St mirren/Kilmarnock appeal

last minute signing said:
What’s the protocols in respect of players using public gyms etc? I know of a couple of SPL level players having done this since the start of the season up until the recent closures at Xmas eve.

Always thought it to be hypocritical saying they were in a “bio secure bubble” yet the players were working out right next to Joe Public.
Click to expand...
See threads on that throbber McLean suspended by his club for using a private gym.
 
1288Bear said:
The problem with the award of a 3-0 victory in a league match is that, while it punishes the guilty party, it also rewards their opponent in a manner they do not necessarily merit.

This in turn punishes others who are totally unrelated to the effected game.

Motherwell and Hamilton are in a relegation battle with Ross County and to reward those clubs not only with 3 points they may not have won but with an enhanced goal difference of +3 is unfair on Ross County and could, ultimately, lead to their relegation.

Similarly - imagine being in a title race where goal difference could be the deciding factor and having a game against the bottom club, where you hoped to score a few goals, cancelled and being awarded +3 gd when previous games suggested you could benefit more from playing the game.

That is why, in my opinion, such 3-0 awards should be restricted to cup competitions to penalise teams for fielding ineligible players.

Has no place in league football - by all means dock the guilty party of points but don't reward their opponents and potentially reward or punish teams not involved in the game at all.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with this, and said so at the time the punishments were originally handed out, and have held this line repeatedly and consistently since.

Even though my team stands to benefit.

It makes no sense.

The appeals should be upheld - at least in terms of the ludicrous 0-3 forfeits. If there is fault, and there must be punishment, it shouldn’t randomly benefit and disadvantage other teams in the league. And this does, even if it remains to be seen whether it impacts significant league outcomes, such as European places, prize money, or relegation.
 
Saltire said:
Playing devils advocate here. We have know of knowing, from that image, whether it was a private bar or function suite hired out by that mob.
Either way, there’s a lack of social distancing. Also, those at the pool have broken covid guidelines
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter, even though they train and play together they cannot socialise.
 
academical said:
I completely agree with this, and said so at the time the punishments were originally handed out, and have held this line repeatedly and consistently since.

Even though my team stands to benefit.

It makes no sense.

The appeals should be upheld - at least in terms of the ludicrous 0-3 forfeits. If there is fault, and there must be punishment, it shouldn’t randomly benefit and disadvantage other teams in the league. And this does, even if it remains to be seen whether it impacts significant league outcomes, such as European places, prize money, or relegation.
Click to expand...
I do recall your post at the time which I thought admirable considering your own team were one of the beneficiaries.

Considering you have also had your own issues and played at times with a weakened team you could be forgiven for thinking you were due something like that to go in your favour.

Like you it doesn't sit well with me that teams benefit in such a way and, more importantly, that others not involved get rewarded or punished for no good reason.

It is, however, the SPFL so I won't be expecting common sense to play any part in the decision making process or the outcome of the appeal hearing.
 
Last edited:
Juventus have to play their game against Napoli that they were awarded, the games should be played IMO even if it’s Saturday and then Monday for the guilty teams
 
High Society said:
I agree but it needs concrete proof. Our players went to a fcukn party with loads on non employees so whether we like it or not they were idiots. If we can prove their players were in a public place out side their bubble then they should be banned for 7 games too,
Click to expand...
Hi Gordon, who you got on the show tomorrow?
 
GovanFront4 said:
Didn't they only have to forfeit because the outbreak caused them to get a game called off? The Scum played their games, so while some may get fined or something they have no games to forfeit.
Click to expand...

The Celtic-St Mirren game was moved because of the Bolingoli / Aberdeen fiasco if I remember right.

Then when the game was actually played, St Mirren had their three goalkeepers out but were still forced to play the game even if it meant playing an outfield player in goals. "Luckily" the Championship hadn't started and they could get an emergency loan from Hearts.
 
Saltire said:
The only difference between St Mirren, Killie and that mob on Monday night was that celtic have a bigger squad so could still fulfill the fixture. These teams are essentially being punished because they have smaller squads.
Click to expand...
And I'd guess also punished their games weren't on the TV
 
LaudrupTheGreat said:
Juventus have to play their game against Napoli that they were awarded, the games should be played IMO even if it’s Saturday and then Monday for the guilty teams
Click to expand...
Difference being Napoli pursued it in the courts our scum clubs will swallow up whatever is decided on the appeal
 
1288Bear said:
The problem with the award of a 3-0 victory in a league match is that, while it punishes the guilty party, it also rewards their opponent in a manner they do not necessarily merit.

This in turn punishes others who are totally unrelated to the effected game.

Motherwell and Hamilton are in a relegation battle with Ross County and to reward those clubs not only with 3 points they may not have won but with an enhanced goal difference of +3 is unfair on Ross County and could, ultimately, lead to their relegation.

Similarly - imagine being in a title race where goal difference could be the deciding factor and having a game against the bottom club, where you hoped to score a few goals, cancelled and being awarded +3 gd when previous games suggested you could benefit more from playing the game.

That is why, in my opinion, such 3-0 awards should be restricted to cup competitions to penalise teams for fielding ineligible players.

Has no place in league football - by all means dock the guilty party of points but don't reward their opponents and potentially reward or punish teams not involved in the game at all.
Click to expand...
academical said:
I completely agree with this, and said so at the time the punishments were originally handed out, and have held this line repeatedly and consistently since.

Even though my team stands to benefit.

It makes no sense.

The appeals should be upheld - at least in terms of the ludicrous 0-3 forfeits. If there is fault, and there must be punishment, it shouldn’t randomly benefit and disadvantage other teams in the league. And this does, even if it remains to be seen whether it impacts significant league outcomes, such as European places, prize money, or relegation.
Click to expand...

I read your post and thought ‘I agree with this’. On reflection though I’d have to ask ‘do you still play the game’? Your scenario sees St Mirren and Killie punished by a points deduction and suggests that is sufficient as it doesn’t harm, or benefit, others. What if one of their games had been against us? They would have been deducted points - but we would have lost the opportunity to WIN those points in your scenario. Even deducting the points from them and playing the game at a later date doesn’t really work if it gives them the opportunity to win the deducted points back. Assuming I’ve fully understood your suggestion that is.
 
Saltire said:
Playing devils advocate here. We have know of knowing, from that image, whether it was a private bar or function suite hired out by that mob.
Either way, there’s a lack of social distancing. Also, those at the pool have broken covid guidelines
Click to expand...

who took the photo? a celtic player?
 
Valley Bluenose said:
I read your post and thought ‘I agree with this’. On reflection though I’d have to ask ‘do you still play the game’? Your scenario sees St Mirren and Killie punished by a points deduction and suggests that is sufficient as it doesn’t harm, or benefit, others. What if one of their games had been against us? They would have been deducted points - but we would have lost the opportunity to WIN those points in your scenario. Even deducting the points from them and playing the game at a later date doesn’t really work if it gives them the opportunity to win the deducted points back. Assuming I’ve fully understood your suggestion that is.
Click to expand...
The game gets played so that the opponent has the opportunity to legitimately win the points.

If the authorities deem that the breaches merit a points deduction then that punishment is applied similar to the deduction of points when a club goes into administration.

That way the club is punished and all other clubs gain equally in relation to the guilty club. Punishment applied without some gaining and others losing as is the case with the award of a 3-0 win.
 
1288Bear said:
The game gets played so that the opponent has the opportunity to legitimately win the points.

If the authorities deem that the breaches merit a points deduction then that punishment is applied similar to the deduction of points when a club goes into administration.

That way the club is punished and all other clubs gain equally in relation to the guilty club. Punishment applied without some gaining and others losing as is the case with the award of a 3-0 win.
Click to expand...
Glad the game still gets played to give the innocent opposition the chance to win the points.

However, does that not mean you would need to punish the likes of Killie/Saints with a minimum 4 point deduction per game because, of course, they could still win the re-arranged game(s)?I suspect that is indeed what you mean. Assuming they don’t win either of the two postponed games that sees them a minimum 8 points down.

As I intimated initially, I like the concept of only the guilty party being punished and no other team gaining a benefit - but, for example, a minimum 8 point deduction - which sees them at a potential minimum 8 point disadvantage to EVERY team in the League and not just their scheduled opponents - seems overly harsh to me.
 
If those 2 clubs aren't punished then it opens up a huge can of worms because effectively a team could lose their best player through COVID and just say 'ach not today we know we can play it at a later date' so that's why the punishment has to stand for me. Theyve both admitted their guilt in the investigations to the SPFL so there is no defence for them.

Even if they just remove the 3-0 wins and deduct points instead but the games shouldn't be replayed. Think Killie had enough players for a cup game but forfeited it because they didn't want to play youth players at the time so that doesn't really help their cause either.

And as others have said tims stuff won't effect the decision they played their game on Monday. So effectively those that breached the rules should face same punishments as other players have done but doesn't look like it's going to happen.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Glad the game still gets played to give the innocent opposition the chance to win the points.

However, does that not mean you would need to punish the likes of Killie/Saints with a minimum 4 point deduction per game because, of course, they could still win the re-arranged game(s)?I suspect that is indeed what you mean. Assuming they don’t win either of the two postponed games that sees them a minimum 8 points down.

As I intimated initially, I like the concept of only the guilty party being punished and no other team gaining a benefit - but, for example, an 8 point deduction seems overly harsh to me.
Click to expand...
Whether they win the game or not would not form part of the process and any punishment would be a stand alone punishment based purely on breaches and not related to the match itself.

Possibly a sliding scale - breach certain rules a 1 point deduction, others which are considered more serious a 3 point deduction and for the most serious a 5 point deduction. If this was the intention then such rules/punishments should have been agreed and included in the rules before the season started

In addition matches being cancelled should not be the baseline for establishing whether or not breaches should be punished. If it were then those with a bigger squad could, potentially, have multiple breaches without ever getting punished as they didn't need to cancel.

It would also be down to luck and what players were affected - one club could have 15 players positive or isolating but still have 13 available players including the one goalkeeper that is required to fulfil the fixture while another club has 4 or 5 out but has no goalkeeper and, as such, has to cancel. Surely wouldn't be right for them to be punished because they were unlucky that it was the keepers affected/isolating. Probably a bad example given that that exact scenario did occur, a club with no available goalkeepers for a rescheduled game, and what did the SPFL do? That's right they made them play.
 
They have backed themselves into a corner over this

If the appeals are upheld, then it is being done only to avoid them taking any action against the beasts from the east

If the appeals are rejected, it exposes the double standards over no action being taken against admitted breaches ( Kennedy’s statement)
 
I expect the games to be replayed and tonight/tomorrow morning Celtic will get the game cancelled due to COVID and get the game rearranged.
 
Killie one where the health board for them to isolate is probably the harshest one tbf its a difficult one but reality is I think 3-0 loses make the league a bit of a joke. For first instance.

To be it should have been a sliding scale. Big fibre for the beaches at first v instance then a look at points reductions.

Also need v to look at health board interaction etc.
 
Did it not take over a month for the first penalty to be decided upon, another month for this and the fixture pile up will be huge
 
Toyota blue said:
I expect the games to be replayed and tonight/tomorrow morning Celtic will get the game cancelled due to COVID and get the game rearranged.
Click to expand...
Zero chance the SPFL, in whatever shambolic outcome that pluck out the air here, will be recommending the postponement of the mentally challengeds game tomorrow. Would they also then be wanting Mondays game replayed because they weren't at full strength?

The mentally challengeds have a squad large enough to field a team. They will do so tomorrow.
 
Partickger said:
Frantically trying to work out the best solution to this that helps them ‘deal’ with Celtic’s much worse indiscretions in the most light handed way.

Scottish football right now.
Click to expand...
And that sums it up, people are dieing all around,thousands out work,schools shut down,and they want to be selective in how they administer the rules and apply the same rule selectively
 
Toyota blue said:
I expect the games to be replayed and tonight/tomorrow morning Celtic will get the game cancelled due to COVID and get the game rearranged.
Click to expand...

Celtic were able to fulfil a fixture on Monday night, what makes you think (there having been no further positive tests we know about) that there would be any doubt about tomorrow’s game.

The difference with other teams is they don’t have pools of 30+ players to pick from should they have a number of players isolating.
 
1288Bear said:
Whether they win the game or not would not form part of the process and any punishment would be a stand alone punishment based purely on breaches and not related to the match itself.

Possibly a sliding scale - breach certain rules a 1 point deduction, others which are considered more serious a 3 point deduction and for the most serious a 5 point deduction. If this was the intention then such rules/punishments should have been agreed and included in the rules before the season started

In addition matches being cancelled should not be the baseline for establishing whether or not breaches should be punished. If it were then those with a bigger squad could, potentially, have multiple breaches without ever getting punished as they didn't need to cancel.

It would also be down to luck and what players were affected - one club could have 15 players positive or isolating but still have 13 available players including the one goalkeeper that is required to fulfil the fixture while another club has 4 or 5 out but has no goalkeeper and, as such, has to cancel. Surely wouldn't be right for them to be punished because they were unlucky that it was the keepers affected/isolating. Probably a bad example given that that exact scenario did occur, a club with no available goalkeepers for a rescheduled game, and what did the SPFL do? That's right they made them play.
Click to expand...
I like the principle of what you propose - just think it would need a bit more work and, obviously, agreement and incorporation into the rules. There's still that scope there, if the game is played (and I'm in favour of that) for the team punished by a deduction of 3 points to then win those 3 points back. That would restore parity with the team they play - effectively neither team would gain any points at all from the match - but still leave them at a deficit of 3 points to every other team in the League. I'm not sure that would be right either - though there is an argument that the 'innocent' team lost/failed to win the points on the pitch.
 
Last edited:
Ian1872 said:
Zero chance the SPFL, in whatever shambolic outcome that pluck out the air here, will be recommending the postponement of the mentally challengeds game tomorrow. Would they also then be wanting Mondays game replayed because they weren't at full strength?

The mentally challengeds have a squad large enough to field a team. They will do so tomorrow.
Click to expand...
If they have one or two more positives and a few more isolating, the game will be cancelled.

Remember they also had a few U-18's on the bench on Monday who have presumably just been placed on Furlough.

Given the timing, it wouldn't surprise me if placing the U-18's on Furlough was a deliberate act, done not only in order to save money, but more importantly, done to use as an excuse of not having a sufficient amount of players available to face Livi, should the need arise.

If you look close enough, everything they do usually has an ulterior motive hidden away somewhere.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
I like the principle of what you propose - just think it would need a bit more work and, obviously, agreement and incorporation into the rules. There's still that scope there, if the game is played (and I'm in favour of that) for the team punished by a deduction of 3 points to then win those 3 points back. That would restore parity with the team they play - effectively neither team would gain any points at all from the match - but still leave them at a deficit of 3 points to every other team in the League. I'm not sure that would be right either - though there is an argument that the 'innocent' team lost/failed to win the points on the pitch.
Click to expand...
All games would be played and no team would be picking up points simply because their opponents on a particular day got sick.

If the reason that their opponents couldn't fulfil the fixture on that particular day was that they got sick due to rule breaking then they deserve to be punished.

What that punishment is is for the authorities (don't laugh) to decide but it shouldn't unfairly either reward or punish other clubs.

I'm not sure what the ideal solution is, or even if there is one, but the one the SPFL have come up with seems to be unfair on so many levels.
 
Disco Deejay said:
If they have one or two more positives and a few more isolating, the game will be cancelled.

Remember they also had a few U-18's on the bench on Monday who have presumably just been placed on Furlough.

Given the timing, it wouldn't surprise me if placing the U-18's on Furlough was a deliberate act, done not only in order to save money, but more importantly, done to use as an excuse of not having a sufficient amount of players available to face Livi, should the need arise.

If you look close enough, everything they do usually has an ulterior motive hidden away somewhere.
Click to expand...
They would have to forfeit then
 
1288Bear said:
All games would be played and no team would be picking up points simply because their opponents on a particular day got sick.

If the reason that their opponents couldn't fulfil the fixture on that particular day was that they got sick due to rule breaking then they deserve to be punished.

What that punishment is is for the authorities (don't laugh) to decide but it shouldn't unfairly either reward or punish other clubs.

I'm not sure what the ideal solution is, or even if there is one, but the one the SPFL have come up with seems to be unfair on so many levels.
Click to expand...
Aye, I'm not sure there is an 'ideal' solution. As I said way back in the thread my 'gut instinct' when I heard the punishments awarded was that they were harsh. I still think that. However, particularly at this time, fines aren't the answer either. No idea what would be better though - play the games later but with a portion of the guys (half?) who were unfit for the first game - and any new signings - omitted? Off the wall, and probably ridiculous, but its a ridiculous situation.

For example, as things stand, were these Appeals to be upheld, then St Mirren v Motherwell could well be played with Saints having strengthened by adding Quaner and Brophy - and Motherwell could be weakened by, for example, Gallagher and Campbell having moved.
 
Disco Deejay said:
If they have one or two more positives and a few more isolating, the game will be cancelled.

Remember they also had a few U-18's on the bench on Monday who have presumably just been placed on Furlough.

Given the timing, it wouldn't surprise me if placing the U-18's on Furlough was a deliberate act, done not only in order to save money, but more importantly, done to use as an excuse of not having a sufficient amount of players available to face Livi, should the need arise.

If you look close enough, everything they do usually has an ulterior motive hidden away somewhere.
Click to expand...
IF they have more positives
IF they have more isolating.

That is a very different scenario from the current position. Infact you could just as well apply that logic to our game on Sunday that IF we have a load of positives it will be off.

As things stand, celtc will play with the squad they had on Monday. There will be no intervention from the SPFL to prevent that.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Aye, I'm not sure there is an 'ideal' solution. As I said way back in the thread my 'gut instinct' when I heard the punishments awarded was that they were harsh. I still think that. However, particularly at this time, fines aren't the answer either. No idea what would be better though - play the games later but with a portion of the guys (half?) who were unfit for the first game - and any new signings - omitted? Off the wall, and probably ridiculous, but its a ridiculous situation.

For example, as things stand, were these Appeals to be upheld, then St Mirren v Motherwell could well be played with Saints having strengthened by adding Quaner and Brophy - and Motherwell could be weakened by, for example, Gallagher and Campbell having moved.
Click to expand...
But if the SPFL had made a sensible decision at the time and then instructed the rescheduled games at the earliest possible date there wouldn't be any issue with teams being strengthened or weakened in January as the games would have been played by now.

Unless of course it was celtic who get to play their games whenever it best suits them.

One thing that did occur to me when considering that point was the St Mirren game against celtic.
The game was rescheduled due to celtics previous indiscretion. When it was finally played celtic had strengthened their team (lol) and one of their new players scored the vital goal.
St Mirren (home team) had asked for the game to be moved as they did not have a goalkeeper who wasn't either covid positive or isolating.
The SPFL advised them that, as there was no room in an already crowded schedule, they would need to play the game either with a youth team keeper or arrange a short temp loan of a keeper.

What happened to siding with the home team when clubs couldn't agree?

Or is it only when celtic are at home?
 
bkerr72 said:
If those 2 clubs aren't punished then it opens up a huge can of worms because effectively a team could lose their best player through COVID and just say 'ach not today we know we can play it at a later date' so that's why the punishment has to stand for me. Theyve both admitted their guilt in the investigations to the SPFL so there is no defence for them.

Even if they just remove the 3-0 wins and deduct points instead but the games shouldn't be replayed. Think Killie had enough players for a cup game but forfeited it because they didn't want to play youth players at the time so that doesn't really help their cause either.

And as others have said tims stuff won't effect the decision they played their game on Monday. So effectively those that breached the rules should face same punishments as other players have done but doesn't look like it's going to happen.
Click to expand...

The SPFL approved postponing of the fixture requested by Kilmarnock.

The request was made because the Health Board advised all players should be isolating.

I am pretty sure had Kilmarnock been refused the request they would have had enough players who tested negative to fulfil the fixture, and who knows received a Government fine instead.

Hibs were instructed they had to play the other night or would forfeit the match when they asked for Celtic to be tested before the match. Kilmarnock weren’t given that ultimatum the League agreed to postpone the fixture, not because they didn’t have a team but because of Health Board advice.
 
Ian1872 said:
IF they have more positives
IF they have more isolating.

That is a very different scenario from the current position. Infact you could just as well apply that logic to our game on Sunday that IF we have a load of positives it will be off.

As things stand, celtc will play with the squad they had on Monday. There will be no intervention from the SPFL to prevent that.
Click to expand...
They probably only need two or three more to get the game called off. We would need a hell of a lot more than that, so the two positions are hardly comparable.

You say that Celtc will play with the same squad that they had on Monday. Given that they have placed their Under-18 squad on Furlough, does that include Dembele, Okoflex and the other U-18's who were on the bench?
 
Disco Deejay said:
If they have one or two more positives and a few more isolating, the game will be cancelled.

Remember they also had a few U-18's on the bench on Monday who have presumably just been placed on Furlough.

Given the timing, it wouldn't surprise me if placing the U-18's on Furlough was a deliberate act, done not only in order to save money, but more importantly, done to use as an excuse of not having a sufficient amount of players available to face Livi, should the need arise.

If you look close enough, everything they do usually has an ulterior motive hidden away somewhere.
Click to expand...
I almost hope they have furloughed their U18s deliberately, since it would seem a clear breach of the rules. You're only meant to furlough staff if they have no "work", which for them is playing football. Monday would prove their is work for them at the moment due to their Dubai debacle.
 
Disco Deejay said:
They probably only need two or three more to get the game called off. We would need a hell of a lot more than that, so the two positions are hardly comparable.

You say that Celtc will play with the same squad that they had on Monday. Given that they have placed their Under-18 squad on Furlough, does that include Dembele, Okoflex and the other U-18's who were on the bench?
Click to expand...
They are comparible as you are working in a completely hypothetical situation.

I have no idea the complexity of their under-18 squad, but I think we are straying into tinfoil hat territory if we are to believe a game will be postponed not because there have been more cases or close contacts, but because celtc won't pay the £500 quid or so it would cost to not furlough 3 youngsters?
 
Disco Deejay said:
If they have one or two more positives and a few more isolating, the game will be cancelled.

Remember they also had a few U-18's on the bench on Monday who have presumably just been placed on Furlough.

Given the timing, it wouldn't surprise me if placing the U-18's on Furlough was a deliberate act, done not only in order to save money, but more importantly, done to use as an excuse of not having a sufficient amount of players available to face Livi, should the need arise.

If you look close enough, everything they do usually has an ulterior motive hidden away somewhere.
Click to expand...
As far as I know there is only a limit of how many squad members can be on the bench. If they have 5 or 6 spaces that's just tough.
 
Ian1872 said:
They are comparible as you are working in a completely hypothetical situation.

I have no idea the complexity of their under-18 squad, but I think we are straying into tinfoil hat territory if we are to believe a game will be postponed not because there have been more cases or close contacts, but because celtc won't pay the £500 quid or so it would cost to not furlough 3 youngsters?
Click to expand...
Two hypothetical situations which, numerically, are not even remotely similar.

You obviously have no idea of how the SPFL and Celtc work.

14 players are required to play a game (including 1 keeper). Any less than that and the game won't take place. Celtc needed a number of U-18's to fill the bench on Monday. If they have another Covid case or two and they think that removing the U-18's will allow them to have the game cancelled without punishment, they will not think twice about doing it.

In relation to punishment, I am sure that Lawwell will already know the result of Killie & St Mirren's appeals, which will influence his decision on whether or not he wants the Livi game cancelled.
 
HamiltonBear said:
As far as I know there is only a limit of how many squad members can be on the bench. If they have 5 or 6 spaces that's just tough.
Click to expand...
Correct, many teams have not filled a bench this season, but under Covid Rules, as long as they have 14 players (including at least 1 keeper) then the match should go ahead. My point was that if the removed all of the U-18's who were on the bench on Monday due to Furlough, they will be getting close to the 14 fit players required and two or three injuries/isolations could push them below 14.
 
Disco Deejay said:
Two hypothetical situations which, numerically, are not even remotely similar.

You obviously have no idea of how the SPFL and Celtc work.

14 players are required to play a game (including 1 keeper). Any less than that and the game won't take place. Celtc needed a number of U-18's to fill the bench on Monday. If they have another Covid case or two and they think that removing the U-18's will allow them to have the game cancelled without punishment, they will not think twice about doing it.

In relation to punishment, I am sure that Lawwell will already know the result of Killie & St Mirren's appeals, which will influence his decision on whether or not he wants the Livi game cancelled.
Click to expand...
You do realise that being furloughed doesn't have a time limit? If they have furloughed any of the players in the squad on Monday, that doesn't mean they are in it until the end of the season, they could be taken off that scheme at any time if work becomes available for them.

IF they have more positive cases or a need for self isolation before their game tomorrow it will likely be postponed. IF they don't, its game on.

Im leaving it there, not spending more time on the definition of IF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top