Yoss

Oh yeah. I ought to have remembered that.

Seven wins in a row now, right? When did we last do that?

4-0 would have flattered us rather, but otherwise I mostly agree. Ultimately a deserved win even if the result was still in doubt for much of the second half. I've just posted up a match report of sorts here - http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=19991 Thanks to Fife's Finest for making me very welcome on the bus on the way up. (I wasn't to say anything about The Birdie Song, right?)

Wasn't assuming anything, your previous answer was slightly unclear (to me) and I was trying to clarify it (hence the question). Comes back to the same thing then, seems to me that you support Airdrie because you are, and always were, an Airdrie fan. Sure, there's an acknowledgement of the legal discontinuity, and I don't know anyone who's trying to pretend that didn't happen or that it doesn't matter, but likewise the support for the 'club' as a wider entity has been continuous. I'm not trying to be prescriptive here and I'm genuinely interested in your different perception of it.

Ah right, so you weren't on the scene during their time as Airdrieonians? Maybe that makes a difference. (I have spoken to a good number, I am along there from time to time.)

Okay then, I stand corrected, apparently there is at least one Airdrie fan who doesn't think of it as being a direct continuation of the club in its previous guise. That's a bit odd, but fair enough. (What made you choose to support Airdrie United, then?)

You're free to disagree, of course. But I was answering the specific point that AFC Wimbledon fans did not even lay claim to the history of the old club. That's demonstrably bollocks.

Yeah, point taken. Nothing I've said should be taken as affecting my statutory rights to take the piss out of anyone in any way it pleases me.

MK Dons (like Livingston) are a new club using the legal registration of a previously existing club. Wimbledon are the original club, now under a new registration. I think I'm done with this bit of the thread now, I'll keep checking back to see whether there's any actual news.

No, sure, I see that. And I entirely understand why it's right and proper that the rules are applied to the legal entity. No problem there. Nonetheless, if a fresh entity exists that calls itself Rangers, and is still considered to be Rangers by everyone who made up that looser definition of the 'club' as it existed before then, as far as I'm concerned, it'll still be Rangers.

Not in the legal sense, no. I don't think there was ever any dispute on that bit. (Edited to add: not if you're drawing no distinction between 'club' and 'company' anyway, which evidently you aren't.)

Really? The Wimbledon fans I know all consider themselves to support the club that dates back to the nineteenth century. (Here's the honours list from the AFCW website - http://www.afcwimble...tion_id=7 )

My club is defined, for me, by the people who support it and the people who make it what it is, and have done so over the past hundred and more years. That's what matters to me about the club, not its registration at Companies House. By the same token, it doesn't matter to me that it's not the same company, all the people I know who supported Airdrie before support them now, everything about them that made them work as a viable football club as just as it was before, just under a different legal entity. Well, it might matter to you, yeah. That's sort of self-fulfilling.

Wimbledon won the FA Cup, yes. They were then called Wimbledon FC and are now called AFC Wimbledon. Same club, in every meaningful respect - history, tradition, continuity of support, whatever else. Only the legal entity has changed. Likewise Gretna are still Gretna; Airdrie are still Airdrie (much as they shouldn't have been allowed to buy out someone else's league place). And Clydebank have not always played junior football, they used to be a league club. But still, same applies. Same club. Leeds United are still Leeds United too, despite having their assets transferred to a newco just the other year. I've hardly heard anybody who seriously thinks otherwise.

Wardlaw would probably have been off in a normal game, yeah. I was a bit surprised the ref didn't ask for him to be subbed right away. Incidentally, did Scott McBride ever play a first team game for the Pars? If so he's joining Steve Crawford et al as a player to have played for all four Fife clubs.

Nah, Thomson got nowhere near it.

I wouldn't be concerned about the result last night, just about the fact that you seem to be a fair way off having a team ready to start the season. Understandable in the circumstances, of course, but no less a problem for that.

f**k me but there's been some solid gold on this thread.

Fine, as long as you're confident.

f**k me, I know that was only a team of triallists and stuff, but yous've got your work cut out between now and the start of the season. And some c**t might've told me you wouldn't be doing steak bridies any more.

Well I'm going to pop across the cemetery for it, I think. I've nothing in the fridge and a bridie sounds good.

Did I really just hear Doncaster saying that SPL2 was a red herring?

Wimbledon lost 7-0.

I don't really mind that statement. It was a difficult decision for many, they've explained their reasoning in detail, I disagree with it - particularly in one part*, and that's an end of it, for me. No recriminations. Don't know how I'd feel if it were my club, mind. (* For the record, the bit I disagree with most strongly is More importantly, the message from the governing bodies was that, even with a "no" vote, they would continue to pursue the newco Rangers playing in one of the top two tiers next season. There has been a lot of talk about how this is not possible under the current rules, but as the saying goes "where there’s a will there’s a way". The real risk, therefore, was that we would end up with Rangers newco not in Division 3 anyway but with none of the benefits of league reconstruction or additional revenue for the SFL : the vote, in effect becoming "Newco in Division 1 with benefits" v "Newco in top two tiers with no benefits". We felt that if there was any chance of getting league reconstruction, and the other overall benefits to the game, that we had to vote "yes". That not only isn't possible "under current rules", it isn't possible if the SFL clubs stand together - the only hope the SFA had of succeeding with it was to create splits within the SFL, of just the kind we would have had if more clubs had followed them into a Yes vote.)

Having seen Tuesday's game and then having seen today's, I'm not so much worried for us as worried for Ross County. Shame about the result, and the whole being-outclassed thing, but a nice afternoon for Laurie. I'm a bit towards the Mr Spock end of the emotional spectrum, myself, but it was all heart-warming to have the Ellis / McGlynn / Hutton love-in through the presentations.