Bluedell

What a simplistic and ignorant view. I know many who don't fall into your narrow-minded definition of Tory voters, and many others who I wouldn't presume to say that I know most people's reasons for their voting habits. I'd argue that Scotland was relatively better off in the 80s than it is now. I'd also argue that the pro-independence crowd are far more full of lies, scaremongering and completely twisting the truth.

That's what the vote yes campaign has boiled down to. They have been caught out on their arguments so they just insult those who don't agree with their political views.

You have to be antagonistic and nasty to vote Tory? What a lot of crap. There's a lot of bitterness involved in that statement, something more akin to supporters of other teams. The votes for the Conservative and Unionists was a lot higher back then than it is now.

I'd criticise him for his incorrect use of apostrophes.

The Protestant/unionist etc identity is our USP. If we are looking at it purely commercially it may be relatively limited but it's what we have got. Drop it and we are just another team with a large support playing in a fairly obscure league without much finance, albeit with history but that doesn't count for too much. Global brand? If we are ever anywhere near it (ie within 10 years of getting a sniff) then we can reassess but in our current position then it seems crazy to want to drop our USP. It just needs to be reassessed and promoted in a positive manner and in a way that we can easily counter our detractors.

Welcome. Is that not a bit of an over-reaction? Can't say that I notice bigotry in many parts of my life.

There was me thinking Green had raised £22m. Would they have raised the same level of cash as Green did? You've got no idea and therefore such comments are just based on your dislike of Green and nothing more.

I fail to see why Kennedy would have been any different to Green. We would have been fed the same BS by guys who are just out to make some money.

he lied about his involvement with Whyte, and I find it hard to trust him after that.

That's totally wrong. I could name loads of people who could fulfil whatever role Green wants and wouldn't be seen as divisive. There are very few who would be as divisive as Green. Some think he's the best thing since sliced bread and some don't trust him in any shape or form.

I'm not even sure it can be viewed as that.

Forgetting about what Green has or has not done in the past, his return can only be divisive, both in the board room and among the support and can't therefore be a good thing. That's not what's need at this time.

Boss would beg to differ with you on that. It's quite difficult to analyse anything at this point due to the lack of information, the short time period involved and the fact that was such an unusual period as well.

1. It's dreadfully written. Very difficult to understand. 2. Do you really want financial analysis from someone who doesn't know the difference between a thousand and a million? 3. He claims that the purchase of fixed assets etc are included in our operational expenses and therefore deducts them,. The problem is that they aren't included and therefore his analysis is totally wrong. 4. It's wrong to ignore amortisation of players. It is a real cost. We pay amounts in transfer fees, signing on fees and agents fees, buit dion't wwrite them off the the profit and loss account immediately. It's done over the length of the player's contract. It is a real cost, it has an impact on cashflow and can't be ignored. Best ignored, I'm afraid.

To be fair, many companies say similar things rather than turning round and saying "we made him redundant coz he's fairly crap at his job".

There's a difference between what shares he owns and what shares he controls and/or has committed to him and/or his family.

In his case I doubt he's bothered. He wasn't keen on joining us first time around, so I don't think he looks on us in the same way as other players, and it may well be that he is glad that things turned out the way that they did. The big concern is that it could be a tactic that other players use in the future if they are trying to engineer a move away.

I'm not sure that he has been "brought down a peg or two".

That's an OK approach to take if it was actually being applied. It wasn't a moralistic approach. Would Green have done it if it was Lee Wallace, for example? There's no way. Green only did it because Sandaza wasn't contributing much. Sandaza's biggest crime was stupidity. Most players would be happy to do what Sandaza did but they would ensure it was in a controlled environment which menat that they would not get caught.

Obviously not, or else there would be no need for the mutual contract termination. Also it was hardly the biggest crime in the world and didn't warrant that sort of action.

In a way, it would be reassuring if he didn't sign. Here's a player we want and he's obviously interested in us, but if we don't sign him then it sends out a message that there's a financial line that we won't cross and will not be held to ransom.

Think that looks a reasonable assessment. Supply and demand. Someone is dumping 100,000 and there's not much demand forcing the price down.

Never seen him play, but you make a convincing argument.

Are we paying dividends? Have I missed something?

David Murray didn't do anything illegal but it doesn't mean we can't heavily criticise his custodianship.