” is the simplist explanation to the deluded sevco fans.

      My granny lived in a nice semi, went to bingo every tuesday and had a wee sherry before bed.
      I loved my granny.

      Sadly she died..

      A while later a woman around her age moved into my grannies house, this woman also went to bingo every tuesday and also had a wee sherry before bed.

      Despite the similarities, i couldn’t love this woman as, despite the striking similarities, she was not my Granny, and never would be, to think otherwise would be wishful thinking on my behalf.

    119. Garve says:

      May 2015. Due to billions of new visitors following the SNP’s Westminster 59 MP whitewash, Wings Over Scotland owner Rev Stu is hit with a £1m web hosting charge which even his legendary fundraising skills can’t cover. Wings has to go into liquidation and the Rev into hiding after realising his hosting company is owned by the Mafia.

      The domain is purchased from the liquidators by Sneekyboy and Doug Daniels, who pull the articles from archive.is and reinstate the site with a bandwidth throttle for safety’s sake. However, they incur outrage when they claim the site is ‘the second most influential politics website in the entire UK’ and try to use the old Google Analytics account to back up their position.

      They years of haggling over whether the site is the real WoS which follow puts gamergate into the shade, and means all involved barely notice as a) Scotland is redefined as a county, or b) the constituent nations of the UK decide it’s not working and split up with a handshake. (Choose one only)

      Yes, it’d be nice if there were clear rules which set out exactly when a football club lives or dies which everyone agreed on. But as a previous commenter pointed out, that’d mean Hibs never won the Scottish Cup, Airdrie are Clydebank and Livingston are Ferranti Thistle. Rangers woes (assuming they ever get through them) will be forgotten in a decade and only a few diehards will still claim they weren’t founded in 1872.

      In short, I still don’t understand why anyone’s bothered with this.

      And yes, I’m aware of the irony of me spending ages writing this about it 🙂

    120. Derek says:

      It’s not just The Rangers; most Scottish football fans, I think, have a dislike for the disproportionate influence that the Ugly Sisters have in terms of being able to negate votes and their hoovering-up of TV money. It should be split evenly.

    121. Alex Clark says:

      Daily, everyone of us in the UK is fed lies, propaganda and other distortions of the truth by our media.

      Some will eat it, others turn up their noses.

      But if you eat shite don’t be surprised when it makes you sick.

    122. Rock says:

      Mealer,

      “Rotten.Rotten.Rotten to the core.Rangers.The UK. The media.”

      Add to that the purring Queen, not to forget the heir to the throne.

      It is unbearable to think that 55% of Scots voted to remain part of this nightmare.

      No reconciliation. Let the No voters feel our wrath.

    123. Taranaich says:

      Does it seem strange to anyone else that the Reverend gets far more abuse (at least online) for his discussions about football than about independence? Most of the anti-independence stuff is anonymous and sent in through the contacts form, but I seem to perceive a great deal more vigorous disagreement. (Perhaps the Rev could elucidate, after all, he’s the one receiving said abuse)

      In any case, I know precious little about football, but it clearly occupies a very important place in Scottish culture, so I think it does bear as much scrutiny as anything else – music, arts, whatnot. But it does fascinate me seeing just how angry people get about it.

    124. Walter DG says:

      The ECA (not that many folk on here would know what that is) , the ASA (ditto), the SFA the SPFL, the finest legal minds in Scotland all agree we are the same club. Celtic fans and Rangers haters don’t. Who should we believe? The only opinions that matter are the opinions of Rangers fans. That’s what being a club is all about. Get over your hatred and move on. let us decent Rangers fans focus on dismantling the hate filled aspect of our club. We don’t need lectures from others equally consumed by hate And btw it was the rural areas of Scotland and towns including Aberdeen and edinburgh which denied us independence not Rangers fans so I suggest this site focussed on other issues. This site should focus on politics and not alienating folk. I have 6 Rangers supporting pals all of whom voted Yes and none of them need lectures in what is or isn’t a club from folk here who have always hated us. Get a grip and grow up.

    125. Rock says:

      Ronnie Boyd,

      “there are lots of Rangers supporters who support Scottish independence and vote SNP.”

      If only they could do something about Rangers’ UKIP/NF/Orange Order type of unionist image.

      Why can’t they be just a football club and keep the politics out of it?

    126. heedtracker says:

      Great report. Takes guts to get into it with these guys. Scotland doesn’t have any real journalism, or at least not like this. The end is nigh for a fair few of the old order no matter how hard they kick and scream.

    127. James Forrest says:

      “The only opinions that matter are the opinions of Rangers fans.”

      It’s hard to know what to add to that except …

      “Prosecution rests m’lud.”

    128. john mac says:

      This entire article completely ignores other examples from the business world of famous brands continuing after the liquidation of the trading company behind the brand.
      If there is enough demand for the business brand, it will be purchased and operated under similar circumstances by a new owner. In a lot of cases its the same people forming a new business and salvaging the brand whilst shedding the debt. This was what happened in the case of RFC.
      This isn’t new, it happens all the time. It is only highlighted so much in the case of RFC because of the obsessional hatred some sections of our community have towards the football club.
      The tenuous linkage to the independence debate is an insult to the intelligence. The Rev constantly baits Ranger’s Fans on twitter. IMHO he does this because he wants to muscle in on the notoriety that Ranger’s hating generates within social media circles. With notoriety comes increased traffic.
      This is a divisive game people. It only benefits the practitioner’s both financially and in terms of social media presence. DON’T FALL FOR IT.

    129. yesindyref2 says:

      It is unbearable to think that 55% of Scots voted to remain part of this nightmare.

      No reconciliation. Let the No voters feel our wrath.

      So until enough of them die of their 45% inflicted wounds, say, 30 years, you don’t want Independence?

    130. Stoker says:

      I recently made a complaint to the BBC regarding this article
      https://archive.today/XzNZM

      Well, i guess it wasn’t a complaint as such, but more of a demand for answers and explanations on 2 main points:
      (a)-Why is there no authors name on this article and who was the author.
      (b)-Why are the BBC lying to the public by perpetuating the ‘same club’ myth and stating that “Rangers” were demoted etc.

      I am still waiting on a reply but i note they have changed the wording of their lying pile of tripe article but still fail to put anyone’s name to it, i wonder why!

      The original article stated:
      “Rangers, who were founded in 1872, had never played outside the top division from the formation of the Scottish league in 1890 until they were demoted in 2012.”

      The article now states:
      “Rangers, who were founded in 1872, had never played outside the top division from the formation of the Scottish league in 1890 until they entered the Third Division in 2012.”

      I also asked the liars at the BBC how they plan to promote that clubs next admin/liquidation event, should it occur, as a first time or second time. I made them aware of the importance of that question, with the penalties being stiffer for a second admin/liquidation – somehow i don’t think i’ll get an answer!

    131. yesindyref2 says:

      Oh I don’t know Taranaich, if there were two slugs having a race up the wall, some people would make bets on which was the bigger.

    132. Truth says:

      3. In 2013 the SFA allowed Airdrie United to change its name to Airdrieonians. The club is officially a continuation of Clydebank with a new name.

      Now now. Given that Clydebank FC was a continuation of East Stirling Clydebank FC, which was a formed out of a merger of East Stirlingshire FC and Clydebank Juniors, it’s not quite as simple as you state.

      I doubt very much anybody turning up at New Broomfield supported Clydebank. They’ll all be supporing the new junior club set up in 2003.

      My team is Airdrie. It’s a new club, but with the same fans, stadium, and strip as before. It may as well be the old club. It isn’t (by a technicality).

    133. Dr Jim says:

      As i explained earlier i don’t follow football anymore but in defence of supporters of any club old new or even imagined if they believe it to be a thing then it’s a thing it’s not or really should’nt be up for question i think it’s called phenomenology “I think therefore i am”….Deep eh..I’ll stand corrected if my spelling’s incorrect or even if my definition’s out….

    134. Paula Rose says:

      Um – do we get the off-side rule explained again?

    135. Walter dg says:

      “The only opinions that matter are the opinions of Rangers fans.”

      It’s hard to know what to add to that except …

      “Prosecution rests m’lud.”

      When it comes to how we identify our club of course it is the only opinion that matters. I don’t need you to tell me what club I belong to or advise me how to define my club whether by corporate identity or some other identity. I especially don’t need you to tell me I’m wring when top judges tell me I’m right. It doesn’t matter whether you think my club is dead or alive. Your arrogance is breathtaking. Your hatred is the giveaway. No one bothers about this apart from the fact it is Rangers and you hate them anyway. You don’t have the courage to admit that. There are thousands of decent Rangers fans who are sick of people like you and frankly sick of the stupid kind of article that started this. As for independence I will wager not one person in this thread gave more cash to the independence campaign then me so for people to conflate independence and RFC as opposites is just bollocks. As I said earlier focus on politics and uniting our country. For all of the good things Rev Stu has done he should be aware this article is one of the most stupid and typically scottish self destructive as much more of this and a lot of WOS icons will he getting deleted from folks phones,and that won’t help matters.

    136. Murray McCallum says:

      “Aberdeen went top of the Premiership”

      I see the Rev slipped that highly provocative line in.

      No doubt trying to fly under the radar and lose such a comment in an innocuous, fact-based Company Law article.

    137. Rock says:

      yesindyref2,

      “So until enough of them die of their 45% inflicted wounds, say, 30 years, you don’t want Independence?”

      If I could get it tomorrow, I wouldn’t want to wait till March 2016.

      But the reality is we have been failed by the 55% and have little chance of having another referendum any time soon, let alone winning it.

      Unfortunately, we have among us the most stupid people on the planet. Given the chance of 300 years, those who should have known better voted No.

      Now just 3 months later, or just a minute after voting No if a tale on another thread is to be believed, they claim they would now vote Yes.

      Throughout history and throughout the world, including here, people have died for independence. And we voted peacefully to reject it.

      Craig Murray might not have been diplomatic but he was spot on when describing the 55% who had voted No.

    138. David says:

      Great seasonal pantomime material:
      “it’s the same old club”
      “ohh no it isn’t”
      “ohh yes it is”

      “Where’s our 140 years of glorious history”
      “They’re behind you”

    139. jock wishart says:

      See you anti Rangers arseholes, and there are a lot of you here,are in my wee book and will be dealt with appropriately after the revolution.you especially rev.for being a stirring bastard.Save your venom for the legions of the devil and the labour party.You could always do the Christian thing and keep hitting when a man is down.I’ve often found you god botherers a tad unforgiving.
      So in my independent Scotland No church,no monarchy and aw you aforementioned mouths will be dealt with,at half time,at Ibrox every second Saturday.

    140. Archie says:

      Ignoring the legality of Doncaster’s comments – and I agree with every word written in this article – what also becomes clear, given his role in the SPFL, is that his comments should be taken as the official word of the board of the SPFL.

      So, whatever club you support, you can be almost certain that your club agrees with Doncaster – at least if it represented on the board as, for example, Celtic is. Fans of Scottish football have to consider what it is they are actually investing in when they pay to watch a game. If my conclusion above is accepted, the only thing that can be said with any assurance is that every Scottish football supporter is paying money into a system that values the myth of the survival of RFC as primary. The integrity of the sport is a meaningless platitude.

      Essentially, every Scottish football fan is financing the survival of Rangers Football Club and supporting – or colluding in – the notion that it is the same club. If fans are happy to do this, they should continue to dip into their pockets, but if they are not, surely the time for direct action by fans has arrived? Doncaster’s statement is your club’s statement – so don’t bother looking to your board for help in sorting this problem out.

      In short, either you support a level playing field or you are happy to collude in a fix while paying for the privilege to see the rules of the sport broken to ensure the survival of the most divisive club in the Scottish game (if it wasn’t before this omnishambles, it certainly can’t be disputed that it holds that title now).

      It seems to me that, as fans, the only way to repair the damaged integrity of the Scottish game in the long term is to turn our back on it in the short term and force the hand of the clubs and the relevant bodies. Personally I won’t be attending Scottish football again while this lie is allowed to pollute the sporting integrity of the game.

      Finally, perhaps Doncaster, Regan, the SPFL and the SFA should have made their understanding clear to the owners of the club/company long ago given it seems to be able to decide with impunity when it is and isn’t the same entity, something that appears to depend on whether monies are due in or due out.

    141. David Lyon says:

      Rock,

      You are the sort of short-sighted moron who I personally would rather was not part of Yes.

      You and Craig Murray should hook up and whine at each other about how it’s everyone else who has a problem.

    142. CRAIGthePICT says:

      Brilliant article, well done. Anyone who can’t see how this is inextricably linked to the issues of the indie cause is surely not an ‘alert reader’. If this isn’t tackled then MSM continue to falsify the truth and get way with it.

      Someone may have mentioned, but Rangers missed out on a share of a £600,000 pay-out from former TV company Setanta – because they didn’t exist anymore.
      Clubs who were part of the SPL between 2009 and 2012 received payments as their final divdend for the company going administration back in 2009.
      But Rangers got nothing because they were classed as a club which no longer existed after their liquidation in June 2012.

      Rangers did not dispute this – why? because they didn’t exist.

      Partick Thistle are the oldest professional club in Glasgow 🙂

      What is interesting is that lot say we don’t accept the indie result which is wrong as we clearly do, and are dealing with it based on the reality of the situation.

      However, they refuse to accept that there club went down the stank and they are supporting a new one.

      What is crystal clear, is that the knuckle-draggers are factualy wrong on on 2 clear issues.

      Bigotry results in a certain stubbornness and closure of mind to reason and reality.

    143. jock says:

      David David David
      Right! your in my wee book.fkn Christians shheeesh.Don’t you have any compassion for the faithful.

    144. jock wishart says:

      All blog sites have their humourless obsessive twats who post shite on a regular basis.why should this one be any different?

    145. Airdrieonian says:

      For those who are still interested in this thread, here’s a link to a BBC online article about Airdrieonians going into administration after one of David Murray’s companies arrested gate receipts from a cup game. The quote from Sir David is priceless, given what’s happened now

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/628268.stm

    146. Airdrieonian says:

      For those who are still interested in this thread, here’s a link to a BBC online article about Airdrieonians going into administration after one of David Murray’s companies arrested gate receipts from a cup game. The quote from Sir David is priceless.

      news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/628268.stm

    147. George Sutherland says:

      As a Rangers fan I was very much hoping that our reincarnation in division 3 would see the club start with a new set of values that might gain respect rather than the ire of opposition supporters. If this helped rid our club of the ‘follow follow’ brigade then all the better. Unfortunately our recent ‘custodians’, much like our cross town rivals, will never take this harder road for fear of losing the perceived financial gains they can milk from sectarianism.

      Had less energy been spent trying to preserve the club in it’s previous form a chance has been missed to create a more progressive and enlightened entity that might gain a new generation of fans on our journey through the divisions.

      I guess what I’m trying to say is that for me, the way some of our fan base behave and the carefully worded statements from club officials that never quite deal with this problem for fear of losing their financial support is far more embarrassing than anything rival fans and the media might say about our ‘fall from grace’.

    148. Democracy Reborn says:

      Stu,

      I have tremendous respect for you, but judging by what I read daily on your Twitter page, you’d have been as well prefacing this article with ‘I hate Rangers with every fibre of my being’.

      The current Rangers are legally a new club. I suspect in the eyes of most of their supporters though they are still their ‘team’. That’s the difference. If the same thing happened to Aberdeen would you be fixated on whether the ‘club’ had a separate legal personality from the owner? Or if they still played at Pittodrie, wore the same strip, were still called ‘Aberdeen FC’, had the same fan base, sang the same songs, etc would you consider them an entirely new entity? Rangers were demoted to division 3. They’ve had to win promotion from there to division 2 & then the championship. They lost most of their regular first-team that played in the 2011-12 season. McCoist has been sacked. They are currently 15 points behind Hearts. The club is once again in dire financial straits. By contrast you say (and I’m sure there’s no gloating involved) your own team is top of the league & debt-free.

      I follow your Twitter account daily. I’ve lost count the number of times, particularly recently, you make unsolicited reference in some shape or form to the ‘new’ Rangers & their current predicament. It’s too frequent to be just ‘banter’ & references to Rangers far outweigh references to other teams. Rangers have their fair share of idiots, bigots & trouble-makers. So do some other teams. Rangers’ principal fan base is Glasgow & the west of Scotland. Despite the Orange Order element, Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire & North Lanarkshire voted Yes, Inverclyde barely No. Aberdeen & the North East voted No. Might your talents not be better served persuading your fellow Dons fans of the benefits of independence? I look upon Wings as a means of trying to win friends and influence people. People who post on this site, almost exclusively, don’t need to be persuaded. Others do. There are thousands of Rangers fans that either voted Yes or are persuadable Yessers. I read on Twitter an exchange you had with a Yes-voting Rangers fan, where you made a remark to the effect that you can judge someone by the company they keep. Do you think that’s helpful, a sort of collective guilt for all Rangers fans?

      There are several issues that are important in the the current climate insofar as they have genuine & meaningful implications for the day-to-day lives of our fellow Scots. This isn’t one of them. You’re rightly a stickler for legalities when analysing a topic. Although it pains me to borrow a phrase from our unionist friends, I’m convinced a judge would say “you’ve made your point Mr Campbell, and I’m with you. Rangers are legally a new club. Now can we move on?”…

    149. Schrodingers cat says:

      Erwin is staying out of this
      anyway, he is a st johnstone supporter

    150. JimBhoy says:

      Rev first time reader and an excellent well written piece backed up with fact and logic..

      Or maybe you are wrong and Doncaster has just rewritten Scottish sequestration law, smart boy he is.

    151. donald anderson says:

      Rangers is not really Rangers and the UKIP/LabCon/BNP/BF/EDL/LOL are not the same bigots and bampots neither. Ranger was saved because their is money in sectarianism and Celtic also needs the money, “for the good of Scottish football”.

      The whole of the Celtic Board are not Really Unionist and pro Trident in Scotland and the Old Firm is not a form of mass idiocy and a deliberate ploy on the Scottish nation. Kafflick Labourites do not do secret deal with fellow loyalists and Prodistents in the LOL. The Brutish Empah is the greatest and most benign charity the world has ever seen bringing peace and harmony across the globe.

      Old Firm fans are not really sectarian on the grounds of not knowing where Sectaria is.

      Oh, and my pension is secretly funded by Gordon Brown and Alastair’s Tory Darlings Smiff Report.

      If I had my way I would invite all Old Firm fans to a freebie at Hampden and have them and the Directors wear green and orange stars then shipped off in cattle trucks by men in leather coats accompanied by muzzeless Alsatian dugs and dropped aff inside the gates of Fuckingham or Westmince Palace.

      Yours for an Old Firm Free Scotland and Partick Thistle for the World Cup.

    152. john king says:

      Ooh naughty Rev
      someones just tossed a stinkbomb into the class on his way by hasnt he?
      that reminds me I really must get out and turn that compost heap. 🙂
      ————————————
      Juteman says
      “Maybe Schrodinger actually used a bear?”

      Planning to open the box to find out there Juteman. 🙂

      —————————–
      Paula-Rose says
      “So maybe the runner-up in the premiership should start the next season in the third division, that way the prawn sandwiches get shared around?”

      PRAWN SANDWICHES?
      Huv you been investing your millions in Brechin City?

      Its cornbeef sannys and a cup o Bovril at Cowdenbeath like it or lump it! 🙁
      ——————————-
      Ronnie Boyd says
      “Do me a favour and try to understand this: there are lots of Rangers supporters who support Scottish independence and vote SNP.”

      All the while Im reading this Ronnie Im thinking of this
      http://tinyurl.com/q853ojl
      no offence meant Ronnie
      HONEST GUV
      ——————————-
      yesinderef2 says
      “I wait the rattling of spears and firing of blanks.”

      What Peter Piper says . 🙂
      ——————————-
      Ian Gray’s subway lament says
      “Frankly mediocrity would be a huge leap forward for most of the balloons in the SFA”

      Ooh we want mediocrity now?
      mr la de da lament wants mediocrity,
      next he’ll want a pointed stick.
      http://tinyurl.com/lkbydbp
      ——————————
      Wee Jock poo-pong Mcplop says
      “As a Caley supporter, I wouldn’t give a stuff about the private grief of different subdivisions of soap-dodging Weegies ”

      Woof!
      say how you see it wee Jock
      but just remember
      Confucius say
      Man who breaks wind in church is condemned to sit in own pew! 🙂

      Callum Graig says
      “Stuart, possibly my favourite piece of your writing this year.”

      What?
      you cant mean the WHOLE 11.hours and 37 minutes of it surely?

      ———————————-
      Paula-Rose says
      “Um – do we get the off-side rule explained again?”

      Pass the prawn sannies and I’ll give it a bash. 🙂
      ———————————–
      Schrodingers cat @4.14

      I take it Erwin is the cat in your avatar that scares the shit out of me every time I look at it?

    153. john king says:

      Or 23 hours and 37 minutes even. 🙂

    154. Findlay Farquaharson says:

      as a former rangers fan, watching them die is soooooo sweet

    155. Mealer says:

      Tak in yer washin’,the Brechiners are comin’.
      Paula Rose,
      Don’t you think ALL the players look very smart in their footballing outfits?

    156. Fergus Green says:

      Dave McEwan Hill says:
      1 January, 2015 at 9:34 pm
      I rather wish folk would stop talking about Rangers and Celtic as if they were two sides of the one coin.

      Sorry my friend, but just cannot agree with this post. There may have been different histories but nowadays Celtic and Rangers are commercial operations who both tolerate discretely a degree of bigotry as it enhances profitability.

      Two cheeks of the same erse.

    157. Wuffing Dug says:

      I really miss Glasgow, now stay in Aberdeen. But I don’t miss the old firm shite getting rammed down your throat every day. I know the game is not the actual thrust of the article but read on including comments as was curious as to the direction it was taking. Ffs wish I hadn’t.

    158. The Isolator says:

      I never did get to grips with the appointment of Donkey and the other clown shoe Regan into the higher echelons of Scottish football at the time of the Ibrox meltdown.
      More alarming however has been the abject failure to secure sponsorship across the league setups.

      Why was Peter Lawell the Celtic chairman allowed to accompany Doncaster in the quest for a TV deal,when clearly the the “Old Firm” game was off the agenda (cup games excluded) for some time until Rangers were back to “their rightfull” place at the top table?

      Something extraordinary happened in the aftermath of the Rangers debacle that’s for sure.It would be good to know what forces were at work,but we haven’t even scratched the surface yet.

      In the meantime the Ibrox circus continues while Celtic wither on the vine without them.The rest of Scottish football however continues to flourish just a little as the sun peeks through the clouds.

    159. Calgacus says:

      @Democracy Reborn

      The Rangers were not demoted to division 3.

      The new club was given a bye and was admitted into the league over more deserving teams.

      This was a disgrace and one of the reasons I no longer follow the corrupt game in Scotland

    160. Ken500 says:

      It never fails to amaze how a minority of folk are obsessed with football. Pricing it’s self out of the market. Sectarianism never wins especially in secular country.

      Pop 5.2million

      1,200,000- /declining Protestant church goers.
      800,000- /declining Catholic church goers.

      3million+ non religious.

      The Churches have privileges above the Law.I.e The equal opportunities Employment Law.

      In NI the Catholics are/were discriminated against by the Masons, in jobs and housing etc. The old handshake. In Belfast until the 1960’s some Catholics were not allowed to vote. I.e. Bernadette Devlin. Sectarianism doesn’t pay,and the football sector is losing money and support. Declining supporters. Gordon Brown is reported to be a Mason. Secrecy etc. Official Secrets Act to cover up the criminality of Westminster.

    161. Ken500@hitmail.co.uk says:

      Demographics of Scotland mean many incomers (who lack knowledge of Scotland’s political past history) reside on the East coast. They are less likely to vote YES (for personal reasons) but they will vote SNP (for personal reasons). Future YES?.

      There Is more than likely Oil on the West coast. Totally extractable under the right political/fiscal conditions.

    162. Ken500 says:

      Unionist David Murray supported Alex Salmond as the best person to be FM of Scotland. Publicly stated.

    163. Alan Crerar says:

      Not being a fan of kickball I probably shouldn’t comment, but the Rev draws some interesting parallels:

      ‘Rangers’ is not about the owners, the management, the team or the buildings, its about the fans. If the fans decide ‘New Rangers’ is still ‘Rangers’ and will follow them to the ends of the earth (or season), then the owners are doing right for the club. If the owners do damage to the club, then the supporters (who ARE the club) will need to force the owners to change, or they take their loyalties elsewhere.

      The parallels with the Labour Party in Scotland are remarkably similar, except that the ‘owners’, NEW Labour WM, seem to have no interest in keeping the ethos of the original ‘club’ for its loyal ‘fans’. The result is that the Labour supporters in Scotland are taking their loyalties to other ‘clubs’, dare I say it, in a higher league. Bankruptcy will surely follow for Labour – in ideas as well as cash.

    164. Aaron Stephen says:

      Your at it yourself Rev.

      “In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator.

      In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold.

      This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not.“

      Why not add the emphasis on the middle bit?

      You’ve added the emphasis onto the qualification of Lord Nimmo Smith’s point, not his point.

      Rangers are the same club as they always were for the same reason that the Sheep’s Heid Inn in Edinburgh can call itself Scotland’s oldest pub.

    165. Ken500 says:

      The planning rules/Laws in the US are different from Scotland. Planning rules/Laws are different in other countries. The Fracking Nonsense.

      In the US (laissez-faire) you can practically build anywhere, in Scotland you can practically build no where.

      In Scotland planning Rules/Laws are subject to local authority and Scottish Gov consent (appeal). Same as it ever was. The Fracking mass hysteria nonsense.

    166. Rod Robertson says:

      Joemcg says:
      1 January, 2015 at 11:09 pm
      Curious where these Indy supporters sit at ibrox as last time I was there it was a sea of union flags
      ————————————————————-
      what a stupid comment ,why do Indy supporters go abroad last time I looked passports were awash with Great Britain ,why do indy supporters drive on a UK licence.
      how can Celtic supporting fans go to Parkhead when it is awash with tricolours.
      I support Rangers and joined the SNP in 1968,never voted anything else seems a lot of the “Johnny come latelies” have skewed ideas.

    167. Ken500 says:

      If the dumb ‘Boards/Managers’ of football clubs (trying to rip off the fans money), don’t realise bigotry and sectarian doesn’t pay, they will lose even more support.

      Give disillusioned people a job and a future to be interested and excited about, then bigotry/sectarianism in sport will decline. Football rivalry, will become a less important focus in people’s lives. An already declining sport in Britain, pricing itself out of the Market. More clubs will fail.

    168. Ken500 says:

      Sport, religion and politics do not mix. Separate.

    169. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Why not add the emphasis on the middle bit?”

      Because it’s the bleeding obvious and was never in dispute. Of course a club can be bought or sold. Mancheser United was bought by the Glazers. But it didn’t go down three divisions as a result.

      If a club has no legal status outside of the company, and the company dies, so does the club. That’s what Nimmo Smith said, and that’s the relevant point.

      I note, with something less than astonishment, that you too are unable to answer my two simple questions, as every Rangers fan for the past two and a half years has been.

    170. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I especially don’t need you to tell me I’m wring when top judges tell me I’m right.”

      No. The “top judge” told you you were wrong, in the clearest possible terms, but you were too thick to understand it.

    171. Tony says:

      Gene Randell: “I could waste time explaning that, if Rangers is a new club, then Celtic are in their fourth incarnation (Pacicic Shelf 595 being the most recent)and several Scottish clubs such as Motherwell, Livingston, Dundee &c are all in the same position. But of course, to quote Paul Simon:

      “A man hears what be wants to hear and disregards the rest”.”

      You could indeed waste your time on that, because you would be wrong. I now tremble in fear of being “sued and sanctioned”.

    172. Restlessnative says:

      “and aw you aforementioned mouths will be dealt with,at half time,at Ibrox every second Saturday.”

      Hopefully it’ll be under a car park at the new tescos by then

    173. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “If there is enough demand for the business brand, it will be purchased and operated under similar circumstances by a new owner.”

      Yes, of course. But it ISN’T THE SAME BUSINESS. If you were employed by the old business, you have no rights to continued employment. If you were owed money by the old business, you’re entitled to only what the liquidators can realise from the assets. If the old business had supply contracts, the contractors aren’t obliged to honour them for the new company.

      Charles Green bought the trademarks and the bricks and mortar, and he formed a NEW CLUB using them. That’s why the business didn’t continue in the SPL. You can buy a dead man’s house, you can even change your name to his name, but his kids aren’t your kids. His history isn’t your history.

    174. Capella says:

      The politics is the only interesting aspect of football for me. The billions poured into the English League by BSkyB for example ensures Sky has the right to broadcast games worldwide and rake in millions in fees. English Clubs can buy in players from anywhere. Even if a Scottish Club does recruit local talent, they soon move off to English Clubs where they get several times the money even playing for a relatively lowly club such as Bournemouth. That would be the attraction of the English league for Rangers.
      https://archive.today/OhXlP

    175. Heiniken says:

      As a rangers fan, an atheist and hater of all loyalist and unionist guff, ive read with amazement.

      My wider family, all irish catholic celtic mad family never took an interest in me with football so my auntie took me to a rangers game when i was four and have been a supporter of the team since.

      My Celtic mad family , now in later life say i should be burned alive and i don’t deserve to live and this is before any banter.. all of them, that do this were treated badly in the 70’s and 80’s through bigotry and now have tried to push their bad experiences on me…

      Funnily enough the younger generation in my family who, just like the old ones went to catholic school but don’t believe in religion, dont believe the hate.

      If maybe your hate wasnt passed on, your hate will die.

      i follow a team in blue.. im not a blue sheep…i think for myself.

      To me this sounds like the end of the Independence movement as we’ve already got our clan colours out n started fighting.
      Poor show Rev…

    176. Tony says:

      “caz-m says:
      Rangers are the oxygen of life for Celtic and vice versa. They need each others bigoted sectarianism to survive. Peter Lawell said as much a couple of months ago when he admitted to “missing” Rangers. We all know why, bigotry breeds money.”

      Peter Lawwell also said that Celtic have their own plans regardless of who is in the league. To further contradict your statement, Celtic are doing pretty well financially without any form of Rangers in the top flight, which suggests that Rangers are not in fact, the ‘oxygen of life’ for Celtic. Lastly, Celtic have never had a policy of discrimination (which is in line with just about every other club in the country). One club stands out.

    177. Davie says:

      All of the Rangers fans claiming only the ‘small minority’ are bigoted loyalists are kidding themselves and nobody else. I was a bluenose for 30 years and gradually drifted away for a variety of reasons – sectarianism was a major one. I was never into shouting ‘fuck the pope’ etc but would tolerate it from everyone around me. It should be remembered that the club had to stop playing ‘Simply the Best’ before the match as the virtually whole crowd used to intersperse each line with ‘fuck the pope and the IRA’ and it was causing too much offense for SKY broadcasts.

      The club are unionist to the core and a large section of the fans buy into it and vote accordingly. Rangers FC is a magnet for a certain brand of Scottish underclass – see Manchester – and Northern Irish halfwits. The vote no banner they covered the stand with said it all – that was not a few nuts but a large group with the tacit support of everyone in the ground.

      The irony is the NewCo is actually worse than ever before. Many decent fans like me have had enough and while there are fewer fans left a larger % is scum. I still have no love for Celtic but hopefully they’ll hammer them in February.

    178. Ali says:

      Happy New Year to you and yours Stu. Thanks for your relentless work and efforts over the year and look forward to my daily read in 2015.

      I for one found your article refreshing. I am by no means a footie fan, although i do enjoy watching the occasional “kick aboot” on telly, but it was interesting that you highlight yet more media rubbish in the sporting arena too.

      Whilst Slab bashing is entertaining, fun and a bit of good sport we have been at it for a while now and i often feel that what has to be said has already been said and more often than not we are covering old ground with the comments almost foreseen. I enjoy Slab bashing like the rest of us BUT as i said.

      So I personally would like to see more articles of an non-political flavor being posted Stu. The way i see it is that if the media can be exposed for making mince across the boards then the message is likely to get out to the people quicker and easier than just concentrating on the political scene. In the long run it helps our cause by raising awareness of media mince in other topics that people can relate to and the end result will be people being more wary of believing what they read.

      So i am more than happy for a non-political articles showing face. I notice a few have been having a “go” at Stu over this article and would like to point out a few things.

      1. Its Stu’s blog, not yours, so he is entitled to post whatever he pleases and not be expected to answer to anyone about posting it

      2. Why some are bleating about this article in an “independence site” beats me. I suggest reading the “about us” section, its not just about “independence”.

      3. Stu put a health warning on the article saying if you weren’t interested in footie, don’t read the article, so why waste time reading it if you are not interested and then go to the bother of posting to say so.

      Keep up the good work Stu and expose the media for what they really are using whatever means you fancy.

      United we stand United we will not fail

    179. donald anderson says:

      OK, so it is true that there are some Rangers fans who are not bigots and who do support Independence and I personally know more than quite few. But – there is no denying they are a minority and take some stick for it and some have even been attacked. What I don’t understand is why they can stand there every week and listen to such foul mouthed expressions of hate and deny their clubs well recorded and well known acts of discrimination and encouragement to these Loyalist factions.

      It is splitting hairs to say that most of the crowds and bands are not really part of the LOL “Walk”. What are they doing there: just passing by in a drunken state, bedecked with loyalist flags and insignias? What are the children doing there: helping their parents to walk upright? Most of the non aligned general public are abhorred and disgusted, non more so than the non Catholic population, by the state of this mass disruption allowed so often by the City Council.

      And why, oh why are these good people here so surprised by the fact that so many here do not wish to tolerate this behaviour any longer and it is the (Catholic)Labour/Unionist councillors who wish to increase it?

      I attended a post Referendum social on Partick the day after the referendum and some young local Rangers fans came by to apologise for the behaviour of Rangers fans being allowed the Freedom of George Square and to attack people at will at that very moment. Everyone heard and saw it on theior mobile phones from fellow Yes campaigners. The social happened to be held in a Catholic Church Hall, purely for convenience and costs. The majority of us were non religious and none of us Old Firm fans.

      I am non religious and can only tolerate religion as long as it does not cross over into sectarianisms. The Rev can hardly be accused of that.

    180. Capella says:

      O/T Stu, you need to update your Newsnet link. It is now http://newsnet.scot/
      ps The Scottish Statesman also has some good articles
      http://scottishstatesman.com/

    181. De Valera says:

      I fully accept that there are many independence supporters on both sides of the Old Firm divide and it would be a pity to alienate them. Hopeflly there will be even more independence supporters for referendum 2.

      My criticism of Rangers and Celtic is part of a wider problem in Scotland. So many of the things that are considered “institutions” in Scotland are actually barriers to Scotlands’ freedom. Examples are Barrs, Tunnocks various “legends” of football and rugby, our newspapers and of course our two most well known football teams who tried to influence their supporters votes.

      The biggest enemy to independence is of course the Labour party and we should never forget this, that is where should focus our wrath.

    182. Bogchuff says:

      @Bill Hume – Bill Hume says:
      As one who would ban pro. football (sick of the green/blue, pape/proddy shit that goes with it)

      His only exists between two Glasgow teams, the rest of Scottish Football, like you, couldn’t care less about 17th Century Irish history

    183. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      I was in Frew’s Bar in Dundee on Hogmanay (an annual visit to the pub).

      My pal, a Frew’s regular, mentioned Dundee United fans in connection with the pub. I should point out that the walls in Frew’s are covered with photos of Dundee FC legends, like Ian Ure, Alan Gilzean, Craig Brown, Bert Slater and so on.

      I said to him, “I thought Frew’s was a Dundee pub?”
      He replied, “It’s a Dundee pub one week and a United pub the other week.”
      (When Dundee are playing at home, United are playing away and vice versa.)

      So I had to ask, “So, is it A Dundee pub or a United pub tomorrow?”
      (Dundee derby.)
      “Both.” he says. “United fans will be through there (pointing to the left) and the Dundee fans will be through there (pointing to the right).

      I had to ask him, “Do you think this pub sharing goes on in Glasgow?”

      He just raised his eyebrows…

    184. Border-Reiver says:

      I’m not a follower of Scottish football, but found this article and ensuing argument very interesting. It brings to mind the efforts the British Army makes, when Regiments are amalgamated, to ensure the “Golden thread of continuity”. It also brings to mind the story of the broom: If the handle is replaced and then the head is replaced, is it still the same broom?

    185. Andy Nimmo says:

      Three things struck me after reading this brilliant piece.

      1. The comparison between Rangers and Cardiff.
      Both extremely proud clubs torn apart by vultures and/or hyenas.
      2. Of the reportedly tens of thousands of loyal Rangers supporters who protested bitterly about their club being torn apart mercilessly to satisfy the greed and avarice of establishment conmen, what percentage said ‘carry on chaps’ when their country was being torn apart etc etc.
      3. The need for a brand new word to be introduced into the dictionary.
      INCOMPEGANCE:- A breathtaking mixture of incompetence and arrogance.

    186. bookie from hell says:

      This article is like the currency issue during the referendum and REV is holding the ball

      The supporters are saying Glasgow Rangers are Glasgow Rangers and REV is saying NO your a new club YOU can’t say you are.

      I know Rangers supporters that put Scotland first and this article is stereo typed like a Better Together press release.

    187. Rod Robertson says:

      At the end of the day old club ,new club it is Rangers Fc to the teams supporters and the Rangers haters like the Rev and a lot of posters here.
      In the not too distant future this oldco /newco RangersFC will be in and no doubt win the SPL.
      Then the Rangers haters like the Rev here will have a new paranoia to shout foul we lost the title because they should not be here.
      not because Aberdeen .Celtic Utd whoever were not good enough.
      The other theme in this article is the strength of Scottish football without RFC in top teir.
      Do remind us all again the sponsors of the league and Cups since the demise?
      Funny how only this year when the big bad are they ,or are they not the rangers get to semi finals suddenly a sponsor appears.
      Be careful for that what you wish for.

    188. donald anderson says:

      @ Brian Doonthetoon.
      Well done the Dundee peh eaters. I believe the Dundee Irish came from Tipperary mills to work in the Jute industry and most of the Glesga Irish from the Black North. There used be social interaction and funny banter in Glesga in the days of shipyards, factories and mines. Since the Glesga Clearances with the natives being confined to the peripheral reservations and badlands they noo grow up “one or the other”. Gone ar the days when the Old Firm bunnet and scarf was discreetly tucked into the jaikit poacket in mixed pubs after the match. Occasionally some daring blades would let their scarf hing oot to show whit theys ur, purely in the interests of starting a fight.

      When Kafflicks and Prodistents got together to fight their bosses in Belfast Randolph Churchill had only to send over a few Union Jacks with tassels to stir it all up again. Divide et Imperia.

    189. jock wishart says:

      Here’s an idea for a new WOS cartoon a church minister shaggin a sheep.we could then have a caption competition to raise funds for the spl,Christian branch.you know the ones that forgive. Or is it the eye for an eye branch. Stu you are a bit of a mess when it comes to conciliation and you being a man of God too tut tut.spend more time at church or praying instead of wanking off to computer games and sheep.

    190. Murray McCallum says:

      Is this maybe a good time to implore all real, patriotic Aberdeen FC fans to step back from being the sole, separate entity atop the Premiership come the end of the season?

      Proud Aberdeen fans know they are not ready for this and the markets are already reacting to this threatened break out towards unmitigated success.

      I would simply ask everyone to chart the recent rise in Aberdeen’s league standings against the fall in the oil price. You can’t buck the market as everyone outside of Barclays and RBS always said.

      Anyway, it’s a free society and people can support whatever (however misguided) they like. I’m off to protest outside our local “Factory Shop” this afternoon. I’m Woolworths till I die.

    191. Joemcg says:

      Seems very weird why independence supporting Rangers fans would go week after week to what is in effect a unionist rally. Can you Indy gers fans explain that one please?

    192. Joemcg says:

      Im totally gobsmacked that ANY rangers fan supports independence. I don’t hate the club BTW I honestly can’t get my head round it!

    193. john mac says:

      Simple really Joe…most Ranger’s Fans are progressive and able to distinguish between support for a football team and the political future of our country.
      The “Rule Britannia” brigade are a noisy minority. However you’re comment makes it clear to me just how deeply indoctrinated some sections of our country really are.

    194. Rev – by posting this article, you have, perhaps unconsciously, joined the mainstream media. This post is somewhere around the 200th on the thread – responding to an article which has nothing to do with the main reason d’ etre of Wings – Scottish Independence.

      This proves, what the MSM has long known and worked hard to maintain, the fact that Celtic v Rangers conflict sells papers, or in this case, generates hits.

      Perhaps, because of the liquidation of the “Oldco”, the current “Rangers International FC”, or, as I prefer to dub them: The Rangers Tribute Act, is indeed a “Newco”.

      Maybe, because the said team/club continues to play out of Ibrox Stadium, to wear light blue shirts, white shorts and black stockings with red tops, it is somehow a continuation of “Rangers”, maintaining what one contributor termed: “the golden thread of history and tradition”.

      You pays your money and takes your pick. I think I best saw the conundrum regarding old club or new club answered by the football historian who runs the website SCOTTISH LEAGUE.net. This is the “football anorak’s” website of choice for meeting Scottish football anoraks.

      This gentleman, a Kilmarnock supporter, put it: “In the case of the current “Rangers” club, if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck – it probably is a duck.

      Some of the hysterical shouts of: “Your club’s deid – you’re a new club”, mainly, but, not soley from Celt6ic supporters, merely indicates the fear and loathing there is for a successful “Rangers” entity in Scottish football.

      The machinations gone through to, initially try to keep “Rangers” in the SPL, then get the post-liquidation “Rangers” into the Scottish League ahead of longer-established and better-qualified clubs shows that, for all the fear and loathing, the men who run Scottish football feel they need and must have “Rangers” in the game up here.

      OK, better perhaps to have “Rangers” in the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.

      What cannot be argued is – the “blazers” who walk Hampden’s executive corridors are not fit for purpose; Scottish football is in a mess and, the situation will not change any time soon.

      But, for as long as Scottish football in general and the twa cheeks o’ the same erse known as the Old Firm are there, Scotland will be held back.

      Celtic and Rangers – the Labour and Tories of Scottish sport. Too-big, too-important, in it for themselves and they don’t care a jot about Scotland.

    195. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Rather more interesting than the Rev’s initial piece is a number of the responses. It really is time that Scotland faced up to and exorcised some of its fairly recent past.

      I suggest a new organisation designed on the lines of the AA – the SEA – Sectarian Eejits Anonymous which deals with a small section of society that is beyond reason in sectarian terms and which can’t control itself once it gets the first whiff of imagined criticism.

      It would go like this “My name is **** and I’m a bigot.” and moves on to sessions in which they are trussed up and made to listen to perfectly reasonable comments about Rangers/Celtic until they are able to listen to these comments and criticisms untrussed without going mental.

    196. Jim McIntosh says:

      Personally I think you’re all talking bollocks. There’s only one decent league in Scotland. the ‘Scottish Highland Football League’.

      Mon the cans!!!

      Just to put my tuppence in though – @Wee jock poo-pong mcplop you’re not really a ‘Caley’ fan, you’re a ‘Caley Thistle’ fan. 😉

    197. IAB says:

      I enjoy watching football but would be delighted if Rangers and Celtic were both dissolved and disappeared. I grew up with the songs and the chants and hated ‘Old Firm’ game days. My first interface with religious bigotry was someone explaining the songs (and tying it up with an explanation of the Orange Walk). I could never fathom why football was connected to religion. Fans will say that they have made an effort to change but I would reply that the effort was minimal. Let them go.

    198. Garry Coll says:

      The whole sorry saga reminds me of the episode of Only Fools and Horses where Trigger got a presentation from the council for his years of dedicated service, and the remarkable fact that he used the same brush all the time he was working sweeping the streets.
      Del Boy asked him if it was true about using the same brush, to which Trigger replied Absolutely, except I changed the head seven times and the shaft four, but it was the same brush all the time.

    199. Jamie says:

      Rangers died in 2012, the current reanimated carcase currently shuffling around could possibly soon follow suite. No-one should be surprised that McLaughlin didn’t fire into the empty net. MSM’s agenda has been to keep the same club mythology going as it keeps them in ink. From succulent lamb to Traynor’s copy being approved by Green before publication all illustrate the influence they have over the media in this country. It will be interesting to see what happens if they go into admin again and what penalty is imposed. Methinks they will need to place guards either end of the Erskine bridge if it happens.

    200. donald anderson says:

      On the name of peace time to call a truce on this topic and deport all Paris Buns and Wine and Grapes.

    201. “In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator.

      So a club can exist despite its transfer to another owner – another company. Which is what happened with Rangers, it was transferred from one company to another and continues despite its transfer.

      Also it wasn’t bought out of liquidation, it was bought from the Administrators before the company was placed into liquidation.

      The issue regarding contracts is simply explained in that they could not have been transferred unless the company had been bought over, as under TUPE Regulations employees always have the right to refuse the transfer. So if a club can continue to exist despite the transfer to another owner,but has no legal identity of its own, then Nimmo is referring to something other than the company that owns it. He also recognises it is capable of continuing its existence depsite transfer and although it may contain contracts, this cannot be mandatory, as no employee can be compelled in a transfer to accept the transfer of their contract.

    202. Colin Rippey says:

      Before starting this comment I really have to ask: Why on earth is this article on a website that deals with politics and Scottish Independence? Why? What possible motive is there? What has being a supporter of a football team got to do with politics? To me people who connect football and politics are extremist nut-cases who do not deserve to be listened to on anything serious in nature.

      (are you suffering from mental issues trying to re-write your wee blue book due to the Oil Price collapse? If I were you I’d re-write the figures for about $40 dollars a barrel that sounds about right now that the US has started exporting its cheap crude)

      On to your “article”.

      You see to always shoot yourself in the foot with your DA DA DAAA emphasis.

      “Emphasis ours again. In other words, Lord Nimmo Smith’s MINIMUM definition of a “club” includes the player contracts, which Charles Green did NOT get when he purchased Rangers’ assets.”

      The player’s contracts WERE transferred across, SOME players were able to make use of TUPE rules to not continue with the new owner, but it is the crystal clear case that their employment contracts WERE transferred to the new owner, if the player’s employment contracts were not transferred to the new owner then TUPE rules would not have applied, and it was TUPE rules that the players used to opt out of CONTINUING their employment with the new owners.

      This is basic employment law and (to use your ridiculous hyperbole) DEMOLISHES your arguments, completely, totally, and utterly. So your wrong, wrong, wrong, the player’s contracts WERE transferred, and some players used TUPE rules to choose to not continue their employment.

      It is not only the player’s contracts, it is the player’s registration with the SFA that were transferred too, the player’s registration that is the real asset to the club.

      ALL player registrations were transferred, even for those players who chose not to continue their employment with the new owners. The new owners took ownership of the player’s REGISTRATIONS. This became the main sticking point of the argument Green tried to raise at the time, he was successful in getting compensation for Steven Davis’s transfer to Southampton (which in of itself is enough to put your stupid argument to bed once and for all, or are you arguing that Southampton paying hundreds of thousands of pounds for Davis was a “gesture”).

    203. john mac says:

      Nimmo made the clear difference between Operating Business and Business Brand itself.
      Similar examples are everywhere in business eg Rolls Royce, Walkabout Bar, Jessops etc etc. All business brands continue on as before but in each case the Operating Company behind the brand went bust and the rights to the brand either bought over (in some cases by exactly the same people setting up another operating business by legal sleight of hand as happened with Rangers.)
      In the case of Rangers the business brand is the football club.
      Go into Walkabout and try to deny its the same place…you cant. This article demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what Nimmo says. By accident it simply highlights the legal moral ambiguity in business phoenixing.

    204. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “So a club can exist despite its transfer to another owner – another company.”

      Yes, of course it can. Happens all the time, like when the Glazers bought Man Utd.

      “Which is what happened with Rangers”

      BZZT! No it isn’t. That’s what they TRIED to do, but it didn’t work – nobody wanted to buy it because it was lumbered with debts so the attempt to escape them via a CVA failed. The club at that point died with the company, having no separate existence of its own, as expressly noted by LNS. The assets were sold and used to start a new football club, which was eventually admitted to SFL3 as a new club. If it had existed for 140 years it would have had voting rights. It didn’t.

      The new and old clubs existed simultaneously, which is why Old Rangers was able to vote on the admission of New Rangers to the SPL. Remember, Mr Doncaster told us explicitly that FOOTBALL CLUBS are the members of the SPL, not companies, so the thing that voted to admit New Rangers could only have been Old Rangers, a FOOTBALL CLUB. Both can’t exist at once and still be the same thing, and they definitely both existed at once.

      “The issue regarding contracts is simply explained in that they could not have been transferred unless the company had been bought over, as under TUPE Regulations employees always have the right to refuse the transfer.”

      Absolutely correct.

      “So if a club can continue to exist despite the transfer to another owner,but has no legal identity of its own, then Nimmo is referring to something other than the company that owns it.”

      BZZT! No. He EXPRESSLY AND EXPLICITLY said that the club has no separate identity. It’s part of the company. Let’s try another analogy. If you get shot through the heart and die, a doctor can take all of your other organs, even your face, and transplant them into/onto someone else. They might be the same height and build as you. They’ll have your face, so they’ll look like you. They might adopt your name in tribute. But they won’t BE you, because you DIED. Pretending otherwise would be not only terrifying, but fraudulent.

    205. Joemcg says:

      John Mac- you cannot seriously be trying to tell me the “rule brittania” crowd at ibrox are a “minority?” You are kidding yourself. Please explain the stand sized banner urging us to vote no on display at one of your home games.

    206. Daniel Netherton says:

      @John

      I think it is a new club personally, but you’re right that this article has completely misrepresented the LNS report. The very first page of that report makes a distinction between “Oldco”, “Newco” and “Rangers FC” – defining Oldco and Newco as the owners of Rangers FC. Anyone who just clicks on the link in the article can see that so I’ve no idea what selectively quoting later bits of the report is supposed to achieve.

      It is a bit rich to write such a misleading analysis and then complain about other people’s journalistic standards, but I guess that’s par for the course with Mr Campbell.

    207. imnewhere says:

      After reading this ‘article’ and some of the rather hateful, divisive comments following it I’m afraid I will no longer be using this site. I really thought that we were working together towards a common goal but it seems that some are unable to do so. How are we supposed to reach out to certain sections of society given some of the opinions posted above?

    208. John says:

      So the spl say the new Rangers are the old Rangers. UEFA have already stated this to be the case and that the history of the club remains with the newco. Why would anyone have a problem with these facts.

    209. Stoker says:

      Walter dg says:
      “For all of the good things Rev Stu has done he should be aware this article is one of the most stupid and typically scottish self destructive as much more of this and a lot of WOS icons will he getting deleted from folks phones,and that won’t help matters.”

      So, Walter, bearing in mind WOS is all about media-monitoring, are you suggesting we must be selective in what lies we challenge, lest we hurt someone’s feelings?

      Are you also suggesting that those “Rangers” fans who voted ‘Yes’ are too thick to differentiate the importance of their countries future from the love of a football team?

    210. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “The very first page of that report makes a distinction between “Oldco”, “Newco” and “Rangers FC””

      Yes, of course it does, because they’re three different things. (Actually four different things, two of which have the same trading name.) That doesn’t make anything I wrote “misleadng” or “misrepresentative”.

    211. Angus MacSween says:

      Could someone please enlighten me on what Rangers have been found guilty of.. Yes. accused of paying players illegally..NOT Guilty.. accused of owing inland revenue £72.000.000 ..NOT GUILTY…. Completely confused on why Rangers went into ‘liquidation’. Yes they did owe £18,000,000 to inland revenue. which in comparision to other football clubs is a pittance.

    212. Joe Kinnear says:

      Isn’t this a little obsessive in the worst sense of that term?

      After all isn’t an inter-generational community – which is what all football clubs are – something that exist beyond mere legal definitions? Football clubs are about collective memory, a sense of community across the generations etc. To suggest otherwise is to be sociologically illiterate or willfully disingenuous to the point of dogmatic pedantry.

      So Fiorentina no longer ‘really’ exist? Leeds Utd too? etc., – come on I don’t like Rangers but they exist and are sociologically the same entity that has played in blue at Ibrox etc.

      Perhaps Scotland does not exist as a nation as it is not an independent legal state at the UN? No I didn’t think that logic would fly etc.

      Come on Wings this site really is better that this nonsense. Quite why the precise legal status of a football club seemingly sends otherwise sensible people crazy (on both sides of the argument) is beyond me.

      Arguing over Scottish football with such intensity is like two bald men arguing over how much hair they have. Daft, irrelevant and frankly bemusing to onlookers.

    213. Angus says:

      As a west lothianer I loved this article and I particularly enjoyed seeing the blind (and blindly) pro Rangers wool over eyes folk and the soft as shite media getting telt the facts for a change.

      I read this whole article out to my girlfriend and she didn’t hit me for annoying her!

      Cool.

    214. Brian Hill says:

      I would agree with the points made in the post from Alan McIntosh at 12.26pm. The response from the Rev. again confuses the legal position and misunderstands the import of the ruling from Lord Nimmo Smith’s commission. I understood the ruling to describe the club as being part of the undertaking, owned by the Oldco. In legal parlance the club would be an incorporeal asset which could be, and in fact was, bought and sold.
      To say that it had no separate legal identity was another way of clarifying that it had no legal personality (it is of course only an incorporeal asset). Only the company which owned it would have such legal personality, and thus be able to take decisions such as on voting about membership of the SPL. But it is a logical fallacy to claim that because a club has no separate legal identity must mean that it has the same legal identity as its owning company.

    215. The Hammer of the Gods says:

      @Colin Rippey. You used your real name, in an Internet forum, with people who know you from “way back when”?

      Edinburgh Zoo? Penguin? Your holiday home in Spain?

      Now you are gloating about economic warfare, in defence of your favourite football team:

      “are you suffering from mental issues trying to re-write your wee blue book due to the Oil Price collapse? If I were you I’d re-write the figures for about $40 dollars a barrel that sounds about right now that the US has started exporting its cheap crude”

      Good luck, mate. We hope to convince all of you in 2015. We still love you.

      THOTG

    216. Harry McAye says:

      Rod Robertson – the prospective sponsors are missing out lending their name to the most exciting Premiership season in recent memory. Only 5 points seperate the top five teams. That a sponsor has miraculously appeared now we have some Old Firm carnage on the horizon is a depressing indictment of this country/region.

      I admit it. I am a Rangers hater. Getting hit on the napper with a coin at Ibrox in 1987 after Accies beat Souness’s billy big times and then, worst of all, getting abuse thrown at me in the streets of bloody HAMILTON afterwards has given me a hatred of them. I hate Celtic slightly less but would be quite happy to see them go the same way as old Rangers.

    217. Ignoretheignorants says:

      I think a lot of the legal stand points are interesting to read. That said, in my humble opinion, it all boils down to bragging rights, which is merely hidden by those who are now “experts” in corporate law because it suits their own agenda. Bigotry and hatred and envy will always remain in Scottish football as is clearly demonstrated time after time after time. You don’t have to like us, we don’t care, but you cannot merely dismiss the legal precedent Doncaster and Nimmo have set because you simply disagree with it. That would be narrow minded!

    218. Stu – you’ve still not answered the question I asked regarding Hibs. The company which ran Hibs when it won the Scottish Cup was liquidated a few seasons later. A new company eventually took over the running of Hibernian FC. On the basis of your argument, was it a different Hibernian FC who won the Scottish Cup from the club currently known as Hibernian FC?

    219. Patrick says:

      I was just thinking how glad I was that 2014 was over and that with Salmond’s retirement in defeat how glad I was that my grandchildren won’t have to learn to speak like Oor Willie when I read this article and the comments.

      Do none of you understand that less than one in four of the people who could have voted actually voted yes?

      Incidentally I am and have been watching Celtic for fifty five years and more.

    220. Peekay says:

      Joemcg says:

      “Im totally gobsmacked that ANY rangers fan supports independence. I don’t hate the club BTW I honestly can’t get my head round it!”

      Quite simple really, I was brought up in Shawlands and now live in Giffnock thus Rangers are my local ‘big’ team(I also go to Pollok Juniors)

      What I don’t understand is why so many people travel from outside Glasgow to support either Celtic/Rangers, that’s what’s wrong with Scottish football, not TV rights distribution. These people have no right whatsoever to complain about the state of Scottish football when it’s them that are depriving perfectly good teams like Motherwell or Kilmarnock of revenue stream for some kind of percieved ‘religious’ support

    221. KennyG says:

      Pick your bottom lip up and put your toys back in the pram. We all know the bitterness towards Rangers is because we were so successful for so long. That’s what really hurts you the most isn’t it? A long held bitterness and anger because we humped you all so often and those scars will never heal. But instead of taking your defeats like men all you can do is whinge and greet about new club or old club. You really are sad and pathetic.

    222. North chiel says:

      A. Rather disappointing article from the Rev. Why not focus on the
      “Real Issue” here which is the disgraceful goings on as regards the
      “OWNERSHIP” of a SCOTTISH ( not British) sporting institution.
      The attempts from the “south of the border “individuals and financial institutions
      ” to ” line their own pockets” ( involving pay offs to numerous individuals) and
      To bring down a football club (jealousy) which fairly recently could compete
      Financially with any football club in the UK or Europe.Its rather unfortunate
      That the Rev. Couldn’t see the obvious political parallel here ie. Scotland
      And the UK . However, with the ” locals with the best interests of Rangers
      At heart” today seemingly finally gaining majority control from the “chancers” ( can you
      Draw a parallel Rev??) hopefully these “pocket liners” will be “chased back
      Over the border”

    223. Dr Ew says:

      For what it’s worth I’d agree Lord Nimmo Smith’s opinion suggests the Rangers FC currently sitting second in the second tier of Scottish professional football is a different legal entity from the club that competed in the SPL of 2011/12 – but it is only his Lordship’s opinion. As far as I’m aware the facts have never been tested in court to establish this either way, so until that happens folk can (and will) argue the point ad nauseam.

      So whether you agree with Stu’s analysis or not, it does at least behove contributors to acknowledge he is sincere in his assertion and has sourced substantial material to support his views, unlike many others here – though I was fascinated by the link posted by Dain to the BBC Trust’s response to complaints about the old/new company language. The far more relevant point here is whether the highly privileged BBC (and the Fourth Estate in general) seeks truth and challenges power on our behalf or even bothers to question vested interests, especially when those interests may complement their own.

      The craven attitude of the MSM towards “great” Scottish institutions like the Old Firm, the Kirk and the Labour Party is bound up in their directors, editors and journalists’ personal, commercial and political affiliations, as well as larger questions about abuse of laws on defamation (Scots Law in this area being in much need of reform), as well as far more insidious and corrupting influences.

      That, as I understand it, is what Wings sets out to challenge or at least help redress the balance a bit. While the ongoing contortions of a football club and/or its owners may seem of little relevance to the larger questions, there’s no doubt this wee website has shown considerable cojones in fulfilling a role of speaking truth to power.

      And regardless of your views on old/new Rangers, let’s at least agree our best interests are not best served by servile journalists without adequate training, support or encouragement to pursue powerful corrupt forces and their super-annuated marionettes on questions germane to the good running of our democracy and its institutions.

    224. Robert Peffers says:

      @bjsalba says:1 January, 2015 at 7:23 pm:

      “I think the BBC staff have forgotten how to do journalism.”

      You wrongly assume they ever did know how to be journalists in the first place. I realised, way back in the 1960/70s that both the BBC and the Scottish Football organisations were shams. Mind you neither organ was quite so obviously as shambolic back then. None the less both were disgraceful in their own way.

      I weaned myself off both. Around the same time I was weaning myself off what had once been the best broadsheet newspaper in Scotland, if not in Britain, The Scotsman. I no longer now follow Scottish football, view BBC Scotland nor read any, “Scottish”, newspapers.

      I may have seen the writing on the wall long before most other Scots but I’m most certainly not alone in being unable to thole the dishonesty, cant and crass lies of the several Scottish branches of the Unionist organizations that shame the country of Scotland. They aa wad gar ye grue.

    225. caz-m says:

      Tony 10.16am

      Tony, I am not a supporter of Rangers or Celtic. I gave all that up to fight for Scottish Independence. The point I was making was that the money men at Parkhead and Ibrox depend on the true hatred that exists between the two die-hard supporters. And it’s all due to religion. Celtic are also witnessing dwindling crowds and lack of interest from their own supporters.

      Rangers AND Celtic need each other. It is a known fact.

      I am NOT taking one point of view over another. The two clubs need each other, and if Rangers go out of business then Celtic will also suffer. I am totally against bigotry and if Rangers went out of business tomorrow, then that could only be good for Scotland as a whole.

      Boycott Ibrox. Let the Orange Order shoulder the blame of the destruction of Rangers FC. How can anybody go to a Stadium where they rip the Saltire out of the hand of the person waving it.

      Their is NO room is a modern Scottish society for them.

    226. Rock says:

      David Lyon,

      “You are the sort of short-sighted moron who I personally would rather was not part of Yes.”

      Of course. Unionists don’t want Scotland ever to become independent.

      And if you are not a unionist, you must be one of those who would rather wait for another 300 years to get independence.

    227. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “the legal precedent Doncaster and Nimmo have set because you simply disagree with it”

      Um, they’ve set no legal precedent whatsoever. Doncaster has no power in law and Nimmo Smith wasn’t acting in a legal capacity.

    228. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      To the point, Dr Ew at 7.23

    229. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Interesting and very to the point (not) comment from Colin Rippey at 12.36

      “are you suffering from mental issues trying to re-write your wee blue book due to the Oil Price collapse? If I were you I’d re-write the figures for about $40 dollars a barrel that sounds about right now that the US has started exporting its cheap crude)”

      There are no limits to what some people will spout if you dare to make some remark about Rangers (or Celtic).

      I have to admit I share Colin’s distress at how the UK government and Treasury must be suffering due to the low price of oil -what with a national debt of about £1,500,000,000,000 which is rising at the rate of nearly £6,000 per second UK debt comes closer and closer to being unserviceable. We hope for England’s sake oil goes back up to a decent price soon, though it has to be said if they crash so do we as we voted narrowly to remain as part of this basket case though we are responsible for virtually none of the debt.

      The Wee Blue Book was quite informative on oil. It pointed out that oil was at around $20 per barrel for most of the 1990s (page 15)
      At its present price it would produce a surplus that would more than wipe out Scotland’s deficit. (page 30) Rising prices again would provide Scotland with a massive bonus.The UK and Iran are the only two countries to discover oil and NOT set up an oil fund for the future (page 30). Norway, who only set up an oil fund in the 1990s now has the problem of having too much money. (page 30) It has continually to invest and spend it to prevent inflation and continuous devaluation.

      Anyway we have only about 100 billion barrrels of oil left. What a liability,eh?

    230. lochside says:

      Long overdue article about the parallels between the Scottish media’s snivelling, crawling arse-kissing of the Old Firm, with Sevco specifically, and the identical unquestioning behaviour it displays to the other Unionist Institutions in our country.

      Unfortunately, many Rangers fans have displayed the usual knee jerk and humourless response expected.

      The fact is Rangers got away with conning many businesses out of hundreds of thousands when they went through their ‘transformation’. More to the point, the biggest con was the one laid on the supporters by the arch Unionist Murray.

      Rangers once were true Scottish football champions who embodied the country, as it was: a bigoted protestant ascendancy. For a hundred years Rangers fans were the largest percentage of the ‘Tartan Army’, displaying their convoluted and confused allegiances by bellowing out God Save the Queen at Cup Finals and booing it at Scotland v England games. Vestiges of that were witnessed in fellow British cities such as Manchester most recently.

      Over the last twenty years the Unionist Board has by overt displays of British triumphalism at Ibrox shifted the anti-Catholic narrative to an anti-Scottish/true Brit one.

      For this reason alone, the club deserves to be detested.
      I recently attended Ibrox, pre-Ref and was assailed on all sides by hateful screeching Bluenose Brits. And at half time had to experience them, in their thousands at the Broomloan end, displaying ‘NO’ cards.

      Now I know and respect friends who are Rangers supporters, but none of whom any longer attend Ibrox. The reason? they are Indy supporters who still ‘follow’ the team, but do not respect the Board or the prominent vocal Unionists on display home and away.

      Independence supporting Rangers fans should not take umbrage at criticisms of Rangers Old or New. Of course many Rangers supporters voted YES, Glasgow’s result proved this. The REV’s team is from a city of well-healed smug ‘NO’ supporters, it doesn’t stop him supporting the team and disparaging his majority fellow nay-sayers.

      Thus ‘Teddy Bears’ and ‘Tims’ should not blind themselves to the Unionist Institutions that nurture the seeds of Scotland’s stunted political status. Both clubs have been run commercially with sectarian subtexts for at least the last hundred years. Irish v British, Catholic v Protestant. It worked well until increasing secularisation and mixed marriage undermined it. Then SKY and David Murray appeared and English ‘superstars’, particularly at Rangers led to ‘Britisation’ with Bears wearing England tops. Possibly signifying the unconscious desire to join the English league.

      None of it matters really apart from the core reality: we have a corrupt and pathetic apology for an msm in this country. Their chronic inability and cowardice in not reporting the FACTS about almost anything that matters is the malaise that allows Unionist institutions like the Old Firm; the Churches; the Legal structure and our Education system to continue to lie and manipulate us into being slaves to the rhythm of British colonialism.

    231. Robert Peffers says:

      @Gene Randell says: 1 January, 2015 at 7:42 pm:

      “Here’s a couple of things for you.”

      Aye! Richt! Gene, may we assume the spelling, punctuation and grammar of your, published abroad, book are rather better proof-read than your comments on this forum?

      Can we also assume you were rather much in disagreement with the Rev Stu’s views? While not particularly bothered by the fate of Rangers, one way or the other, I thought the article was sound and fact based.

    232. Clydebuilt says:

      BBC Radio Scotland used to run a phone in on a Saturday 5 to 6.30pm hosted by Jim Traynor, he often told listeners that the show had a staff of 40 to 50 odd staff. This must be what it takes to control what footy fans get to hear.

      Occasionally an anti establishment Celic fan would get to air having ducked past the filters, magic.

    233. caz-m says:

      lochside 9.46pm

      BRILLIANT!

      Very well put lochside. You have wrote down what I have been trying to write down for months. Some people take it the wrong way, but for fans of Rangers to travel over from Northern Ireland every second week and rip the Scottish Saltire out of the hands of other Rangers fans is an absolute disgrace. Any right thinking Scot should have nothing at all to do with this shower of unionist shit.

      They want Scotland to mirror Northern Ireland. They think they have this divine right to protect the Union at all costs.

      They are deluded.

    234. Robert Peffers says:

      @Rev. Stuart Campbell says: 1 January, 2015 at 8:01 pm:

      … if you then continued to read something in which you had no interest you’re a fucking idiot.”

      (Chuckle)!

      No further comment needed.

    235. geeo says:

      Got to say, the comments from those old rangers fans who actually acknowledge the reality of what has happened have my total respect, if my club (falkirk) had been liquidated i could never back a “phoenix” club such as has happened here.

      My club would be gone forever and that would be my interest in Scottish football as a fan.

      The blind “true blue” will never accept reality, no matter the evidence presented.

      My favourite line is i hate rangers because of their success !

      As a falkirk fan with 2 Scottish cup final losses in my lifetime and 4 Challenge cup wins from 4 appearances, and a few minor league wins, i must hate just about bloody every club everywhere using that logic…????

      For the record, when falkirk fc were put into provision liquidation some years ago, we escaped being liquidated in a way unusual to Scottish football, we (largely the fans and a very nice man) repaid every pound and penny to every single creditor.

      THAT is why i shall not take lectures from fans of scumbag clubs who build up debt, shit on people to clear said debt, clubs who use administration as a debt clearing tool.

      I would not be a Falkirk fan today if we had not saved our club by paying EVERY penny we owed.

      I currently refuse to finance Scottish football as it is corrupt to the core and always will be while Donkey boy is involved.

    236. Robert Peffers says:

      @Bill Hume says: 1 January, 2015 at 8:16 pm:

      ” ……….the fans are the club.”

      Well no, Bill, Not unless the fans hold a majority of the shares. The fans own nothing whatsoever, other than their loyalty to the team. The are in fact customers paying for entry to private property.

      Real clubs, (of all kinds), have a membership and most have membership fees. Most so called Football Clubs ceased to be real clubs when they became professional. The shareholders own all the assets. The players are contracted to the owners and the management are largely employed, or contracted to, the owners.

    237. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Ignoretheignorants.

      You typed,
      “Bigotry and hatred and envy will always remain in Scottish football as is clearly demonstrated time after time after time.”

      Only in certain areas of Scotland. “Bigotry and hatred” in “Scottish football” is NOT a Scotland-wide problem. Scotland is NOT Greater Glasgow and/or Greater Edinburgh.

      I’ll refer you to the post I did here at 10.55am on the 2nd January. Please read. The bigotry and hatred of which you type is not a Scotland-wide problem. You can work it out for yourself.

      http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-neerday-game/comment-page-1/#comment-1944930

    238. Am Balach says:

      I was brought up in a part of Glasgow where the expectation was to be a Rangers fan. My father made sure I supported Aberdeen, the city of his parents, primarily because he wanted his children to have nothing to do with sectarianism.

      Despite this I witnessed the odious bigotry that surrounds Rangers on many, many occasions.

      Comments above from some Rangers fans are astonishing. As supporters you would have witnessed raw sectarianism and bigotry on a regular basis. Yet you still support Rangers.  To me that is a complicit endorsement of this behaviour.

      Supporting Rangers is not like supporting  other Scottish teams. Yes, there are clowns and thugs in every support but your club has used an Irish political/religious schism to widen your fan base from outside Glasgow despite the damage it does to Scottish society.  A disgrace.

      The new Rangers had a chance to lose that divisive, nasty, corrosive baggage but instead has played up to the ‘tradition’. It now has a worse away support than the old club. What a missed opportunity.  How pathetic.

      I know that for many Rangers fans all you want to do is support the club of your childhood like any other supporter. I know many Rangers fans are YES voters and want nothing to so with the Unionist triumphalism.  But you are not a normal club. Step back and look at what you represent. How could any father take a child to support such a team? And you still don’t understand why you are universally disliked by almost all other Scottish football fans. You are desperate to claim a history which is sectarian, bigoted and utterly shameful. Why?  There is no excuse.

    239. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Everybody forgets the man who ran the club into the ground, utilised dubious huge tax avoidance schemes, ran up multi million pound debts and sold the basket case he had made Scotland’s premier club to somebody for a fiver then walked away scot-free.
      I were a Rangers fan I know who I’d be enraged with

    240. Stu – third time of asking re the Hibs question. Not like you to be stumped for an answer. The company which was in charge of Hibernian FC when the Scottish Cup was won was liquidated a few seasons later and the running of Hibernian FC was eventually taken over by s new company. Using the same logic you’ve applied, can you advise if the club known as Hibernian FC which won the Scottish Cup is the same club currently known as Hibernian FC?

    241. Rookiescot says:

      Stu.

      Does this article really belong here? Turning independence into some tribal arguement based on football will only play into the hands of the Unionists.
      I say this as a Rangers and independence supporter.
      We have bigger issues to deal with.

    242. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Do none of you understand that less than one in four of the people who could have voted actually voted yes?”

      Your calculator needs new batteries, grandad.

      Total registered electorate: 4.29 million.

      http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/11/referendum-registered-voters-scotland-four-million-97-per-cent

      One in four of that would be 1.07m people. The actual Yes vote was 1.6m. Get the nice nurse to explain to you which of those numbers is bigger.

    243. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Could someone please enlighten me on what Rangers have been found guilty of.. Yes. accused of paying players illegally..NOT Guilty.. accused of owing inland revenue £72.000.000 ..NOT GUILTY…. Completely confused on why Rangers went into ‘liquidation’. Yes they did owe £18,000,000 to inland revenue. which in comparision to other football clubs is a pittance.”

      And so the insane, delusional rewriting of history continues.

      Nimmo Smith found Rangers GUILTY on almost all the counts of playing unregistered players. He merely found, bizarrely, that they’d gained no competitive advantage by doing so. Even more bizarrely, he then decided that the offence was so serious as to merit the imposition of a large fine, but imposed it on the club in liquidation, and so in effect he punished the creditors for the crimes of the club. You don’t impose a fine if you’ve found the defendant not guilty, duh.

      The tax bill is still under appeal.

      Other clubs who owe the Inland Revenue eight-figure sums get the same treatment as Rangers did, particularly if – as in Rangers’ case – there was no prospect of the money ever being paid because the club was bankrupt and losing money hand over fist. Rangers even managed to lose millions WHILE IN ADMINISTRATION. The Revenue was never going to be paid, and in those circumstances you get liquidated, whoever you are.

    244. Gavin says:

      I have been reading this site for many months now and I have been impressed on how everyone who contributes to this site are friendly and are committed to the goal of independance for our nation. Most of all I have enjoyed Rev Stu’s excellent articles. However I fear that he may have scored an “own goal” with this one. The discussion of football in Scotland, especially involving the old firm, inevitably results in a slagging match which is at best boring, at worst just plain nasty, as some of the comments responding to this article demonstrate.

      I watch sport, including football (come on the Arabs), and while I have no time for Celtic or Rangers and what they represent I do have friends and workmates who support these teams. I know quite a few celtic fans who voted no, and a few rangers fans who voted yes.

      Please, let’s keep football of these pages. It can be divisive and can turn normally sane people against each other. Let’s focus on the only thing that matters. Independance for Scotland.

      Vote SNP in 2015

    245. Patrick says:

      Rev Stuart

      it is not my arithmetic but yours which is faulty.
      Potential eloctorate 4417858
      Yes voters 1617989
      % voting yes 36.62%
      Personally I blame the schools.

    246. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “it is not my arithmetic but yours which is faulty.”

      What you said: “less than one in four of the people who could have voted actually voted yes”

      36.62% isn’t “less than one in four”, you ludicrous fucking idiot. It’s more than one in three. One in four is 25%.

    247. Paula Rose says:

      This is an eye-opener to me. If I was a Rangers fan I’d be outraged at the way I’ve been treated – lied to, fooled and made out to be an idiot.

    248. Patrick says:

      My apologies.

      What I meant to say was that less than 40% of those who could have voted voted yes.The mass hysteria which engulfed the country must have affected me as well.

      Perhaps you would do the sums for Glasgow and Dundee? Maybe then reality will kick in.

      Incidentally your profane language is very similar to that used in the Bears Den. Are you a closet bluenose?

    249. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “What I meant to say was that less than 40% of those who could have voted voted yes.”

      And only about 44% of those who could have voted voted No. Less than a majority of the electorate backs the Union. What’s your point?

      Resorting to counting the apathetic is the last refuge of the twat, and I tend to treat twats with the sort of language they deserve, especially if they’ve introduced themselves with arrogant abuse based on being completely wrong.

    250. Paula Rose says:

      Rev dear, my fellow wingers will agree that you need a stroke, Bdtt canyou arrange a badge?

    251. Heiniken says:

      When a person you loathe dies, your hate dies with them.

      All i can say is, the hate doesn’t seem dead to me…

    252. jinky44 says:

      Always thot Doncaster was a buffoon now Im sure!!!

    253. Stu – 4th attempt now. The company which ran Hibernian Football Club when it won the Scottish Cup over a century ago was liquidated a few seasons later. A new company eventually took over the running of Hibernian Football Club. As I asked on the previous 3 occasions, using the same logic which you have applied, is the Hibernian Football Club which won the Scottish Cup the same as the club which is currently called Hibernian Football Club?

    254. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Paula Rose.

      A Jiffy bag of badges is being put together for Rev Stu and should be ‘winging’ its way to him in the next week.

      And yes, one of your limited edition soothers will be in there.

      8=)

    255. donald anderson says:

      Reply to Jim Finlayson

      New Labour. Auld Labour. New Firm Old Firm. Is the difference worth arguing about? Just get rid.

    256. Cheryl says:

      Really good article which I have seen shared far and wide, excellent.

      Also – well said Dave McEwan Hill. Its utterly boring that people feel the need to continually pull Celtic into this kind of thing. People who know no more about Celtic than I frankly do about Hamilton Accies, and have no interest in learning, but feel qualified to make sweeping judgements and an urge to have to put the name ‘Celtic’ next to anything negative about Rangers. Celtic had no sectarian signing policy, not a hidden one, and had and has no bigoted practices. Celtic’s big crime as far as supporters go was only ever to support Irish Republicanism and display an Irish identity. The one nationality sections of Scottish society can’t seem to bring itself to be ‘inclusive’ of. Further, the vast majority of Celtic fans I know were and are no ‘unionists’. The demographics are no different than from across the rest of the country – your older, Labour minded people were less likely to vote yes. Your younger supporters were as engaged as any other youngsters across the country and the online presence were massively, heavily yes. Your rich white men at board level were known to be no. Such as it was all throughout Scotland.

      I find the suggestion of some kind of Glasgow United insulting and any supporter of any team who has had people casually suggest things like that would find it so. Its regularly trotted out for Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee and I’ve defended against those suggestions as well many times, particularly for Dundee throughout their own financial troubles where a merger was seen as some sort of answer by some.

      Football wise, this just now is Rangers problem, brought on solely by Rangers and David Murray, and which the whole of Scottish football has long since been paying for, and that includes Celtic. They cheated, paid out money they didn’t have in dodgy practices, bought their success, and all to try and replicate the success of Celtic and probably Aberdeen in Europe. And largely, lets face it, failed. A vanity project which brought Scottish football to its knees financially. Football supporters of all the other clubs apart, there are very few people within the establishment of the game have any credibility after this palaver.

      I’d also like to say that the reason I ever found this site in the first place was due to Stu’s articles on the situation with Rangers and Scottish football and it’s good to see some more of it. One thing we learned during the referendum was the lengths to which the msm will go to maintain the established order and how important it is to challenge it. That absolutely applies in the situation with Scottish football.

    257. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “is the Hibernian Football Club which won the Scottish Cup the same as the club which is currently called Hibernian Football Club?”

      I haven’t a clue. Link me to the details.

    258. Bryce9A says:

      Stu,

      I tried to post a detailed response to this article but it was not published. Too long probably. I’ve uploaded it here… http://bryce9a.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/reply-to-wings-over-scotland.html So feel free to comment, there or here to the criticisms and points I’ve made.

      Cheers.

    259. BearBlueWhiteRed says:

      Any response to this demolition job…. http://bryce9a.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/reply-to-wings-over-scotland.html

    260. Patrick says:

      Looking for signatures so I can present this petition to the SPFL so we can get some answers as to why in the future it is perfectly okay to shred debt through liquidation and still be seen as the same club. And way was this offer not made to other clubs in Scotland if it’s perfectly legal! https://www.change.org/p/neil-doncaster-spfl-step-down-from-his-job

    261. Restlessnative says:

      “I support Rangers and joined the SNP in 1968,never voted anything else seems a lot of the “Johnny come latelies” have skewed ideas.”

      Spoken with all the breathtaking arrogance of a true bluenose.For a nationalist you seem to share many of the traits of your loyalist brethren down Govan way,the aforementioned arrogance,lack of any contrition for the poor businesses shafted when your team “emerged from administration” and an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

      My partner is one of your “Johnny come latelies”,voted labour most of her life, but at least when the filth rioted in George square she realised she could never again reconcile her support of Scotland’s shame with her desire for independence.Within minutes of renouncing Rangers and their fans her FB inbox was full of abuse calling her a “fenian bitch” and asking if she wanted any tri colours to hang with her saltires,so fuck off with your diatribe. Whilst the likes of you still go and stand with scum like that every week I will reserve the right to assume you are a hypocritical arsehole and will continue to hold you in contempt.

      Enjoy the rest of “the journey”,I hope its long and painful.

    262. Stoker says:

      @ Patrick (10.50pm).

      Not that i think you’ll get anywhere with it, but signed anyway.

      The ONLY way any real difference will ever be made to Scottish football is when fans of all other clubs start voting with their feet and boycott all the games. Their own clubs will soon ensure the game is run fairly and consistently.

      By going to the games and paying your money you are endorsing the game and the running of it by these clowns. The member clubs put these muppets in charge and then take the punters money.

      Boycotting games will soon see Sevco dealt with appropriately.
      Member clubs cannot live off tv money alone.

      btw, You only need to look at the latest twisting or ignoring of “the rules” with the convicted criminal and tax crook King apparently being allowed to buy into the tribute act, alongside at least one other convicted criminal already at the tribute act.
      Scottish Football Authorities – rotten to the core.

      Good luck in your quest Patrick.

    263. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Any response to this demolition job…”

      A big old yawn. The same old torturing of Lord Nimmo Smith’s words to mean things they were never intended to mean, the same old dodging of the two key questions.

      There are only three ways for a club to be ejected from the SPL (as was):

      1. Relegation on the field.

      2. Demotion as punishment.

      3. Ceasing to exist.

      You don’t get thrown out and have to reapply for membership just for going into administration or changing owners, or Hearts would have been in SFL3 too. Neither of the first two applied to Rangers. (If you’re claiming it’s #2, you need to provide the SFA/SPL document finding them guilty of an offence and demoting them as punishment, which you’ll find tricky because it never happened.)

      That only leaves one option. When you’ve got an answer to that one I’m all ears. Until then, cheerio now.

    264. Haggis Hunter says:

      Fekkin hate Rangers. Up wi the Mighty Mo(ntrose).
      Although we are crap, at least we are not Rangers.

    265. donald anderson says:

      Haggis Hunter says:
      5 January, 2015 at 9:15 pm
      “Fekkin hate Rangers. Up wi the Mighty Mo(ntrose).
      Although we are crap, at least we are not Rangers”.

      That’s pretty controversial and Old Firmist. Did you now that Partick Thistle is the only heterosexual tam in Glasgow?

    266. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Partick Thistle is the only heterosexual tam in Glasgow”

      Surely there’s Tam Cowan?

    267. Brian Hill says:

      I’ve just been puzzling over the post from the Rev. of 5 January 2015 at 7.15pm. Unfortunately, I’ve not been able at the moment to access the rules of the old SPL online, but I think it is enlightening (at least to consider what could now happen if similar circumstances arose again at present) to look at the rules of the current SPFL, particularly their Articles of Association which can be accessed online at http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__articlesofassociationofthescottishprofessionalfootballleaguelimitedasat1january2015_1420461960.pdf

      These Articles makes the clear distinction between a “Club” (i.e. the undertaking of an association football club) and a “Member” (i.e. the legal person, which could be a company, which owns each Club, and which will own one of the 42 shares in the SPFL).
      Article 36 makes provision for what could happen when there is an insolvency event affecting one of the Members. In that event the Board of the SPFL could require that the Member which suffered the insolvency should transfer its Share along with the Club to a transferee. When the transferee became the registered Member and owner of the Club, the Board of the SPFL could decide the conditions under and in what Division of the League the Club should play in.

      In the insolvency situation envisaged by Article 36, it’s not the Club which ceases to exist, but rather the Club gets transferred from the old insolvent owner to a new transferee who could be required to put the Club into a lower Division than it was in when its former owner became insolvent.

    268. donald anderson says:

      Reply to Rev. Stuart Campbell()whoever he is)
      “Partick Thistle is the only heterosexual tam in Glasgow”

      Surely there’s Tam Cowan?

      Apologies to all non OF Bam Tams in Glesca. It should have course have read ‘Team’. Tam Cowan is a Motherwell supporter and regularly takes the Mick out of the OF and occasionally alleged sheep molesters in red tops.

      If the OF is an example of Christianity in Glasgow then I’m a Druid frae Firhill.

    269. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “These Articles makes the clear distinction between a “Club” (i.e. the undertaking of an association football club) and a “Member” (i.e. the legal person, which could be a company, which owns each Club, and which will own one of the 42 shares in the SPFL).”

      It’s remarkably sloppy, then, of Mr Doncaster to then blur the lines so comprehensively by saying ““The member club is the entity that participates in our league”.

      If the member and the club are different things, which is it? The member or the club?

    270. Brian Hill says:

      In the language used by Mr Doncaster “member” is an adjective describing the noun “club”.

      In my earlier post I was using the language of the SPFL Articles, where the terms “Club” and “Member” are both defined. In that technical language, a Club is the undertaking of an association football club, perhaps the ‘trade name’, if you like. In that sense it is the entity which is listed as being in the league. The legal persons, invariably limited companies, which own those entities are the Members in the language of the Articles.

    271. JamesS says:

      I read an article on football.

      Amazing that the parallels of sport and politics are so close.

      The ‘mouthpieces’ today getting salary as ‘journalists’ are more concerned about thier hair than the story.

      I stopped watching football when it became obvious it was more theatre acting than actual sport. Still play it, but can’t watch it.

      Club do need to support themselves, but if they pay into a system that runs the game fixtures etc. then at some point managing it like a good business becomes relevant. Not as a business, but like a business.

      Honesty and integrity seem to be lacking in most areas of reporting today and the basic questions are being assumed. No one probes deeper than a soundbite and the in depth programmes have been shortened an put on in the middle of the night or the ‘digital options’.

      Imagine if you as a person tried to claim what that man did to the Tax office – I bet they would haul you over the coals and trawl through your records.

      Those who claim authority need to be pressed to keep it open and above board.

      Thanks Stu for doing the jobs that others avoid, despite having a badge to say they do.

    272. Walterdg says:

      Rev Stu said:

      “No. The “top judge” told you you were wrong, in the clearest possible terms, but you were too thick to understand it.”

      Complete ignorance from you on how legal precedent is formed. It’s not by interpreting comments from one set of circumstances and applying them to an unrelated set. The top legal opinion assessment of Rangers situation states it is the same club. Of course people like you do not get that Oldco isn’t even liquidated yet and Rangers by having SFA membership transferred have never had one second of discontinuity. Now go and persuade some Aberdonians and Edinburgers and just about every rural area in Scotland towards nationalism and leave things you don’t understand to reasonable people who can make intelligent non-hate filled assessments.



    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top