Just to play devils advocate here PL, if someone is prohibited from accessing something, does that mean they're not banned?
So, "in effect", I'm banned from shagging Cat Shearer same as I'm banned from having a black cock or a Bugati because I can't afford it. Because I physically can't afford something, it ISN'T the same as being prohibited from having it. There's no "in effect" about it - the new team aren't banned from anything.
**** sake forget I said "banned" and replace it it with "unable to play" does it ****ing matter? SPL is coming tumbling down, that's what really matters. Next club to fold? Motherwell? Odds eddie?
No, it does matter - a ban would be a punishment. Being ineligible is not a punishment. Och, **** it Aye, you're banned fae Europe - big nasty UEFA kicking yeez when you're down - where will all of this end? Won't someone think of the children?
But you shagging Cat Shearer or buying Bugati isn't impossible(you could even gat a black cock transplant), it is impossible for Rangers to play in Europe for the next 3 seasons, so in effect they are banned! You aren't banned from shagging the bird(whoever ****ing cat shearer is), if the chance arose I'm sure you would do it. If the chance arose for Rangers to play in Europe next season, i.e. win the SPL, they wouldn't be allowed because in effect they are banned for 3 years.
Fixed. I'm ineligible to play for France. Not banned. Not "effectively" banned - I'm not eligible. Given that this thread is now one big exercise in semantics, it's in danger of turning into one of the boring threads on GC.
Cliftonville got drawn against Kalmar in the Europa League today. Cliftonville are NOT a new club, I repeat, Cliftonville are NOT a new club.
