Yoss

That is very disappointing. I hope it's a bluff and the endings turn out very different. But even that'll be unsatisfactory.

So Livi have just discovered that Nixon might not have been the very model of financial probity?

Regardless of whether or not you might have promised / agreed a level of tip beforehand (which is not that unusual a scenario), it's still a tip, and doesn't represent any kind of contract. (It would of course be different if it involved any kind of collusion with the employer to pay that instead of normal wages. I don't think any such involvement would even need to be formal, informal would also do it.) If you're envisaging some kind of bizarre situation where an employee effectively had employment contracts with two different people, for carrying out exactly the same duties, that one employer was somehow entirely ignorant of, and yet which involved absolutely no relationship between the two 'employers', then that sounds like such a curious and artificial scenario that I can't think of having come across it or having seen it catered for in legislation. I can't think that that would represent a legal contract.

Well I would go back in there if it were open. But again, this season aside, the crowds were going to get for the foreseeable future just don't justify the cost of opening an extra stand every week, even if you were able to use this season's windfall to fund the initial cost of refurbishment.

Must be about time duncan popped his head in.

First time I've looked at this thread for months. It's like catching up with an old friend.

Well - unless you have some position of responsibility within the bakery - that wouldn't be bonuses, that's tips. Which have a slightly ambiguous tax position, but they're a different issue altogether. If you *were* in management and to some degree responsible for the payment of their wages then yes, liability would almost certainly fall to the company, regardless of whether you'd kept it secret from some other board members (and even if you subsequently left). Whether or not the players themselves would be liable would depend on whether they knew, or rather whether can reasonably be expected to have known, whether it was legit or not. If it was paid by the usual means and they were given payslips which appeared to show the appropriate tax deduction then they'd be fine. If they were given cash in paper bags and told to keep schtum then they'd likely be deemed culpable as well. (Though in practice it's probably the company that HMRC would go after.) Edit: or what Skyline said, much more concisely.

At least they went for some predictions, which forced them to commit themselves. Which is an improvement on the ones that just say something nice but non-commital about everyone.

I take the point, totally. I ended up going into hospitality at the rearranged game, and never got round to claiming the refund on my previous ticket either. (By and large, I don't begrudge lower league clubs the money.)

The terms and conditions on the back of the ticket give a 14 day time limit. (But, ultimately, although Raith were handling it because it made things easier, it's not their responsibility in any case, it's Dunfermline's. Might be worth checking with them to see if they're still honouring refunds.)

Sorry if this has already been covered elsewhere, but I was just having a belated look at the bbc's season preview, and they seem to think that Gary Glen has already moved on. Or at least, he's mentioned as "former Raith Rover man Gary Glen" in the Livi section. He'll be missed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/27793738

Okay, here's what I said about Murray at the end of last season: All of that stands. Murray has put a largely new team together, both he and they still have it all to prove - and they deserve the time to do so. I'm not going to overreact to a good second half yesterday, any more than I was going to overreact to a defeat on Tuesday night. I'm still right behind them as it stands, and I want it to work because I like Murray a lot, but we'll see how we're doing after those first couple of months or whatever. As far as specifics go, it is a bigger squad than last season despite some suggestions to the contrary, which gives us more cover (which we've already needed) with genuine competition for places everywhere except at full-back, and arguably centre-forward. McKeown worried me a bit for the first couple of games, but looked more comfortable yesterday. And I was especially delighted for Fox - not because I thought he was anything like as bad as everyone else seemed to think the other night, but because his donkey-work got more recognition yesterday. You could see from the reaction he got in the dug-out how pleased everyone was for him as well, which was good to see. (Also, the fact that he got subbed for the third game in a row makes me wonder if he's not been fully fit.) Stewart's pace has given us an extra option we didn't have last season, and maybe so has Scott's forward runs, though the jury is still out on him yet. Cuthbert looks pretty reliable, Perry is better than early reports suggested, Conroy has started reasonably well but we'll need to accept what he is and not expect him to be bombing down the touchline like an out-and-out winger. I'm loving Nade. I'm looking forward to the season a bit more, now. Yesterday's second-half has made that much difference, at least.

Meltdown already? Can't really be arsed with all this, but I'm still behind Murray for now.

Well okay, okay. Jessica Ennis can moderate.

p&b should have a dedicated dominatrix forum. I'll moderate.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to say.

I think Emilia Clarke has been okay on the odd occasion when the material has allowed her to be. I thought she pretty much nailed this scene: (Or at any rate, it made me think she'd make a top notch dominatrix, if her acting career ever fails.) http://youtu.be/IU2bIzsJ8LE

This argument about needing to cut things down to fit into ten hour series is obviously right enough - but it'd carry a lot more weight if they hadn't spent so much time needlessly padding out the Theon storyline beyond what was in the books, just to keep the actor contracted for when he'll actually be needed again. (And that would have been less irritating if he hadn't been so badly miscast in the first place, but that's by-the-by.)

That seems to be the word. I'm not sure I see her as being quite so critical in the books - yet. But then we don't know how that line of plot is going to pan out.

Nah, shows a bit of self-awareness, that.

Yeah, I just read that too. That's a serious character to cut, if so. Interesting to see where they go with that. I'm trying to avoid reading too much into it as spoiler clues for the future development of the books. But presumably if Arianne was going to play an absolutely critical role in books six and seven Martin would have been unlikely to advise them she could be left out.

So if there's going to be such a focus on Dorne, where's Arianne Martell?

Greig Spence has scored a hat-trick for Alloa.

Not seen him. But then you could hide three of him behind Nade, so maybe he's been playing all along and been hidden from view.

So, Eric Drysdale is on the SPFL board: http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-elects-new-board-at-agm/ Good luck.