Bill

Surely you mean better

I used to believe someone could be a ScotNat and a Rangers supporter but that it would inevitably mean compromising allegiance on one side or the other. I've changed my opinion. Such are the direct and specific nature of nationalist attacks on our club and its followers that supporting Rangers, as I understand Rangers, is surely utterly incompatible with being a Scottish nationalist. The two are travelling in such diametrically opposed directions and pose such existential threat to each other that co-existence seems impossible. The only decision to make about a ScotNat who says he/she/it supports Rangers is where to place them on the spectrum between liar and fantasist.

It’s still not clear to me whether or not this share issue was underwritten and, if so, to what extent.

Clearly it must have

Have you considered therapy? ?

Is it really so important? Unless you believe the share price should never change, there has to be a point somewhere that sees that change actually take place. That point is for the board to decide, no one else. I hardly think this is justification for some fans smearing the integrity of directors that have so clearly transformed the club over the last few years. Buy or don't buy but I think we should leave divisive victimhood to those who wear it better than us.

How could they spoil a game like this by inflicting that arse Hartson on us? Should be a red button option - wanker or no wanker

The only "gaffe" will be if the issue is over-subscribed and the board could have got 30p per share. Share values are set by how much people will pay for them today, not by how much someone paid in the past. Otherwise no one would ever have lost money on the stockmarket. Where did this ridiculous notion come from that directors who effectively saved the club by risking their own money shouldn't have enjoyed the same 20p price as everyone else? The same directors who like everyone else will have to pay 25p for new shares today. I think what we're seeing is an attempt to find grievance on the basis that someone might have been smarter of more successful than someone else. It seems to the the hallmark of Scotland today.

Am I the only one who's sick of hearing about D&P, BDO, the Crown office and the rest of them scrabbling after ridiculous sums of money on the back of the rape of Rangers?

I think the gold is most appropriate in this 150th year. 24 carat.

I know what you mean but I think we were more "not crap" than "immense". It certainly was a decent performance but if we've any sense we'll realise that we could play like that next week and still go out of the tournament. The last thing we need is thinking a 0-0 draw is world class. Feet firmly on the ground.

BBC commentator on R5L yesterday talking about Denmahk’s nashnul amfem. They’re trying hard cancel out any notion of elitism.

Sweden + Slovakia = borefest

Italy 2 - 0 Wales Switzerland 2 - 1 Turkey Ukraine 1 - 0 Austria N. Macedonia 1 - 3 Netherlands Russia 1 - 1 Denmark Finland 0 - 4 Belgium Croatia 2 - 1 Scotland Czech Republic 0 - 1 England Sweden 1 - 1 Poland Slovakia 0 - 2 Spain Portugal 1 - 3 France Germany 4 - 0 Hungary

It doesn’t matter which tree anyone is barking up. The directors have done what they were entitled to do and no amount of armchair experts will change that.

Company secretaries aren’t real directors ??

All Scottish nationalists are stuck in a shortbread time warp where self-awareness has been replaced by bedwetting

Wales would never have won that game if we'd still been in the EU. Just saying.

Strange, I thought England would be heavy favourites.

Some of the stuff we've been served up over that last few days has been cringingly bad. There really should be a 5th official whose only job is to rush on to the field and bludgeon these actors with a 5 iron.

Spot on, Germany only needs to beat Hungary to qualify and I'd be amazed if they don't. For most of these top sides the tournament only starts after the group stage.

If the cap fits ?

I played left back for Partick Thistle. I got my big break in 1976 when I moved to Sampdoria, initially as cover for Beppe Roderi but a combination of injuries and contract issues saw him moved on and I played 72 games over the next three years. I was voted young player of the year in 1978. A year later a broken leg and ligament damage against Torino ended top flight football for me. Nah, it's all bullshit. Much preferred rugby and tennis.

It has nothing to do with fairness, whatever that is. Everyone has their own reasons for buying something and it's whatever the buyer thinks it is. However, the decision to offer shares at 25p is a matter for the directors alone, not the shareholders, current or prospective. If the existing shareholders want to dictate share offer prices then they need to pass a special resolution changing director authority. Otherwise, put up or leave the field. What shares were traded for yesterday and by whom is utterly irrelevant to this share issue and anyone who doesn't understand that would be better playing bingo.

This whining about the 25p share price is fascinating but entirely pointless. It’s really quite simple. The company has offered to sell new shares at 25p each, as it’s fully entitled to do. If you think this is fair and you want to buy them then go ahead. If you don’t then keep your money in your pocket. But why would anyone say they’re unhappy with the price while also announcing their intention to buy? If you’re genuinely unhappy then step away, otherwise it just looks like attention seeking.