The DA

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.

No problem, Tedi. As if we'd let The Rangers fans on this forum be so ill-informed!

We have mclovin9091 surprised that there haven't been more already and reminding us of his 2012 prediction that 3 or 4 would have gone this route by Christmas. We have The Educator saying that the turkeys voted for Christmas . At least one also seems to think that Dunfermline are subject to punishments meted out by the SPL!

I've only had a look at the first few posts but it seems some of them think (and I use the word loosely) Dunfermline's problems are down to The Lack of Rangers ©. How could a team in SFL1 possibly be impacted by TCFKAR now being in SFL3???

Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

And you call yourself a football fan? Only your club matters and the rest can go feck themselves? Once the others have all foundered, who will you play? Or will all the remaining Rangers fans just stand in a circle and have a victory cluster-jerk?

'To us'? Are you authorised to speak for others or are you just schizophrenic?

Aye, especially when you STILL couldn't win the feckin league!

I'd accept your overall premise but I'd dispute whether religion plays a part in most the OF fans' daily lives. Most haven't seen the inside of a church since they were old enough to tell their mum's to feck off on a Sunday morning.

I suspect the SFA can't actually stop the club/company being sold to anyone the current owner likes. What they can do is withdraw the club's license to play.

If I don't wear a condom, has the condom failed in its purpose? Or is my burd up the duff anyway?

If I lie on my tax return, Hector probably doesn't have the resources to track me down. I might get away with it for years, maybe forever. However, if Hector later finds out that I've been lying, I'm in trouble - not Hector. It doesn't mean the tax laws are flawed - it means I've lied and got away with it. For a while.

Yep, my mistake. I misreadified it.

Would Whyte have failed the FAPP test when he first bought Rangers? According to the SFA's Articles of Association, a person is not a FAPP if they fail to meet one of the following: bankrupt - not then, he wasn't. unsound mind - avoiding the obvious jokes, probably not. under suspension - not then. member of another club - nope. player of another club - nope. has an endorsed Disclosure - nope. disqualified as a director within the last 5 years - nope (mebees back in 2000). convicted/corruption.fraud - not aware of any suspended by any other Association - nope director of any insolvent club So, why would the SFA have found him not to be a FAPP?