The DA

Don't know about your mental capacity but I'm capable of being concerned about my team's plight while still taking heart from the fact that, no matter how bad things get, I didn't choose to support Rangers. Try walking and chewing gum at the same time - good practice for joining the grown-ups.

Arse... door... avoid.

And it's that very ethereality, that difficulty in pinning down exactly what a 'club' is, that makes me think there is an element of continuity between old and new entities. Not seamless and not perfect but it;s the same fans, the same stadium, the same boorish stench. I just wonder if they've put enough layers of holding company in place to protect them when it all goes pear-shaped again. Joey Barton, indeed.

This doesn't say that the BBC agree with you, just that they can't be bothered differentiating between old and new clubs in every news item. They're saying that, for all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter to them.

Check again, Dave. It shows both Hibs teams.

It's probably been asked before but does anyone know why the UEFA site doesn't list Rangers' mens team? This page http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/index.html on the R tab shows Rangers women's team but not the men's team. I wondered if it only showed top-league teams but the H tab shows Hibs.

You'd never claim '54 and counting', then?

Please take this 'humour' elsewhere. That's gays and victims of child abuse you've joked about in the same evening.

I prefer to think of them as being, like football clubs, ethereal entities. Or perhaps as people with an interruption to their membership of the human race.

I don't want to lower the tone but do zombies have beating hearts?

nacho, you've just gone up in my estimation. A Rangers fan who is actually prepared to look at evidence. Good lad.

You forgot 'immoral'.

I don't believe individual matches are rigged or that referees as a group are biased. But does anyone really believe that, having gone into liquidation, any team other than Rangers or Celtic would have been afforded the same treatment as Rangers were given?

You're coming across as very much of the school of 'who isn't for us, is against us'. I don't think you really believe this but you play to that gallery. I thought until now you were a reasonable man but I suspect now that you're a dyed-in-the-wool deflector, incapable of engaging in reasonable discussion. Anything that calls Rangers into question is swept under the carpet with sarcasm and an element of playing to the gallery. If that's the case, I'll afford you less credence than I have in the past.

You seething mass of putrid shit.

Please take your reeking sectarianism and feck right off. It's never a choice of 'Rangers or Celtic'.

Who mentioned Resolution 12? I have absolutely no interest in Resolution 12 - as I understand it, this is in connection with Rangers'license to play in Europe in season 2011/2. Zero interest, nada, nil, zip. I am interested in the SFA's apparent partiality to Rangers which seems to have manifested in collusion to withhold, or prevent discussion of, the full facts in the LNS enquiry. We all know that if United had been found to be using EBTs and side-letters in 83, we'd not have held on to our one title.

Whose problem, Kinky? Not mine. I'll continue to query the LNS enquiry and especially the SFA's role in it. It would appear that it didn't have all the facts at its disposal at the time, possibly because Ogilvie didn't volunteer said info and possibly because he wasn't asked properly.

Oh oh, the Billy Big Baws are back in town.

Why do you need to bring Celtic into this? The TOG report admits that Ogilvie might not have known the ramifications of EBTs - although they're sceptical because he knew that DOS EBTs had been declared improper/illegal by HMRC and, as such, were in a different category from the debated vanilla EBTs. He did however say 'Nothing to do with the contributions being made to the Trust fell within the scope of my remit at Rangers' which his signature on that letter would tend to discredit. Ignoring all of that, if you read the report, you'll see that they're not questioning Ogilvie's role, but are saying it was the SFA who were remiss in their duties.

Ogilvie's signature at the bottom of a document relating to Craig Moore's DOS EBT would suggest that TOG do have proof that Ogilvie was aware of the illegality of DOS schemes and, in his capacity as a representative of the SPL, 'decided' not to let the inquiry know. If that evidence is dodgy, I'm sure Ogilvie will sue. However, your summary is incorrect. They're not recommending the reopening of the LNS enquiry. They're saying that an inquiry is needed into the SFA's role and partiality in this case with a view to preventing future recurrences.

Just read it, ya slacker. It'll take less time than arguing back and forth.

FB to the rescue.

Now, there's a novel concept - facts that you can choose to agree with or not! Facts are chiels that winna ding, Bennett. The report appears to provide documentary evidence for all of its claims. I'm assuming that, if any of that documentary evidence is false, writs will soon be flying. I'm not holding my breath. I'm not interested in whether you accept the facts but whether you accept the report's recommendations. To save you the trouble of reading the whole thing (shall we just accept the facts as givens?), here's the gist.

No surprise in Bennett getting his news pre-vetted. Quintessential Rangers fan. Rather than sprinkling your wit round the forum, why not take 20 minutes out to read the report and let us know what YOU think?