Leaderboard

Just seeing a story on front page of courier this morning saying Tullochs are to gift the stands to the club, giving them complete ownership of them and will mean no longer paying a rent to Tullochs. Big bonus for the club not having that financial burden over them

Sounds like a very sensible decision to me. He has worked hard over many years to reach his goal in F1 and whilst some wish to continue at the top for as long as they can others prefer to quit whilst at the top. Good luck to him, I say. To defend his title he would be forced to stay at Mercedes with Hamilton as his "team mate". This has 2 distinct disadvantages. Firstly he would have to compete with Hamilton who is undoubtedly a better and more competitive driver. Secondly he would have to spend yet another year working in the same team as Hamilton who is not exactly the greatest person to have as a work mate. Rosberg leaves with the upper hand over Hamilton and I'm sure that denying Hamilton the opportunity to take the title from him will probably give him as much pleasure as winning it in the first place.

The club don't/won't "own" the original leasehold as that is/was a separate contract....transferring a lease is not a simple or straight forward affair as it needs agreeing by the landowner etc. What the club do have is a rock solid sub-lease....so we've got no worries about being turfed off the land or being priced out of existence on rent for that. As sad as this may seem, it was actually a little emotional for me to have got the news on this. I fought hard for assurances that the clubs position was protected after the new stands were built and things were being shuffled around. That dragged on for a few years and, as some may remember, I actually got "sacked" as a volunteer at the club over it. When Kenny Cameron made a return to the club he arranged for me to meet David Sutherland who made me promises in regards to the club being looked after. Because I wouldn't (couldn't) share information I was given at the time I was accused of all sorts by fellow fans and had to just take it on the chin. That was about 6 or 7 years ago. Today saw that promise delivered and, for me, a little vindication.

The value of that publicity over 10 years would be a few hundred thousand pounds, in the context of a gift worth millions. Remains to be seen whether a condition of the gift is that the Tulloch name has to remain, but even if it does, it's a great deal for us. The only downside I can think of concerns responsibility for replacement of the seating structures which may be getting towards the end of their life. Clearly ICT will have to pay for that when the time comes, but would that otherwise have been the landlord's responsibility? It would depend on the terms of the lease.

Folk had different opinions of them, they no longer exist. Although, by coincidence, folk also have very different opinions of the new club which seems to have inherited Ibrox Stadium, an asset, which in my view, ought to have been liquidated to settle the claims of their very many unpaid creditors. However, I digress and agree that we need to be very careful as Elgin will indeed be up for this. As I recall, it took us until the last minute to get the better of you the only other time the teams met in the cup a few seasons back and we had the advantage of being at home then.

The Guardian reports that this (The Investigatory Powers Act) went through parliament with barely a whimper. I think it is important to reflect why any opposition was relatively token rather than full on. It is easy to brand such legislation as a "snoopers charters" but the reality is quite different. I'm sure we all worry about our privacy, but personally, I worry about my freedom more. The Act may give the authorities new and extensive powers but I am firmly of the view that if you are a law abiding citizen you have nothing to fear. Why on earth would the authorities waste time watching everything we do? What is important is that the authorities have the necessary powers to collect evidence to address the kind of crimes that threaten us. With massive advances in modern technology going hand in hand with the rise in cyber crime, terrorism etc it is important that those protecting our freedoms have the necessary legal powers. One Lib Dem peer is reported to have argued that the danger of this type of legislation is that if we were to have a far more repressive Government, then the powers in this act would allow them to monitor us as you suggest. But the thing is, if such a Government as that was to come into power without the legislation being in place, they would either put the legislation in place or just do it anyway. Senior political leaders are privy to information that we are not. They will know what the authorities assess the threats to our freedoms to be. I am sure it is their recognition of the threats we face and the powers required to combat them that led them to only lip service opposition. Whilst I understand a feeling of unease, I think this is probably a necessary reflection of the times we live in.