Apache Don

Aye right enough, this baby-sitting is boring pish without a doubt.

Actually he didn't do too badly for 'random'. There should have been a comma after ''blue is correct'' though.

What I said but much more direct.

It's a thread about the demise of Rangers FC and subsequent birth of a new, equally corrupt organisation bearing it's name, wearing it's colours, playing in it's stadium and followed by the same mad sub-species. Sometimes it's good entertainment. I would be reticent to call it 'a Rangers thread'. I'd suggest it was a thread about the biggest scandal ever to hit Scottish football. Ah! hold on.... hmmm

Well worth it. In it comes..... out it goes....

He's spending a lot of time on a thread he thinks is shite.......... Ah.... now I get it

Now I'm confused MT, have you suggested that The Rangers are a new club? and I missed it.

I'm probably playing at it, I'll check with my agent.

Says the guy who just called someone else an internet hardman. Age 19

Excuse me but why are you on a thread you just described, on another thread as ''shite''?

I was involved in last night's discussion and have had a look back just to see how outrageously abusive I was and guess what? There was no tag team abuse and as I said earlier, Tedi is well capable and has often indulged in the very behaviour you have accused others of subjecting him to. When I first joined P&B, I was amazed at some of the vitriolic nightly exchanges on The BRALT and believe me, Tedi was neither a bystander nor a victim. I would say since he has returned to the thread, his portrayed persona seems deliberately measured. He's playing a game that allows him the role of righteous victim in the face of - in particular - HB's more ''all guns blazing'' approach but a game he is surely playing, which it appears, certainly has someone fooled.

Jacket is on. Take over, be my guest.

Exactly, it is a direct quote of one of their rules which sets out a list of criteria that all clubs must meet, in order to gain UEFA licence. It is not an opinion. As the rule was quoted in answer to a question as to whether The Rangers would be eligible for said licence, it has to be concluded that the club failed to meet part or all of the required criteria. Tedi has decided that it is the part that mentions 'change of legal form', this is incorrect. Clubs change legal form often but it does not prevent them participating in UEFA comp. The 3x year rule is the correct answer and it has fk all to do with being late with the accounts. Now pub.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No fukin words.

How the Fk am I ignoring it. I mentioned it and explained - quite painstakingly btw - why it has no relevance. No it's not and no it was not. It forms a part of the rule 'Article 12' that UEFA quoted as by explanation for why The Rangers are ineligible to participate in UEFA comp. The answer to the question was NO, Article 12 was presented as the reason for the answer and is a list of qualifying criteria, to which The Rangers failed to meet on one count. NOT HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF A MEMBER ASSOCIATION FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 3 CONSECUTIVE YEARS. I HAVE IGNORED fk ALL Someone call him something nasty. I'm too nice and far too sober.

Here we go. Enjoy. I'm off.

Awe please! Where am I talking about multiple clubs? The UEFA rule that is Article 12 refers to the criteria that any club requires to meet in order to participate in UEFA competition. Your club fails to meet at least one condition, end of. The fact that the Article mentions that the creation of a newco constitutes a change to the club's (any club, not specifically The Rangers) legal form is an irrelevance. That particular condition is there to catch out those clubs who might seek to go down the route that American guy was intending to take your club. Setting up a newco specifically to expunge debt. Your club went into liquidation (involuntary) and it's assets were bought over by another company - set up for football purposes - which then changed it's name to something very close to that of the old club. This club has not met the 3 year rule yet. I'm sorry but I have tried to steer you from embarrassing yourself, alas to no avail. You're obviously going to take a right gubbing tonight once the less tolerant guys get in and have a read back. I did my best. Pub!

My position on any of this has not altered in any notable way, as far as I'm aware. I honestly can't see what you mean. Article 12 was used as the explanatory accompaniment to UEFA's answer of, NO THEY WILL NOT to the question of ''Will The Rangers FC be eligible to play in UEFA competition, should it so qualify through sporting merit within it's home association's competitions.'' Article 12 lists the criteria required and The Rangers failed to meet the one that relates to having been a member of a member association for at least 3 consecutive years. All the criteria has to be met but failing to meet one has the same result as failing to meet all. Ineligibility. Whether The Rangers had or did not have a change to it's legal form, is irrelevant. ETA:- Anyway I'm done with this one. You don't get it, you don't get it. No sweat. It won't stop me shouting ''You're not Rangers anymore'' at you, should your club ever get to play at Pittodrie.

No greenies left. I've been very generous today. Sort it later.

Like I said, wholly understandable.

I'm well aware that the club has been and is referred to as The Rangers and also often The Glasgow Rangers - as your own song-book will confirm - It was a switch for legal purposes, as there already was and actually still is, a club officially called Rangers. Once the liquidation of RFC is complete the BOD may well change the official name to Rangers, just to complete the whole switcheroo. It's an irrelevance what it is called, the fact that there has had to be any name changing, is only confirmation of it's new club status. I have applied on at least two occasions that I can recall, to Companies House to be able to use particular names for new companies and been denied due to the name already been in use. Your point is no point at all really.

As I've already stated, UEFA quoted the full rule in their response to STV expecting that they would have the mental capacity to see the part that is relevant to the particular situation of The Rangers and best answered the question posed. Rangers did not merely change legal form, it went into liquidation and a new (entirely unrelated) legal form called Sevco Scotland Ltd bought over it's assets and then changed name from Sevco to The Rangers, so it may trade on the reputation of the former (still in process of liquidation) club. The new club is not eligible for UEFA licence, due to the fact it has not held membership of a UEFA member association (SFA) for a period of at least 3x consecutive years. You know, I believe I show far more patience than some and generally don't like abusive style arguments but I find it wholly understandable that you attract such.

A true pillock of society

I think I'll get a framed copy.

Because Sevco Scotland changed it's name to The Rangers - not Sevco Rangers - before winning any trophies. It could all have been different though.