snorbens_caleyman

Oi! That's my wife's family that you are talking about What the **** did you feed it to end up with hypodermics stuck into the Ochils??? And you missed out the smell from the McCowans toffee factory next door. Now sadly closed down. Could always tell when they were making raspberry.

Does anyone ask him how we've managed to improve without him, and with a supposedly weakened squad?

Well, I've just wasted an hour looking for an answer to this General answer is that if assets are discovered after an estate has been closed, the estate is re-opened and its value recalculated, because there could be tax implications and so on. In this case, though, the asset is valueless, in monetary terms. But I can't see any simple way in which the company (club) can cancel them. Nor do I think that someone could simply write in and say "I'm snorbens' heir - you can have them." As far as I can see, there has to be a properly-authorised legally-recognised personal representative of the deceased before anything at all can be done. OTOH, this must happen all the time, so there must be well-trodden ways of dealing with it. I'm sure that someone here can tell us.

From the BBC stats and website, it looks to me that we have thrown away another one that we should have won. 11 shots, only 1 on target. Only consolation is that Annan were beaten too.

Maybe the Jambos would be interested in a new badge?

Your AI has some strange ideas about the markings on the pitch And what bridge has it brought in?

I know it says "player", but Scott Kellacher deserves something.

The BBC reports Savage as saying that Lionel Nessie will be reinstated as mascot. That seals it for me!

Which is not consistent with the public statement of Savage's offer, in which he appears to say that his offer is conditional on these things being done. My view is that Savage's statement was a shortened summary of his aims. I leave out detail to keep my postings short - honest I do! - and I suspect that Savage's public statement does the same. What will count from a financial and legal point of view is what's in his formal offer, not what's in his public statement. For example, no one could expect to acquire 100% of the club's shares inside two weeks. His formal offer may well say that he will start trying to acquire them if his offer is accepted, and that his offer will lapse if he doesn't achieve 100% - or whatever his acceptable level of shareholding is - within a defined timeframe. His funding of the club until the end of the season is independent of his offer to take over.

As my final word tonight, on the assumption that Savage is no fool, then to paraphrase myself... ... I am sure that he knew that

Savage's statement says that his offer is open until 11 April. It does not say that all the shares have to be transferred by then. His four conditions may appear to be independent of each other, but they're not. You'd be unwise to agree to any one of them unless you knew that the other three were also agreed. And I am sure that he knows that....

Didn't someone work out that the small shareholders accounted for around 5% of the shareholding? You might not be top of the mailing list

6-0 now! Kelty down to 10 men. Could be 5 away wins in the league today

Don't knock it! That's two assists he has now. Obviously very influential when on the bench.

Has he actually said that he wants people to invest in FC Inverness (his company)? I can't remember seeing that... but there's been so much. I was wondering if there were any tax advantages through owning shares via a company rather than personally. I came across Business Asset Disposal Relief, which could potentially reduce the amount of CGT that you pay on disposal of assets. (If they have increased in value, of course!) There may be other things - I thought of limited liability, reduction in dealing/transfer costs when transferring shares/the company, corporation tax vs higher rates of income tax, etc. But I just don't know because it's not my field and I've never been in that position. Anyone know?