Thinker

The first team squad should be performing better for the wages they're paid but our non-playing staff costs are also higher than each of those totals listed. I think that's closer to the root of the problem.

If the player budget is under 30% of turnover then that's not the big drain on finances. Looking at performances we're getting poor value for money from the squad, but that expenditure is still well within what the club should be able to afford. We need to look elsewhere for the real waste.

Same here - I only sign in when I post. TBF there are other, locked-down fan sites available if that's what you're after.

If any tim ever starts giving you a hard time about financial / moral dodginess, just tell them to do some investigation into Dermot Desmonds dealings with the Irish Prime Minister. He makes SDM look like a saint.

The SPL will be merged back into the SFL. The SFL will be reduced in size. A Scottish Football Conference, with a proper pyramid system will be created from the lower SFL teams, plus the Highland, East of Scotland, South of Scotland, and Junior leagues. The number of football authority blazers on high wages will be reduced, and the ones employed will be replaced by competent people. Oh wait... You asked for realistic predictions not sensible ones.

This "deliberate non-disclosure" line is really getting on my tits. LNS's actual judgement was that non-disclosure was deliberate but not dishonest. The exact quote: "While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the sideletters need not be or should not be disclosed ." That's the line that should be getting repeated at every opportunity to as large an audience as possible.

That's one of the two main reasons (as far as I can figure out).In his report, LNS suggests that the motivation for not handing in the EBT paperwork was at least partially that the board wanted to maintain the tax advantages that they conferred. i.e. They didn't want to draw attention to it because if they did either a): the tax authorities would have closed the legal loopholes that EBTs exploited and knocked the whole scheme on the head or b): our competitor clubs would have copied the idea and we'd have lost the edge that it gave us. It's worth mentioning that LNS declared that the non-disclosure was deliberate but not dishonest. That is to say, in his opinion the board genuinely didn't believe that they were obliged, under the disclosure rules, to hand in paperwork relating to loans. What he criticises them for is not checking whether they were correct to assume that. Basically he's insinuating that they didn't check because they didn't want to hear an answer they didn't like. Don't see how he can prove that though really.

A good day, but the club will still need our redoubled support in the seasons ahead. We've still many wrongs to right: The criminal act that allowed a crook to get hold of the club needs to be fully exposed, as does the blackmail of the 5-way agreement, the corrupt sham of this rushed restructuring has to be halted, and the rebuilding of our club must be stepped up so that we can regain our rightful place. Hopefully as the Tims abandon their club, our fans will rally round the flag.

The thing is, there's a difference between protesting about cover ups by the Catholic church and shouting general anti-Catholic slogans. Should Cardinal O'brien be investigated and (hopefully) jailed? Yes. If the support had held up a banner saying something along those lines nobody would have had grounds to complain. But the moment you bring derogatory or offensive language into it, what you're singing ceases to be a criticism and becomes abuse in the eyes of the law, and you're going to get pulled up for it.

To my mind, this whole issue isn’t so much about what opinions you’re expressing, but more how you go about expressing them. The use of cuss words at football matches isn’t the problem. We all blurt out the odd expletive in the heat-of-the-moment at a game: “That’s SHITE!”, “Fucking cheating bastard!” etc. It’s a working man’s game after all. But premeditated, pre-planned banners and chants/songs are clearly different - especially when they have nothing to do with what’s happening on the park. A good example would be some of the banners that have been held up by the support recently. Whether you agree with the sentiment or not, the “Don’t prostitute our heritage” banner was a good one. It makes the point with an argument through a comparison. The “Fuck Off Mike Ashley” banner, on the other hand, was just mindlessly abusive. When the Tims held up that “Fuck UEFA” banner a couple of seasons ago they failed in the same way. If it had read something like “Gagged by UEFA” they would still have come across as idiots, but not the anti-social, knuckle-dragging idiots that they did. Some rules of thumb: It’s only human to swear in response to something on the park that angers you. It’s okay to demonstrate about a political, social or football governance issue as long as you make your point in a reasoned fashion. Try to make it a dignified protest. But… airing non-match-related opinions in an abusive or derogatory way is embarrassing, defeats its own purpose, and is just asking for trouble - That’s trouble for you, and (more importantly) trouble for the club. You can apply those rules to expressing any exceptions you might take with Catholicism or plastic-Paddiness the same as any other. As long as what you're saying makes logical sense and isn't abusive no-one can touch you. TBH though, when I go to a match I don’t have time for any of that because I’m too busy watching the football…

I think a lot of people have independently come to a similar, sensible conclusion. Personally, I'd bring the bottom Div 1 team into it too, and go with: Play off round 1: Match 1: Team J, Div 1 vs. Team D, Div 3 Match 2: Team B, Div 2 vs. Team C, Div 3 Match 3: Team C, Div 2 vs. Team B, Div 3 Match 4: Team D, Div 2 vs. Team A, Div 3 Play off round 2: Match 5: Winner Match 1 vs. Winner Match 4 Match 6: Winner Match 2 vs. Winner Match 3 The winners of matches 5 and 6 are promoted into the new second flight alongside Team A, Div 1. Plus points: + There's no disruption to the current fixtures (same number of play-offs as announced at the start of the season,that can be played on the scheduled dates). + The Div 3 teams have to establish their "sporting merit" by beating the Div 2 teams over two legs. + All the bitter bastards out there get a chance to cheer on whoever we're playing against. I could write something far more convincing on why 12-12-18 is a shit idea though...

When you try to make the argument about separation of individual and club (Craig Whyte did it against Rangers best interests) you're met with "Oh, but under corporate law the club is respnsible for his actions." But when corporate law works in our favour (we get to ditch debt via a CVA) then your get, "But that's not fair! You've got away without paying!" If this is about morality, go and chase Craig Whyte. If it's about legal process, accept that that doesn't always seem morally fair. Choose.

When I read the title of the thread, I thought the post was going to read: ... then there has to be a minimum of 7 investors (whatever happens with the CVA, BTC or SFA appeal). That has to be a good thing.

What we need is an impartial investigation of Green's history and motives, but who's going to do it? Not the SFA, that's for sure. Blatantly biased rants like Leggo's, or Timly attempts at character assassination are muddying the waters and no-one can possibly know what to believe. You can voice an opinion and if turns out to be correct say "I told you so" later but, without evidence, you're not going to convince anyone. There aren't enough facts available to come to an informed opinion at the moment, and by the time there are it'll be too late to change anything. I wish the Blue Knights and Kennedy had won simply because we know who they are, but they couldn't produce the cash. End of.

I suppose if the creditors knew the investors had money they're keeping out of the pot for later they might try to play hard ball.