coprolite

These are the ones to watch out for they're a bit more gelatinous looking and have white gills underneath. Usually in more woody areas and less in open grass like the nice ones. If in doubt, it's not worth it.

Unsurprising, as they never fought them. It's not even clear whether there were Scots in "Scotland" during the Roman expansion. They did eventually defeat the caledonians at mons grapius, but never subdued north of the forth. Assuming you mean child benefit, no, but it's withdrawn if one co-habiting parent earns over £60k pa. I wouldn't put it past these two to have her registered as a single parent at chequers and any income she gets being siphoned into an offshore company just to claim it.

If there's anything good to come out of Ranger's unprofessional public mudslinging approach to disputes, it is that some more light is shed on exactly how shite the spfl admin truly is. (FAO Rangers- making another organisation look as shite as yours is not "a win".)

Interesting. This bit: Given the possibility of Rule I7 being relied upon by members, did the SPFL Executive/legal advisors include a clause in the contract with cinch, which allows the SPFL not to provide rights to cinch where members rely upon Rule I7? If not, why not? Could be fired right back at them. "Given Rangers knew they'd have obligations to display a league sponsor's logo, why did they enter into a contract that could restrict their ability to do so. Did they include a clause that would allow them to do so? If not, why not?" Taking Rangers mewlings at face value, it does appear shitey conduct from the SPFL to not respond on their concerns. Looks like some turd sandwich v giant douche public feuding incoming. Looking forward to it.

Disgusting. I bet you cut fish with a normal knife and eat soup off a dessert spoon.

The perils of two "tam courts" thread titles

I wouldn't say the glottal stop is especially Scottish. I'd associate it more with estuary english and think it's infected younger Scots. Speak properly, stop slouching and get your elbows off the table.

Hi Tam, sorry, Thomas. I see you're a Rangers fan but have only ever posted about the Arabs and Kelty Hearts. Not very scalable.

I'm baffled and can't tell whether it's because you're a genius or an idiot

Oh, i see what you mean. I thought you meant winning the league. Did Rangers not spectacularly fail the last time they took on the spfl over the season ending?

I agree that there would need to be another commercial contract being breached to invoke that rule. It wouldn't necessarily need to be an exclusive sponsorship deal though. There could be a negative undertaking in a loan agreement or even in a directorship agreement.

Less money to chuck at players?

Very but slightly less inept than Rangers. It's like three stooges v the keystone cops. I expect nothing less than a dossier on this.

Watched Superbad for the first time last week. Fairly standard teen movie in the end, but lots of stuff was really well written and acted. I genuinely thought that it was going to go somewhere a bit interesting and mental during the second act but it went back on piste.

Dishes like spaghetti bolognese (probably) or chicken madras are British food though. We just pretend otherwise in this country so we can delude ourselves that we are cosmopolitan sophisticates that eat foreign food.

Absolutely. No sponsor will be paying more here.

Yep. There's plenty of provisions in there that stop clubs granting exclusivity over broadcast rights through various media. Nothing specific to prevent clubs giving exclusivity over sponsorship. Except that the strip rules state that the club must display the league sponsor. So (if this is what the dispute is about) Rangers would be perfectly correct that I7 means that they don't have to make facilities available to deliver a commercial contract. They do have to display the logo on their kit though. If there is a conflict between different parts of the rules, it would be because of how Rangers have arranged their contracts and not an inherent contradiction in the rules. [speculation] Looks like Rangers might have got themselves in a position where they have to breach a contract and have chosen to break the one that affects everyone else not the one they could have dealt with internally and quietly. Which seems unlike them.

System: https://wordwall.net/resource/185439/math/random-number-wheel-1-12

Yes, that was the point. Cinch isn't sponsoring those and bitci is, so of course bitci would pay more.

@HibeeJibee's figure of 215k is league games only, so £5.6k a game. Last year rangers played 56 competitive games and a handful of friendlies, call it 60 in total. That works out at £8.3k a game. @Mr Positive, sometimes.mentioned that the longer commitment to the deal justified a 20% cut from previous years. Adjust Bitci deal for that, it's £6.7k a game. Other possible adjusting factors: Bitci have obtained exclusive access to a lengthy sucker list to lap up rangers gift vouchers which they are badging as that new fangled crypto tokens. Adjust bitci down. Rangers deal covers potential CL group ties with international household names. Cinch deal covers at least three games against each of Dingwall Village and Almondvale Retail Park. Adjust bitci down. And in fairness, i was going to suggest adjusting cinch down for being on backgrounds, but i see bitci behond Gerrard at a presser, so won't. I'm not saying that the Cinch deal is a great deal. The evidence presented doesn't show it is a bad deal. There's also no reason to think that online speculation from rapeepul is the actual basis of the dispute.

Batman begins is in actual fact the best out of all of the Batmans, so you’re very wrong I’m afraid. I did like Michael Keaton though.

£40k a season to get advertised by Rangers/Celtic is a bargain. £40k a season probably isn’t too far off the going rate for most premier or big championship clubs. For the likes of Annan or Kelty it’s probably by far the most lucrative bit of sponsorship they have. For comparison purposes it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to average it out over all the clubs. Unless Rangers have suddenly become converted to a more equitable income distribution. That’s clearly not an official source, but it’s not at all clear that £1k a game is “underselling” the package.

I can see that now you mention it, but it’s Cain from Robocop 2 freaking out.