Wings Over Scotland

A Glebe Park Gallery: http://wingsland.podgamer.com/a-glebe-park-gallery/

The Very Sorry Song: the end of the Rangers saga: http://wingsland.podgamer.com/the-very-sorry-song/

Don't blink: why Sevco are trying to hold Scottish football to ransom, and why they can't win. http://t.co/ieRWzvo4

Had this morning's Scotsman been published at 7pm last night you could arguably have had at least a vague semblance of a point. As it wasn't, though, you just sound like a tit. But blimey, don't people get huffy when you actually try to establish the facts rather than just repeating whatever pish you've heard on Twitter?

That would be my interpretation, yes, consistent with various other rules eg: and with the fact that an arrangement has already been made to broadcast Sevco's 1st-round match vs Brechin in the Challenge Cup. (Views pending examination of the LCCR and the LCCCR, of course. Anyhoo, 26C and clear blue skies down here, I'm off for a stroll.)

1. That wasn't a "definition", it was an interpretation, and one I believe to be entirely mistaken. 2. We're talking about the rules of the SFL here, not the SFA. The SFA has indeed tried very hard to make Rangers a special case, but there is as yet no evidence for the SFL doing so.

Um, they'll be entitled to the same "financial fallback" as any other Associate Member, whatever that turns out to be. Whether it means they get a share of TV revenue or they don't (and you'll be pleased to know I've contacted the SFL to clear Rule 68 up, awaiting response), there's currently no evidence to suggest they'll be made a special case.

For the record, I don't give a bee's bawhair.

Hngh. See Rule 71.7.

What you're suggesting there, then, is that Associate Members aren't entitled to enter into commercial arrangements independent of the League at all. The result of which is exactly the same as I noted earlier. I gladly concede your technical point, and note that it makes no difference whatsoever to anything.

Good for you. The cold hard fact of the matter, though, is that they're NOT the same club in any legal sense, so you shouldn't say they are.

Equally pedantically, it doesn't. It merely states an accurate fact. Numerous other words could have replaced "refused", but wouldn't have changed the meaning. "Declined" still implies that there was an option to comply. And of course, even though the SFA wasn't entitled to release the registrations, it could still have done so anyway (especially given its somewhat flexible attitude to other rules). I don't really want to get bogged down in this just because some doughball (not you) didn't know the difference between implication and inference. The only person who can state authoritatively what I was or wasn't implying is me, because I'm the only one who knows. What's been inferred, on the other hand, is a matter of record.

No, you didn't. You made a mistake. You inferred something that was neither stated nor implied, then acted like a tool when your error was pointed out. I shall happily live without being obliged to engage further with you, though, so everyone's a winner.

No they're not. They were Airdrieonians, now they're Airdrie United. They're not the same company, they don't have the same name and you won't find a single officially-authorised record listing Airdrieonians' achievements under the entry for Airdrie United, because they're actually a renamed Clydebank.

I wasn't blaming them, merely stating the fact. They have refused to release the registrations BECAUSE they are powerless to do so, but refuse they have all the same.