bridge too far

Byeeee!!!!! Where are you off to? Financially sound Spain?

I want to contribute post no 5000. Bet I've been beaten to it Damn!

Dunno - 'twasn't me that suggested there might be restrictions. A few years ago I worked on a project in Oxford that involved moving services from an old, listed building to a brand new one. The listed building was in the centre of Oxford and would have been worth a bomb on the open market. However, it was covenanted and could only be used for health or education purposes. Hence it was bought, for a song, by the university. Similar restrictions could well apply - e.g. could only be used for sports purposes, community purposes............ These restrictions could have been waived maybe if better facilities were being provided elsewhere (not difficult ) but maybe they wouldn't be waived if there was no longer a 'community' football club in existence. I imagine the power lies in the hands of the local council. I think we had similar restrictions on SMS?

I'm cynical and I suggested a couple of days ago that Gaydamak might be waiting for PFC to go into admin so he could buy FP and add it to his portfolio that already includes the surrounding area. This would make potential development easier and cheaper. However, someone suggested that there's a covenant on FP which would preclude it from commercial development. I have experienced these sorts of commercial covenants before so it wouldn't surprise me.

They've been insolvent for some time now, haven't they? Isn't it illegal to continue to trade whilst knowingly insolvent?

But any club looking to buy a PFC player, and knowing this sh1t has just hit the fan, is going to offer sweet FA for said player. PFC aren't really in a strong bargaining position now, are they?

I think we always paid our taxes on time.

Mixed year for me too. Good points: new grandson, new job (tried retirement, didn't like it - flattered I can still get a job at my age ) Bad points: my mum died, I've been under the weather since September and still not completely recovered. 2010 hope to carry on not smoking. Plan to teach my granddaughter to dance, now that she can walk

Good question! AFAIK PFI is still 'off balance' in accordance with advice from HMRC and the big audit bods. I'm no accountant so my understanding is amateurish to say the least. I think that means that the assets are 'off balance' (i.e. the value of the hospital / school buildings) but, as they're being paid for rather like a mortgage over time (usually 30 years), I'm not sure where the monthly repayments are accounted for. Also some of that repayment covers service provision i.e. hard and soft FM, energy costs etc. I guess one sort of balances the other out?

But still the lowest % of GDP in 2009 compared to all other countries shown in that graph. I'm bloody glad I'm not Japanese

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8434545.stm I'm surprised and pleased at how we're doing

That could well be why so many countries don't want to listen to us - they've got long memories of our 'glory days' and the consequential exploitation by us of them.

As a temporary measure as he is first team coach. I doubt it's a permanent appointment.

Some say not, because there is, apparently, provision for culprits to be assessed for mental illness and this didn't happen. I think some appeals to the US do work - weren't there some bankers who were extradited and then we got them back? But the US forces are so embarrassed that this guy so easily hacked into their security systems they don't want to lose face by letting him be tried in the UK. In the same way as the Chinese not wanting to lose face by listening to 27 appeals from the UK about Mr Shaikh.

I think because they broke financial rules. We just went broke.

TDD - I've been researching your commendable support for Gary McKinnon. From what I've read, he hasn't been extradited yet. A High Court Appeal was launched on 16 December so I guess that'll have to be heard first. What you need to understand in this case is that the Home Secretary has to look at legal opinion and precedence. If he makes a 'straight from the heart' judgement and denies the US the right to extradite, then his judgement will be challenged legally. He then has to allow various appeals (such as the High Court one currently underway) and then, I reckon, various EU and Court of Human Rights appeals. A Home Secretary HAS to follow due process. S/He cannot allow personal views to override the legal processes.

I know I was gently exploring whether JB had made a simple spelling mistake.

Is this rhyming slang for Americans?

You know - this is a debate I often have with myself and I've yet to find an answer that satisfies both sides of me On the one hand, I truly believe that every country has the right to self-determination and who are we, the arrogant West, to tell other countries how to behave. Because we, the arrogant West, never do anything wrong do we? And because we, the arrogant West, have exploited so many countries in the past. On the other hand, I can't close my eyes to human rights abuses and barbaric treatments and laws. Which side of me should I support :smt102

Indeed - 'silly money' is mentioned Every club is sure to make ultra-low offers knowing that PFC can't afford to turn anything down. I might offer £1 to buy one of their players to have as my love slave

I don't believe he has been 'handed over' yet but I do agree with you here. However it's worth reading this article in the Guardian, and particularly the final paragraphs that say: "Many MPs privately admit that the home secretary is in a spot and right in law: there is nothing he can do except allow all legal options to be exhausted, including judicial reviews of the human rights decisions, both in Britain and Europe. He expects to lose. Palpable unease remains, a mixture of distaste for America's political heavy-handedness and its bleak judicial culture, so unlike the TV courtroom dramas it exports. In that sense McKinnon is a bit like Amanda Knox, a beneficiary of the all too human impulse to say that foreign courts get it wrong." Here's the article in full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/16/gary-mckinnon-extradition-to-us

Not if he genuinely believed he was only carrying someone else's suitcase for them. He believed these people had arranged a record deal for him, so it stands to reason he'd believe anything he was told. AFAIK it isn't a criminal offence to have bipolar disorder. And WTF have 'our immigration officers' got to do with it? They're apparently supposed to stop 'undesirables' entering our country, not preventing people from leaving it.

It's a view I've arrived at from my knowledge of many members of the armed forces (mostly relatives of mine). It hasn't been force-fed to me, it isn't a political view. It's a generalised view that I've come to all on my own. I don't like to give anyone any impression about myself - I don't really care what anyone on here thinks about me. I do however (probably unfairly) draw conclusions about others based on their contributions to any debate. Need I say more?

See - you're not reading posts properly - STILL! I quite clearly stated - in fact I'll quote - "It's always been my view". So I've got it from me - OK Also - I have never said that I know more than you. What I have said is that I read widely and from many sources so that I can try to understand issues as completely as possible. You patently don't do this. I don't like or dislike the 'meat' of your posts because there isn't usually any or, if there is, it's usually put in sausages and I prefer steak.

Absolutely - of course your opinion is as valid as mine. However, I hope that my opinion is based on knowledge and I try to read as much as I can about an issue to inform my opinion. I don't think you do - I think you cherry-pick and/or choose to read only stuff that supports your point of view. However you CAN have a go about this: It's always been my view that forces' personnel are not really encouraged to have independent thoughts and to question. I can understand why - it would be a bit dangerous to have a philosophical debate if someone's aiming to shoot you. I wonder if that's why you have tunnel vision. Unfortunately, this trait of yours is also causing you to attribute claims to me that I haven't made. I have made absolutely no comment about the rights / wrongs of one country telling another what to do as you imply in your quoted comment.