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.

Will it be fun if we engage in a discussion about the difference between "imply" and "infer"? If so, let me know and we'll all have a jolly super time.

Gladly, the minute you stop talking pish in them.

I'm not implying any such thing. I'm saying that the SFA have refused to release registrations until ordered by the relevant arbitrator to do so. The dispute is ongoing, whereas PMS stated inaccurately that it was resolved.

Sorry, but that's bollocks, and you've even included the reason why it's bollocks in your quote: What does Rule 71 say? In other words, the League may negotiate with broadcasters for the benefit of its Members (significantly excluding the phrase "and Associate Members"), and any arrangements that a club may make on its own behalf must not conflict with that arrangement. In other words, the League may negotiate coverage on behalf of Members AND Associate Members (71.2) - that is to say, it can sell rights to Sevco matches - but may do so solely for the benefit of Members, ie it does NOT have to give any of the revenues from that coverage to Sevco FC. Sevco FC cannot sell the rights to matches if the SFL has already sold them to someone else. You may of course regard that as unfair, but it is explicitly provided for in the rules, and may legitimately be considered one of the restrictions and disadvantages of Associate Member status.

Och, don't be so silly. The Constitution doesn't refer to clubs as "Full Members" at any point anywhere in its 207 pages. What it does regularly do throughout its length is distinguish between "Members" and "Associate Members". Doing so right in the middle of a Rule is staggeringly obviously not an accident. You're also just factually wrong: Rule 68.4.2 refers to payments clubs based on league positions while talking about the Capped Limit, while Rule 68.4.3 separates them on the same basis in reference to the Excess, so the change in wording is nothing to do with that.

While it's obviously true that the authorities can, have and will ride roughshod over their own rules if they so choose, it doesn't alter the fact that the meaning and intent of Rule 68 as it stands is crystal clear - the Capped Limit is for distribution to all members, the Excess is for distribution to full members only.

Amazingly enough, you're jumping the gun yet again. It very much LOOKS to any impartial observer that TUPE will apply, but it hasn't yet. Charles Green has filed an objection to former Rangers players moving to other clubs, and the SFA has refused to release their registrations pending a hearing. Southampton have, we're told, actually paid a transfer fee in respect of one ot the players concerned to bypass the dispute. I have no idea why you're so astonishingly doggedly determined to treat things as done-and-dusted facts prematurely.

Not if read in context. Rule 68 is absolutely explicit in reference to "Members and Associate Members" the entire time it talks about distribution of the Capped Limit, then suddenly stops mentioning Associate Members at the exact point it starts talking about the Excess: It's really stretching credibility to believe that the timing of that change in wording is coincidental.

On further investigation, it does indeed appear that Sevco Scotland Limited will NOT be entitled, under current SFL rules, to a share of any TV revenue obtained through broadcasting its matches. http://wingsland.podgamer.com/leading-the-field/

Keep telling yourself that. But companies change their names every day and carry on, because they're the same company. Liquidation is the end.