The DA

That's a total non sequitor of a challenge, 8. You said you wanted a punishment fitting of the crime and not an illegal transfer ban. I was only pointing out that it wasn't illegal as a condition of entry. Whether the authorities decide to impose this punishment on future applicants would establish the fairness of it. I agree it seems slightly vindictive of them but I also understand the need to punish a club/company that had behaved as Rangers had.

I wasn't commenting on the fairness of it. I was only pointing out that it wasn't 'illegal'. But 'fairness' and The Rangers......

That full stop shows great attention to the rules of grammar. Well done. Maybe a space too many after the smiley but a good try.

The transfer ban was only 'illegal' when it was being imposed as a punishment. When it was imposed as a condition of entry to a new club, it was perfectly legal.

Nobody like us, we don't care. Except you do. No football team, or its supportters, is an island. Or something.

A Tale of Two Shitties, surely?

It's 'losing millions'. If they're 'loosing millions', I'm at the head of the queue. Beam me up, Scotty. (Edit] StonedSailor beat me to it.

Oh, the irony of a Ringers fan referring to other fans as 'low-brows'.

Definitely a flyboy. EDIT: Damn. You edited out my 'joke'.

If Rangers win the SPL or the Scottish Cup by the end of 2020, I'll issue a grovelling, personalised apology to each and every Ted on P&B that requests one. On a scale of probability, I'd say that Hibs winning the Scottish Cup or Not-Celtic winning the league are considerably more likely, largely because most Not-Celtic teams aren't absolute financial and sporting train wrecks in the way that Rangers currently are. They COULD, but if they did, they'd have to have cheated, wouldn't they, and we all know they're above that kind of behaviour.

Damning with faint praise, methinks.

Even 'journeymen SPL level players' are marquee signings for an SFL2 team. Totally unnecessary if you had a manger/coach with the slightest idea of how to manage.

Which you would have been quite happy about if it had worked out.

And we've all seen what an excess of ambition did for your old club.

I thought I recognised you. Could I have my hare back?

I like the idea of WRK in 'his library'. Bound copies of The Beano and The Dandy with the odd, plain-bound copy of the 1963 Playboy that his Daddy pretends not to know about.

There you go again, you obnoxious chunt. If you're not Rangers, you're a diidy and therefore a lesser breed. Dick.

I'm still shocked (well, bemused) that Haudit'n'Daudit were allowed to sell so quickly and at such a discount to Green. Absolutely no benefit to the creditors (who got the grand sum of feck all). And now we appear to have Green saying TCFKAR are worth half-a-billion!

Best wishes, Benny. Football's only football.

Aye, but he called me iggerant, furst.

It's 'your'. Please help address my ignorance by answering the question.

An ADMINISTRATION ERROR? Sounds so honest and cuddly and 'little', doesn't it? What the enquiry actually found Rangers guilty of was 'deliberate non-disclosure' over 11 years. An ADMINISTRATION EROR is when you forget to submit the papers or don't realise you have to. When you deliberately withold the papers, knowing that you shouldn't, it's no longer an ADMINISTRATION ERROR.

I thought the club was found guilty of not declaring the EBTs but, since it had not gained a material advantage on the field, no punishment was deemed necessary? Since the club was found guilty, they should pay the costs. Or is this another case of the company not declaring the EBTs? I get so mixed up

I didn't think TRFC were concerned about the SFA fines (Like they were going to pay!) but about the expulsion from the SPL.

But the SPL and the SFL are different bodies and don't need to be consistent.