The DA

Not sure. Does Vindicated want to be felt?

Is the actual letter from UEFA available to read online? I had a quick check on the CQN site but it only shows their summary, not the original document.

Are you absolutely sure you want to stand behind that comment?

If you're so easily persuaded, I have this bridge you might be nterested in...

And he's backing himself into a corner should the same thing happen to the latest incarnation.

The SFA article I think you're referencing (at http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10204) just smacks of so much sophistry. According to their own rules, only a club can hold membership of the SFA but in this article we have the SFA trying to say that Sevco Scotland (a company) acquired RFC plc's SFA membership and at the same time are 'requesting the transfer' of that same membership between companies. Did they acquire it or didn't they? If they'd already acquired it, why did it need to be transferred? And, during this transfer, were RFC plc treated as a club (only a club can hold membership) or as a company? Talk about five-way smoke-screens?

I I like the sound of a 'vandetta'.

Is he calling himself The Jack Nicklaus?

If I were to buy one of Jack Nicklaus's clubs - let's say the putter he used in final round of the 86 Masters - and he was good enough to throw in its history, would you laugh your head off if I was daft enough to claim that history as my own?

I thought you Rangers fans stuck together? What's nacho done that most of you haven't done hunners of times before?

If a football club is an asset that can be bought and sold like any other asset, can you show me where Rangers (TRFC plc) listed it on any of their post-2000 accounts?

As if he cares about paying legal fees. From King/Rangers' point of view, it's money they had to pay out earlier that they're now getting back - there's no profit in there... Oh, wait. It's King we're discussing here.

The whole statement has that air of not wanting to piss off the Rangers fans while still tipping the wink to the rest of us.

Why don't you elucidate?

I read it properly the first time. The quote said Rangers entered the fourth tier. 'Entered' has a sense of a beginning about it. 'Re-entered' doesn't.

Ran that through Google translator but I'm still none the wiser.

No it wouldn't, you illiterate tumshie. You're right to say that 're-entered the fourth tier' would suggest they'd been at that level before but 're-entered at the fourth tier' would have suggested re-entering a league structure they had graced before.

Entered? Has the sense of a beginning about it. 'Re-entered at' would have confirmed continuity.

Sports Direct wing.

Feckin' hell. Erudition on a P&B thread. Respek. (But you've misspelled 'assessment'.)

But can't spell 'discuss'.

Rangers Retail, not Rangers.

The rest of the 'Rangers in the...'sub-forum could have gone into the C/R forum for want of anywhere better but it would have made sense to move this one thread into the main body of the kirk. I don't feel its going to get the attention it deserves now that it's in this festering pit.

And do you think LNS dealt with it satisfactorily? Was his 'too long ago, can't do anything about it now' approach fair? Do you think Rangers got off lightly?

In your heart of hearts, do you not have a wee moral twinge about this? Your club/company suspected that their use of side letters might be contentious so, to prevent the tax man getting wind of things, you elected not to tell the football authorities either, deliberately breaking their rules. According to the LNS commission, they couldn't backdate ineligibility, so they let results stand with a wee slap on the wrist fine that was never going to be paid. If the side-letters had come to light at the time, any impacted player would have been ineligible and all results voided. LNS may have decided there's a statute of limitations for imposing punishments but that doesn't mean the offence didn't take place.