Woodstock Jag

More games for the 2nd tier means: A backlog of games much worse than currently even accounting for Challenge Cup withdrawal if the weather is bad Even higher chance of playing a team 5-7 times a season if we draw them in the Cup But... Would the extra games and the (admittedly small) extra money maybe mean that we as a division could drop ticket prices? If there are more games, the Club's (in principle) would get more people through the gate, and with the caveat of increased matchday liabilities (not as much of an issue e.g. floodlights if we have a winter break and USE MAY AS A GOOD MONTH FOR FOOTBALL) it would mean the Clubs might need to take in proportionally less to meet cashflow issues? Say, for example the current adult season ticket is £260(£265 or so with the new VAT rate). How many more people do you think would buy the season ticket if they knew they were getting 22 games for £270 instead? Instead of working out just shy of £15 a game, it's suddenly just over £12 a game and almost reasonable! And you could emulate that cut on matchday tickets as well. Bring them back down to either £14 or £15 and although it might not seem like much now, it would do a bit (especially in the current climate) to persuade the ditherer to jump back on board.

As someone who doesn't have a lot of time for Buchanan, I thought he was a lot sharper in terms of his all-round play on Saturday than I've seen in a long time. He needs to proper welly his shots though. All too often he get's a clear one-on-one and trundles it straight at the keeper at thigh height.

I think it's the norm to wind things down outside just after kick-off and then inside 4 or 5 minutes later. There's normally a seller at each end of the inside of the JHS.

Not how it would work. The 2nd tier would come under the administration of the SPL rather than the SFL. It would simply be a case of approaching SFL (or indeed any clubs that took their fancy) and say "here, want in the SPL 2nd tier? If you say no, you'll never get to play in the top two tiers of Scottish football again as we'll remove relegation."

Surely "SPHell Mend'em!"

We wore the Centenary jersey against Dundee United in the cup.

£11 million. Annual losses about double ours.

Someone said at the game that Stirling have now conceded something like 28 goals in the last 7 games... if that's not the form of a shoogley peg, I don't know what is.

Owing to an exam I missed Doolan's goal by about 30 seconds. Great result from a moderate performance. Fraser looked really promising and Flannigan's goal was a howitzer. Only the word "telt" can do it justice.

It doesn't become a loss. It's just that our actual losses were bigger than the transfer fees.

If there's one thing worse than slimebag politicians it's inherited claim to sovereignty along bloodlines at the taxpayers' expense. Both waste the money that is stolen from the taxpayer for negligible benefit in return.

At least three Dundee players should have been sent off, and two of them should have been arrested for assault.

They wanted 400 press passes. They got told to jump off a bridge.

Completely unnecessary changes. Should be more transparency not less. Not that the public purse should be funding them anyway...

Au contraire, you were in full control of the mouse and adequately capable of rolling over the link before clicking. To trick is to use deceit and to exploit weakness without force. To coerce is to subvert the established will through force. Clearly there is no need for state intervention, but merely this incident to serve as an intuitive lesson to the individual. This is, of course, unless you are to propose that you are inherently incapable as an individual of equalling and detecting my guile and deception, which I am sure you aren't suggesting.

There's plenty here Blackpool Jags

Rumour was if he left they'd be after Goodwillie at Dundee United. Their price tag was supposed to be over a million, so if they hold true to that, Rangers might have to look a little lower... perhaps they'd be interested in a certain Aston Martin driver?

Odds on Buchanan moving to Dunfermline for a pittance, scoring 20 goals in half a season including a hat-trick against the Jags and securing them promotion and confirming our relegation? Edit: in case no one has seen, McCall is quoted in The Glaswegian rubbishing the claims Buchanan has been told to find a new club.

Shrek's a good guy, so I'll take that as a compliment.

What a thoroughly unpleasant individual you are.

It's not callous in the slightest. I find states forcing people into cycles of dependency callous. I find increasing the benefits system to such an extent that social mobility is actually reduced callous. I find bailing out the banks, shifting the burden from bondholders onto the general taxpayer callous. I find states telling people what they can and can't do callous and unnecessary. Again, this is absolute bullshit. You and BCJ Jag have both made this point without a shred of evidence in support of it. Ah, so you think that the nanny state which destroys our fundamental freedoms and creates and preserves elites is a good thing? Thanks for making it abundantly clear where you stand. We don't have a free market. We have state aligned protectionist capitalism. It has caused unavoidable damage, and the issue that our politicians are debating is whether to make that pain happen now, or make it more acute later. Libertarianism seeks to transform the way we try to deal with the problems of poverty, worklessness and oppression, since the statist way we have tried before has clearly failed catastrophically. The intervention of state in our lives has done more bad than good, creating as many problems as it solves and undermining basic freedoms which we should be fighting to protect. And again the ridiculous caricature. I would like to think that as a species we value individual responsibility and freedom: two things that the very presence of state attacks with venom. Conservatism is vile. It believes in social hierarchies. It holds hugely anti-immigration instincts. It is instinctively economically protectionist. On social issues, it wrangles with issues such as homosexuality and abortion. It is often highly militaristic and oppressive and undermines a lot of freedoms it purports to wish to preserve. People in this country often don't understand what it means to be a "liberal" because years of social democratic influence on the Lib Dems have often made them anything but. Liberal economics BELIEVE in the free market. Liberal economics believe in a reduction in the role of the state. Liberal economics is anti-protectionist with every bone in its body. To be a liberal is to be economically right wing! Look at the Free Democrats in Germany: they are the most economically right wing of the main parties! Being economically right wing is not a bad thing in the slightest. Libertarianism combines liberal economics (such as that shared by the Orange Book sector of the Lib Dems and the bulk of the Tories) with liberal social policy (which I would argue exists out of the main parties only with the Liberal Democrats). I'm absolutely astonished anyone could think that I don't sympathise with the difficulties described by Dragon and others. That doesn't mean that I have to Kotow to the fanciful claims that this suffering is realistically avoidable or that more government spending is the answer. What I propose is a different solution to the problem; I do not disagree that there is a problem itself. This "life's about more than political theories in books" is getting tiresome. Of course experience shapes people's political views. It doesn't mean that they are prima facie any more right, any more enlightened or any more worthy of respect than those who are younger who have the sheer audacity to disagree with them.

That's genius.

Do you need corrected again? I'm not taking a politics degree.

If ever I care much for what middle aged men think of my appearance, I'll be sure to let you know

Except that's not what anyone on this thread has advocated at all.