Pinhead

I think we have ****** it again regards the striker issue, every season it seems to be the same old failings and people may call others a knicker wetter for it but how hard is it to get one striker from thousands released around the world. I can see us signing Miller who Livi turned down as some sort of panic measure.

two pages of utter tosh on this thread - if someone knows who we missed out on just name them especially if it is now no longer happening there is no need to be "in the know"

We are gonna end up with a panic singing, what is mcfadden doing these days?

wait is that a tear i am shedding.....yes of laughter haha

They ain't wanting much for a handful of disabled fans are they? Ooft all that sounds expensive so never gonna happen!

yeah we scored and lost a goal within minutes eeekkk !

who is grand?

apparently trialist is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durrell_Berry

It is not miller, not sure who it is as of yet

It was always free but the club seem intent on getting as much money as possible these days

Due out end of the month i think, basic stock joma shirt i am afraid

who was the third trialist on the bench any ideas?

Finally the saga is over and we can forget about Taylor, won't say i would not have liked us to sign him but the constant hampering after him the last few months would have made an outsider think the guy was ronaldo.

Time to move on and accept Taylor ain't coming. All this *****ing around and waiting on him could mean we miss out on a decent player. If we want him so much table a bid and a deadline and then be done with it if nothing is forthcoming !

scully over cerny ffs haha

What i want to know most of all, compared to our fellow clubs in and around the same size base is £200k (or £100k per season) a lot of money?

If we sign too many Hibs players we may end up playing at their current level soon !

I am sorry Jagsman but they would not improve us one bit, they would more than likely drag us down as they are proven losers/past it hasbeens

I would have thought scrapping their first team and using youths would have been cheaper no? The best players may go to the better clubs but there are ones who are cast off that will find their level and ones that always slip through the net !

Also an open letter from Swinney that explains: £145m is the true underspend Updated on the 14 January 2015 The Scottish Government firmly believes Scotland will prosper best when all revenue raised here stays here. Meantime, there is an obligation upon us to ensure what funds the UK Government does allocate to Edinburgh are managed responsibly. That’s why this government ensures that we put every penny we receive towards improving the lives of people in Scotland. In contrast, Brian Wilson’s comments (Perspective, 10 January) betray the same problems understanding ­public spending that must have bedevilled the Labour Party when they managed Scotland’s finances. Mr Wilson’s colleagues managed to forget to spend £700 million in one year and left more than £1 billion in a Treasury bank account which could have supported our economy and public services. Thankfully the SNP secured the release of that money. I can assure Brian Wilson, and your readers, that if the £444m of underspend he ­refers to was all money over which I had control, then every penny of it would be being invested properly to mitigate the impact of ­Westminster cuts and welfare reforms. The £444 million underspend against the annual accounts-based budget, ­reported in the Final Outturn Report and in the media last week, also reflects variances in Annual Managed Expenditure programmes and other technical non-cash accounting budgets – for example depreciation and impairments. So such underspends therefore do not reflect a missed opportunity to spend more on public services – much as Mr Wilson and his Labour ­colleagues try to claim otherwise. The reality is that the fiscal underspend the Scottish Government has available from 2013-14 to invest in public services is only 0.5 per cent of our budget, or £145 million. Far from keeping it a secret, I announced it to Parliament in June, and confirmed that it would be carried into the next year – and that every penny would be allocated to support people in ­Scotland. On top of that, some £31 million of financial transactions was also brought forward to support vital investment in housing and regeneration. This is funding restricted by Treasury rules and can only be used for the provision of loans or equity investment beyond the public sector and has to be repaid to HM Treasury in ­future years. We agree that Scotland’s schools and hospitals are worthy of the best possible levels of investment and, until we are responsible for our own financial affairs, they deserve better than the successive real-term cuts to which Scotland’s budget has been subject and which the Labour Party clearly intend to continue. JOHN SWINNEY Deputy First Minister

1. The Scottish Government CANNOT legally overspend (see below) 1. SG prudently maintain a small contingency for unforeseen events. e.g 10 weeks of snow in 2010. 1. Hence they aim to just underspend each year but keep that underspend minimal in relation to the ov1. The SG carry forward money between financial years. That is the 'Financial Transactions line in table 1.01 http://www.scotland..../2013/09/9971/2 For 2014/15 the carry forward is £189m - so the actual outturn underspend is not £444m, but £262m. Which equates to 0.9% of the total £29,089,000,000 Scottish budget in that year. Pretty damn good. 1. Budget decisions made by the UK Government have Consequentials the amount and timing of which are both outwith the SG's control. In the year in question these were £841m. For the SG to get under 1% away from budget projections in these circumstances is not a failure. It is a minor miracle! http://www.scottish....S4/SB_11-74.pdf "UK Government accounting rules deem that Departments and devolved administrations are not permitted to overspend in a financial year. This means that the Scottish Parliament cannot authorise expenditure in excess of the total assigned budget and other sources of income. The Treasury’s Statement of Funding Policy, lays out the arrangements for funding the devolved administrations as follows: “Breaches in DELs which materialise at the end of the year would be viewed by the United Kingdom Government as serious mismanagement on the part of the devolved administration and the presumption would be that the following year’s DEL and grant to the devolved administration would be reduced by an amount equivalent to the breach. The same rule applies to departments of the United Kingdom Government” (Treasury 2010). However, the rules relating to unspent monies (known as underspends) were relaxed in the late 1999s by the then UK Government. Prior to the late 1990s, any departmental underspend would automatically transfer back to the centre. However, the introduction of End Year Flexibility (EYF) allowed departments and devolved administrations to carry forward unspent monies from one year to the following. This was partly as a result of the move to Spending Reviews which outlined three-year DELs, but was also designed to prevent the practice of inefficient spending by departments concerned at losing money – in essence “spending for the sake of it” at the end of financial year. The Coalition Government elected in 2010 ended this system of EYF and introduced a “Budget Exchange Mechanism” (BEM) in its place. This system allowed for a limited amount of unspent monies to be carried over from one year to the next. Departments and devolved administrations would inform the Treasury in November what they were expecting to underspend in that financial year. Any underspend beyond that amount would return to the centre. Accumulated underspends were also to be returned to the centre as part of the BEM. The Finance Ministers Quadrilateral meeting of 14 July 2011 agreed a modification to this arrangement. Devolved administrations would be allowed to carry over unspent monies from year to year up to a set limit, rather than having to estimate anticipated underspends to Treasury in November. It was agreed that the Scottish Government would be allowed to carry over up to a maximum 0.6% of Resource DEL and 1.5% of Capital DEL from one financial year to the next.

The SNP have been offered and have decided to wait for FFA - Strange one that considering just the other day they were saying that Cameron has to offer FFA now and not wait - i assume you get the Torygraph delivered to Norway?

What the hell does we are the steeple mean?

I don't think we should be looking at Jamie McDonald to replace him, he has been brutal today !

Stupid question no ?