Liam.

Yes. It should be to our eternal shame that Hearts, a club just out of Admin, were able to bring it in while we do everything we can to get away with paying our staff poverty wages.

They don't. They pay part-time staff less than the living wage and also withdrew a bonus from the full time staff upon the introduction of this higher rate. They charge £6.50 for a hot dog and Coca Cola. Our club is run by the absolute worst kind of capitalists, I don't know why you're being an apologist for them.

Recently realised I have touched a thing That has touched a thing That has touched a thing That has touched a thing That's been inside Taylor Swift edit: And have now realised that as this is to do with Calvin Harris, this could form the basis of a game of degrees of seperation from Taytay's snatch.

A guy on Reddit asked for someone to Photoshop the St Georges flag onto Mel Gibson. He wasn't too impressed with my first two attempts so I really hope he likes the third.

Pffft, fucking casuals.

Got a Favourite off the man, the legend, Scotland and Canada's favourite son...

I would like to share the fact that poor Alex here looks like a cross between Sloth and Rab Douglas.

Subscribed to Now TV to watch Game of Thrones and found out they're disappearing off the service after tonight.

I am now a member of the Mile High Club on COD4

At some point in their life, 1 in 5 children will be kidnapped by the Dutch. The song Hey Mickey was in fact written about Mickey Rourke. Mobile phone usage will not give you cancer. Only hepatitis. Schrodinger created his famous paradox as a justification for killing cats. 89% of magic tricks are not magic. Technically, they are sorcery. I didn't steal most of these.

That's probably the most incorrect thing posted tonight.

You haven't offended me Tedi. You've frustrated me by your inability to discuss this like an adult but offended? Nah, I've been called a lot worse on the internet and as you said earlier, I am a nobody. What, did you think the fact I'm completely unqualified in law is news to me? Thankfully the rulings/laws I've discussed are devoid of any legalese and you don't have to be learned to speculate in this thread. A title is simply a title, it indicates a person has achieved a certain position or qualification. It does not mean a person is acting in a professional capacity. His opinion will carry more weight than mine, on that we are agreed. LNS and I have the same opinion on this though, that under the SFAs definition of club they are separate. My argument going back to my first post on Sunday is that the SFAs definition of club is at odds with the legal definition. You keep trying to claim I'm arguing with LNS as a means of deflections so I'll make this incredibly clear: I am not saying LNS is wrong, I am saying you are wrong to claim he was acting in a his capacity as a law lord. It's worth pointing out (again, as you ignored the first time), that LNS's most recent involvement prior to issuing the statement we're discussing was... oh that's right, when he chaired the panel which handed out the transfer ban that was subsequently overturned in court. Was he acting as a law lord when he handed that punishment out? Here's the evidence that once a club incorporates a company they become one legal entity. Straight from Sport Scotland. He didn't clearly define them as separate considering he then went onto use his short hand for the club to describe the company. I have no idea, this is the first I'm hearing of that. The fact they decided against certainly isn't evidence that Sevco is the same club, it's possible they decided against for any number of reasons. Maybe they need to have been disadvantaged to instigate a challenge? I'll need more details before I can even attempt to formulate an opinion. Nope. The SFA do not get to define club when there is already a legal definition. That would be like suggesting the FSA overrule the government on banking legislation. "Tedi, on 04 Jun 2013 - 20:22, said: Nice demonstration of not being obsessed by the way, you have been arguing this point for 3 days straight alongside numerous attempts over the past Year, you really are convincing." Thanks. (Just in case you're being sarcastic, I've spent the last 3 days confined to my bed room for all bar two trips to the doctors/pharmacists. I've spent most of the last 3 days playing Champ Man 01/02. 8 posts or so over 3 days is hardly obsessive and you call people obsessed so often it's lost all meaning anyway. Back to work tomorrow though so it'll probably be back to my usual average of about 1 post per week.)

Come on Tedi, don't pretend it wasn't meant as an insult. No one believes that. And stop trying to paint me as outrageously offended because it's simply not true. I haven't reported you or asked for an apology or retraction. You and everyone on this site, bar the one or two I know offline, are nobodies to me. I don't point that out because it's deliberately confrontational and it distracts from the discussion. Think how much time we've spent discussing this rather than the point at hand. All I want is to be able to discuss this without an entirely unnecessary confrontational tone because I'm more than happy to be brought round to your way of thinking, it's not my fault you don't haven't got the answers to my questions. How bout this, neither of us offer opinions on each other. We simply stick to the substance of each others posts. Seems reasonable to me. Like I said earlier, LNS was brought into judge Rangers/Sevco under scottish footballing authorities rules. Not under the law of the land. He may be a law lord but he was not acting in his capacity as one when he released the statement about club and company being able to operate independently. Remember the original panel that handed out the illegal transfer ban? LNS chaired it, evidence he doesn't always give due consideration to the law of the land when handing out judgements for private bodies. I don't know what you expect regarding Lord Glennies comments. You claimed he said they were two separate legal entities when he did not. He said there was RFC the club and RFC the company, he did not say that legally they were or could be independent of each other. In fact rereading it there this jumped out: From that it would seem that he uses Rangers to refer to the club and the company. Craig Whyte was not a director of Rangers the club, he was a director of Rangers the company. So if he's referring to the club (and only the club) as Rangers he was not their director but the director of their holding company. Also, if club and company are separate and LNS is just referring to the club as Rangers, Rangers could not suffer an insolvency event. Only their holding company. With these contradictions I don't think you can argue his ruling is the definitive proof you're seeking. Currently, there are no repercussions for Sevco inheriting Rangers coefficient because it'll be years before they can play in Europe. Same reason there are no repercussions for Unirea being in the UEFA rankings for the 2 seasons after they disolved (11/12 & 12/13) - they couldn't play in Europe so no one is affected positively or negatively. Then and only then do I think we'll see UEFA throwing their weight behind or against Sevco.

No, Tedi first referred to Dunfermline. In the last paragraph of my first post I called the pages insignificant and not valid proof for either side of the argument. You seem to be expecting me to argue something I don't believe, that the UEFA.com proves Sevco are a new club. You don't have to believe it proves they're a new club to believe it doesn't prove they're the same club. I don't know of any footballing body that has said they're a new club but my argument has never been about the football authorities My argument was these pages are insignificant and do not constitute proof UEFA have given their blessing to the newco. I doubt UEFA will make a definitive statement one way or the other until they absolutely have to UEFA recognise Napoli as a continuation, that I can't dispute (not that I want to). As they play in Naples this is not related to my argument which is entirely reliant on the UKs legal definition of club. As I see it, there are three ways you can disprove my argument (and covert me round to your side) : * prove the UKs legal definition of doesn't state that once a club incorporates a business they share one legal entity * prove that even though it does state the above, this process can be reversed * prove the above definition doesn't apply in this case All this talk of UEFA, the SFA/SFL/SPL, Trading Standards etc. is meaningless because as soon as there is a legal challenge (note: there hasn't been one yet) these people will be corrected. If no legal challenge is forthcoming then you'll just have to put up with nobodies like me arguing you're a new club. Such is the price of liquidation.

Still I will labour what point? The point I've been making all along that the club info pages are not reliable. Do you dispute that statement? If not, why are you wanting me to find a page that has no bearing on the argument at hand? I'm not talking about a footballing context. I'm talking about the UK's legal definition of a club which clearly states newco = newclub, so the Napoli comparison is moot.