strichener

Why not, what about at 65k? Is there no upside here?

How much are you investing at $67k?

I'll take it as a badge of honour.

That isn't what it means. The club has accumulated losses of 500k over many years, this has to be financed somehow and it East Fife's case it is from people buying shares over their par value (share premium account) in your case £615k.

You'll have to enlighten me here. I have quoted directly from the linked article. I haven't removed any qualifiers or added anything extra. It is a shite article from a vested interest that in no way represents Scotland as it claims. I am someone that walks many miles every day of the week. Not in place of alternative transport but to give me and the dog exercise. Do I fall into the 58%?

Was stellar for the Colts in his 4 years with us.

"the people of Scotland"?? It isn't me that's misleading here. The article is not about Scottish attitudes, it is representative of some of the areas with the best public transport infrastructure. As city dwellers are so keen to walk and cycle, how about we remove the public transport subsidies in these areas and allocate it to the out of city settlements that can't get to their work by starting time using public transport.

That's hardly a surprising conclusion from sustran which has a vested interest is seeing investment increase. I note that they have their usual attention to detail - Not a town to be seen in the list and yet from this they conclude that "58% of people in Scotland walk at least five days a week." I'll carry out a survey in the villages around me and I can guarantee that 58% will become <10%. Using areas with decent public transport to draw a conclusion for the entirety of Scotland is misleading at best and downright dishonest at worst.

The flaw is that it has already been privatised for a pittance.

They should all have been banned tbh.

That.will be the same Oil and Gas that the SNP bases their economic case for independence on and are now saying that they will stop any more licences. Let's not worry though as we still have offshore wind to fill the coff.. Ah I see a flaw.

All childminders that want to provide funded spaces in Aberdeenshire need to be qualified. The reality is that people are willing to pay more for someone to walk their dog than look after their sprogs. I don't want to pull this thread away from it's topic but the people that moan that they need to pay 20% of their earnings on childcare are the problem. Why shouldn't they?

If all the childminders did that then those in work would struggle to get childcare (which is likely to happen in the next few years anyway as private providers and childminders find that they can't survive on the funding levels available from councils whilst at the same time councils have different rules for funding their own settings). From the minders perspective, you are your own boss and there is a level of flexibility around hours, days etc. The majority don't do it for the money.

I'm not sure that you know what the word average means. What I know for a fact is the my wife does not earn enough as a Childminder to pay tax after her job expenses such as food for the kids, heat, power, wear and tear, toys, excursions etc. etc. have been taken into account. Even if she was earning the average that you have obtained from a less than reliable source then £22k is still not what is "earned"

It certainly does add up for childminders. If they can't fill their spaces they can work for as little as £4 odds an hour. They are also limited to 3 kids pre school age which curtails their earning ability. She is doing well earning £22k tbh.

We'll just have to form a supporter organisation and get the Scottish Government to throw a few 100k to buy shares and take ownership. On the £275k in particular, this has been a longstanding loan rather than something that has just appeared this year and whilst it may be a former director, he is still the majority shareholder so there is little incentive for this loan to be called in. You also use the term technically insolvent in the second paragraph and then use the term insolvent in the following. Just to be clear, Peterhead are not insolvent and pay their debts as the fall due. Don't mistake this correction as an endorsement of how the club has been funded to date but it does need pointed out.

Aye, it's always someone else's fault.

We gave them 3 at their place to help them out earlier in the season. We would rather keep them this time thanks.

Aye, EK are probably the ones laughing now tbf. Or will be.

Yeah, that was a typo. I meant Strachan.

I think you'd call that a takeover tbh.

How times change. There was once a time when Clyde laughed at merging with EK. I remember the superiority complex shown by many Clyde posters.

Tldr;

As great as that goal was, he will have plenty of equally good ones to choose from that were scored at Peterhead. Tbh I can't remember him scoring any run of the mill goals. Well done to Raith and hope you end up winning the league. United are just so unlikable from the Manager to the players.

The source of income matters though. When the money comes from the SG, it is at the direct expense of some other funded service (as you said the budget must balance). If a council tax rise was allowed and the Scottish Government funding is accurate the that £144m would have been additional income to the public sector.