W6er

If you'd asked me before the game, that's what I'd have said.

They needed the Green MSPs to form a government. Apparently it was the Greens who pushed the contentious trans stuff. Hasn't Kate Forbes been given a very junior position, hence her resignation?

I meant a couple of pints.

Ach, I'm happy to continue paying my £12 a month. It's the price of a couple of months.

I'm saying I don't think he's a conman, as intimated earlier in the thread by the 'Nigerian prince' remark; such a person's motive is to enrich themselves at others' expense, or in this case to the detriment of the club. If he can show he has the money, then surely to have made such cash at such a young age implies business acumen, does it not? I think he should be given an opportunity.

I was really replying to the Nigerian prince remark, which is surely insinuating the lad is a conman. He appears to have provided evidence of his lifelong support, with photographs, testimony, the Cockles Wilson bus, etc - and the club can surely see his season ticket purchase history. If he has the money, then what else is there? How is one usually vetted for a boardroom position? Surely he's more likely to be able to empathise with the younger fan? I cannot believe he has nothing to offer the club, and the possibility he has should be enough for the club to listen to him.

In all seriousness, the lad is worth a few bob. How hard would it be for the club to verify his bank balance? I'm not sure why folk are so cynical.

Interesting. This appears to be an enthusiastic, ambitious young man who's passionate about the club. The club should reach out to him and hear what he has to say.

It would be great if he bought out Kibble or the private owners. He appears to be a genuine fan, after all.

A good post. Some people do not seem to be aware that we were one of many empires - Macedonians, Persians, Romans, Arabs, Mongolians, Ottomans, Russians, to name but a few. We abolished slavery at the height of the Empire, in 1838. The Ottomans didn't ban slavery until 1924, whilst in Saudi Arabia slavery continued until 1962. In 1800, India's population is estimated to have been 169 million people. How on earth does @Albanian Buddy imagine that the British managed to rule India without the cooperation of the Indian people? Bear in mind we're talking of a small island half way across the world, where the only means of travelling there was many weeks at sea. Of course, colonialism wasn't good, but we're talking of a time where children were forced to do dangerous work, men were press-ganged into the navy and people were publicly hanged. The wealth certainly wasn't shared with the vast majority of the British people, as the indicated by the fact that recruiting for the Boer War was extremely difficult due to the high percentage of malnourished men at the time. The likes of the Jarrow Hunger Marches occurred in the 1930s. So the idea that the British people lived high on the hog from looted wealth is absolute nonsense. The NHS was founded after Indian independence. The British did bring some positive things to India, however, as colonial powers often do. We brought with us inventions such as the steam engine, and built an extensive rail network and passed on much of our knowledge, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Railways_Institute_of_Mechanical_and_Electrical_Engineering Western medicine; democracy; the rule of law (see above legislation); university education; engineering, architecture and, of course, cricket. Most of the oldest universities in India were founded by the British, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Allahabad The very fact that 2.5 million volunteers enlisted to fight for the British in World War II implies the British were not quite as tyrannical as some believe. Sorry for the late reply, but I work full time and generally don't have the time to commit to debunking some of the claims made on here. I don't know where to start when it comes to @antrin's belief that the Germans were heartlessly turning away refugees arriving from France during the 1930s, for example. 😉 Have a good weekend, all. COYS.

Indeed, you're correct and I was wrong. However, he still had a contract with the BBC, which he appears to have breached, and also his profile is greater as a result of presenting MOTD, as many younger folk will not recall his playing days. Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if he is self-employed for tax purposes.

That will teach me not to skim read!

It's great that he's joined, but we only have him until the end of the season. If he turns out to be brilliant, he's off, which is a shame. I suppose if he get's us that elusive top-six spot, then great bit of business.

If it gets us a top-six spot, then I won't be complaining. Interesting stat, though.

I am imagine that if Lineker had said "we must stop the boats, and send back all the illegals", or something along those lines, there would have been a similar outcry. Ultimately he's a public servant, and when receiving public money is supposed to remain neutral on contentious political issues. Whilst the BBC is publicly funded, it must be seen to be politically neutral, and despite @antrin's claims to the contrary, it clearly isn't and will never likely to be - which is why it should no longer be financed by extorting money from the public with the threat of a fine, which itself is enforced by the threat of imprisonment.