Frank's cousin

Guided Missile and Dune

Ok I'll bite - lets assume these figures are correct - Just be be clear for a moment: You had existing debts of 57mil by April 2008 - you had a wage bill of 54mil up from 38mil in 2007. You made a loss of 17mil to year end of 2008. Now what is not shown in your summary is the operating costs but its clear that that whatever they were at the time you were operating at a loss of 17 mil as of April 2008 on top of debts of 57 mil - primarily contributed to by that rediculous and stupidly sized wage bill - Now IF Gaydarmark had given cast iron assurances that that a) he would pprovide funds to address the 54 mil of debt AND gift teh club another 17 mil a year - then you could say that you were indeed operating as say Chelski etc... however, you can not tell me that Gaydamrk ever had that kind of money (afterall you stated elsewhere that he was borrowing it from a bank and your problems were started by this being called in - so even if he was contributing a huge amount to sustain your clu, it was not actually HIS money he was using to do this but another Banks eg more loans...more debt, just his name against it rather than yours ) - how much was he injecting into Pompey each year to underwrite teh business plan... by teh looks of those debts FEck all - so you were borrowing with NO guarrantees of being able to sustain ithe contracts you were writing out for players - and had been for some time. Now fast fowrad and that debt grew to 120 mil give or take a few quid... now ny REASONABLE board would ahve looked at teh situation in April 2008 and gone 'fec', unless we do something drastic we are fecked, we are trdaing insolvently... this is illegal... but not. Instead of selling everything and getting the books to balance so you can pay off said debt.... yes Pompey kept on spending - it matters not if you sold a few players, because with such larch contracts you may even have had to lose money to get rid of some of them which probably contributed to the ****e anyway - but as I recall you still had several nice big wage earners on the books... you see this is what WE DO GET and you don’t - you were in a feckin big whole and just kept on digging - a hole created by the simple fact that you felt totally justified in spending big, like Billy big boots and all the other prem clubs blah blah, but without any guarantees or appropriate plan in place for how this would be underwritten... which is the cheating bit we refer to on here, but you simply don’t get. The second point that is interesting has been touched upon... in your current hideous state, it has been mentioned that CSI were injecting 8.5 mil or so a year (on average) into the club. Now as this is 'free money' SURELY any reasonable approach would have been to use this to pay off creditors straight away, reduce the CVA and assured creditor debt burden to remove the various ownership issues and complex equity stakes so that you were able to be start again from scratch sooner rather than later. ..BUT NO, pompey aren’t reasonable - they used that to support a squad again well beyond their means to avoid relegation - competitive advantage this time at based on money from CSI who as we have seen are run by folks perhaps not really totally trustworthy - so you get into debt this time with CSI - and once again enter player contracts that would not be sustainable if it were not for money that CSI pump in, money that should really be given to creditors FIRST rather than supporting a squad beyond you means by 8 mil a year in the NPC.... a squad which we now see is beyond your means by the tune of 8 mil a year...and paid for by loans from CSI (they want it back LOL) so borrowing heavily, whilst owing on the CVA ..... Jeez you could not make it up. The only reason you are still in existence is because of the FL and FA not having the balls to sort this out... and your lot are protesting against them... would make me laugh if it was not so pathetically corrupt.

Afraid you might learn something... I am going to keep replying until I get an intelligent response - I am sure I can Coax one out of you...maybe

Think you are being too kind to him. He is obviously young and foolish as his 'provocative' support of EDL etc suggests - these groups pray on the weak and vulnerable and provide them a nice safe haven amongst the throng - That said he is too obvious that its clear he is just on a wind up most of the time... he should in effect really be restricted to the Muppet show. There are questions he raises as you say that should be debated and it’s interesting to hear the opposing views, but the real interest is in understanding the background to these views - That's how we learn, and it’s that 'evidence' we evaluate and can potentially alter our own opinion - never going to happen with sweeping anti-left clichés and rhetoric. He just proves again and again his naivety and lack of knowledge with his posts be it a failure to understand the makeup of the current 'Britons', or even our recent history. But perhaps most obvious is his inability to appreciate subtlety - sweeping statements that the EU experiment has failed, rather than the reality that certain parts of the EU have failed and certain parts have created wealth, stability and supported the capitalist agenda he is so committed to. You can’t and should not judge such a thing during the current extreme environment because naturally most people will respond to the single issue as Cameron has done - it may turn out to be a masterstroke of genius or a poor decision, I don’t know and nor do 99.999999 % of those with an opinion on it, so the wise decision may have been something less antagonistic and more diplomatic? But again the jingoism and tub thumping celebration is being delivered by those who really dot care about the economic impact (positive or negative) as for them it’s mostly about sovereignty.... and those that are ignorant of the simple fact that the impact is really still open to debate. The second element to all this is of course whether it’s always right to ONLY be concerned with UK PLC - as long as we are better off who cares? No doubt I will be classed as a member of the Looney left liberal elite... again another naive attitude - This is not a political question but a human one - ultimately its the same as other question marks of a global economy and a capitalist system - it’s no longer political but your opinion will ultimately depend on whether who believe it’s right and fair to only think about yourself being able to buy an iPod for £150 because it’s made by folks on less than $2 a day versus having to save and wait to buy one for £800 because it’s made in the UK or US? Having a human approach to this would recognize the VALUE in a global economy and the fact that capitalism has allowed many nations to build an economic future for themselves, but finding a middle ground that is less exploitative - using the same simple IPOD analogy maybe having to pay £400 but knowing it’s made by folks paid a more appropriate wage? Our (Common)wealth was built upon exploitation of nations minerals and resources in exchange for a few schools, legal systems and the clap - but thankfully that is now history, but one we should not forget... Finally, Dune, you keep going on about the 'Liberal Elite' as some kind of Clarksonian insult yet you don’t define it, don’t understand it and lack Clarkson's dry wit to bring it off - you are in effect a mini Clarkson wannabe, only he is paid to be controversial where as you just troll a web forum... You say the liberal elite is 'out of touch with the people' - does that really surprise you or do you need a dictionary to understand the term elite - swap it for 'educated' and you might be closer to the truth. It's a (sad) fact of life that for many people they just don’t have the luxury of time nor had the environment in which they could make the most out of their education. I don’t consider myself above anybody, just lucky that I have the luxury of time and the opportunity to learn.... and continue learning (after all thats what LISTENING to diverse opinion allows you to do - if backed up by evidence rather than infantile rhetoric.)

OK, finally someone (fairplay to the Duckhunter as well) who has stated their position clearly - However, may I ask what particular concerns around limiting individual countries fiscal policy you have? The reaon I ask is that its easy to appreciate this as a bad thing when there is a huge amount of the proverbial hiting the fan as in the currrent climate, and naturally during such an extreme situation, decentralised fiscal policy is certainly better for an individual nation. But IF for example, such fical union had already (hypothetically) been shown to be of major benefit to those particpating, with solid growth, satbility etc, would you ahve a different perspective on this? For me this is the crux. Many have claimed they are against it for economic reasons - that it is not in OUR best interests, If that IS the case then surely they would be FOR it if it WAS in our best interests? Unless there is an underlying sense of nationalistic pride seeping through? The second point is then around the 'loss of democracy' - well I dont get this one really. We elect politicians to represent our interests and EXPECT them to have the ability to see the bigger picture and therefore make informed decsions on our behalf as they should have an understanding of all the pros and cons, which if being totally honest the avergae joe voter will simply not have - the alternative is constant referenda with decsions made in many cases by a majority who dont see the bigger picture? Democratic yes... but in everybodies best interests? I agree with the the more democratic localised decision making for many of the powers currently with Brussels -having some of this legislation made within the EU, is not only undemocratic, but also highly inefficient and practically inept, but the flip side is the bigger decisions that effect the whole of the EU benefit from a more centralised debate and decision making ... in theory. I say in Theory, because for thsi to be seen as correct the nations particpating have to be fully engaged with it - recognise that just like democracy at a local level will always leave the minorities who did not support it disenfranchised same goes at a pan EU level... if you are in, you except the majority decision as the right democratic solution. I guess its also a mind set thing. Those EU countries that are fully committed do see themselves as Europeans to a higher degree and recognise that this does meen some compromise as decsions made centrally will sometimes be in the interest of the EU as a whole and not individual memeber states - the mindset for inclusion needs to be an acceptance of this - If you wnat to influence it as well you need to showing leadership from within. I think that is teh issue with the UK, we simply dont have a mindset that we woudl be willing to accept decsions that are best for the EU rather than what is best for the UK... so we are better out simply for that reason, that we were never really in in the first place. What impact that has economically for the UK, I have no idea, could be great, could be crap and I have listened and heard economists who have suggested the full spectra.... needless to say you have to filter out those whose opinions seem to be politically influenced (from both sides). Its the tub thumping arrogance of those with who sggest there is only one answer and they have it I struggle with - when surely the smart thing to do right now is to try and build a balanced economic view on the diverse expert opinion - some seem content to follow whichever expert suports tehir political slant or their chystal ball (both equally naive IMHO)

You miss the point completely (as you frequently do) - I was not talking about the democrcy of a referendum. But for a referendum to be TRUELY democratic (as you well know) all thsoe participating should be in full pocession of the arguments for and against the motion. The problem is that even the experts cannot agree on the pros and cons, so it becomes political as we have seen and you have naively not - this whole debate has become political rather than focussing on the multitude of variable issues surrounding EU membership both positive and negative. Until the public is given the opportunity to seperate the political rhetoric and bullS from ALL the pros and cons (not just the economic arguments) a referendum on the subject would be undemocratic - sadly this issue will always remain political as the interested parties on both sides have good selfish reasons for it remianing so.

Oh dear, back to your rather infantile habit of throwing around insults without actually knowing anything about those who may express certain opinions - you really are odd.... 'Looney left'? not heard that one since about 1983 during Thatchers reign... comical really. What this whole thread sums up is exactly why a referendum on EU memebership would be so unwise. Because NO BODY on here has demonstrated they have the knowledge or understanding to ultimately determine waht is is Britains best interests - speculation argument, counter argument usually focussed on one issue, when the pros and cons of EU membership can not be so simplistically argued. I dont have the answer either as I dont know enough about all the variables to draw any conclusions - and this thread seems full of thsoe who liek their own rhetoric, but are unwilling to explore any discussion on any opposing position. Do posters on here really think they have the theoretical and practical understanding of sufficient economic principles to say what is right economically for the UK long term, when the experts cant agree? Are the anti Euro/monitary union posters on here really that arrogant that they believe they could have foreseen the current crisis - without the benefit of hindsight? Is the Euro problem a problem of financial union or one which has been created as a result of the global economic crisis? Brought about by banks and governments and irresponsible greed... not the Euro? Interestingly, as its a Tory paper, the Telegraph ran a nice little predictor in 2000 to try and see where the world would be in 2020 - they predicted an eventual Euro-dollar link up (maybe tongue in cheek) but perhaps most telling was their statement taht Britain would still be considering whether it was a good or bad thing.... And that IS what sets us apart from the rest of the EU... the preoccupation with the fading empire - we either want to lord it over everyone or sulk in the corner - we were happy when we could tell the commonwealth what to do and how to run their countries, but when up against the bigger kids in the playground we get scared. We could now be at the heart of DIRECTING policy in Europe, using our experience, and considerable weight to drive change for the better and (and in our interests) if we had always been in the top 2 or 3 seats . I make no apologies for suggesting that a major part of the sceptism form the right (as we can see with the splits) has nothing to do with economic arguments, but simply down to nationalism. Now if thats what you believ say so and admit it, dont try and hide your view on this behind some pseudo specultive attempts at 'understanding' the vastly complex ecomonic elements of the debate. I have nothing more than a surface persepctive on the ecomonic arguments and no poster on here has written anything that suggests they know much more (despite some arrogance to the contrary), so for me its suggests that maybe, just maybe we woudl be better placed helping to shape it in our favour, than watching the Germans and French go it alone? Simple question and simple reasoning.

Well that's not going to do your bit for the UK trade deficit buying that foreign nonsense.....

'' Only drop because West Ham have lost two games they should have won?'' Sorry, total ******. We are top because over 21 games we have accumulated the most points. End off. The fact that WHU have ;ost two on teh bounce shows that ALL sides will have bad spells and all sides will find they drop points when not expected to do so... surely its what keeps the game interesting? I have no doubt that Nige would have looked at the last 4 games when he had a full fit squad and gne thats 8-8 minimum expected return, but with key players out and a dip, the fact we are still top is ecause over 21 games overs have had these momenets too, and we made hay while the sun shined - Made sure we GOT the points when we we had the chance. What is important now is quite simple: we need everyone fit and to rediscover the form we showed over the first 16 or so, if we want an auto spot - and if we get a coupel of decent signings to refresh things, then we should be in good shape to give a bloody good shot. I dont think Nige will be happy, but he wont be too miserable about it either - we showed some good form yesterday with around 20 chances created... luck could have meant the result go eiether way, but at thats the nature of the beast. Believe and keep the faith in the Bus

To be fair, it is difficult at times to be objective when there is so much up and down emotion in following your team. Fans by their nature tend to be over emotive about it especially during and immediately after a game. Trouble is deep down, everyone wants to believe, but its not easy - in some respects its probably more difficult as we have had such a good start - beyond our expectations so there is a fear at tiems that it ius surely too good to be true and it must end with a slumpa nd dissapointment - If anything say we were about 7 or 8th now and had started to put some good results together, most would be very happy and believe we could push on in Jan and make a promotion push - as it is, we are tehre to be shot at and now its about bottle in the spotlight as well as all the noraml footballing variables - for most fans we have not seen our team in this spot so its tricky, nice but difficult to be objective (especially as most would argue we have actually not been as good in teh last 4 games as previously... ;-)

Its just that so many of those (especially that post on here ) that would be classed as Eurosceptic do not disassociate they sceptisism of EU integration from their 'nationalism'. You mention an interesting point around declining levels of democracy versus centralisation... Ironically the party that is most for localsed control and teh reduction of centralised government - the Greens - are perhaps further to the left than the run of the mill socialists! I am all for localised government of certain things - it IS far more democratic, but there are also distinct advantages to certain things being more centralised from an economic standpoint - we do live in a global economic environment afterall - But I am not an economist so cant state categorically what is the best approach within a global market - lets just say though that the current system which allows economies such as China to grow rapidly is because when workers get paid $2 a day so that Dune can buy his iPod for £150 rather than £800 if build in the UK does seem a tad distorted. If he is happy with that and morally at peace with it, nowt I will say will make him change his mind, but he forgets one of the key issues about communism - The 'failed experiment' in the former eastern block was NOT communism - in the way it was envisaged. It was an attempt that failed primarily because Stalin created a dictatorship of sorts, removed freedoms and what followed was a progressive isolationism with a huge chunk of their economy spent on an arms race during the cold war. Communism is NOT about keeping everyone poor - the stages of evolution were to ultimately lead to shared WEALTH not poverty - a fine ideal, but not possible for one nation unless it has all the resources, technology and culture. I am not saying it would ever work, but to dismiss the ideals based on both misunderstaning and the failure in the USSR is simply ignorant. BUt if Dune is happy with the teh current global approach that allows us to be exploit workers in other nations for the sake of cheap imports and teh the vastly disproportionate distribution of wealth... uess tha's why he's a Tory....

Right or wrong? time will tell on the economic front - Those currently jumping for joy are those that have just had their nationalistic egos massaged, nothing more. The biggest irony in all this is the German and French would have preferred a totally committed UK membership, given our status from the day we joined in '74. Had that occured, Instead of the perceived need to the UK to lick the backsides of the French and Germans the remaining EU states would now be listening to a UK-German-French elite... but we have forever been on the outside ****ing in so for the UK we have never had the opportunity to truely shape the EU economy or legislation... which ****es of the nationalistic dullards so much. Britain has tried to dictate the clubs rules, without ever adopting them, without embracing the ideas of the club, so naturally the other members might feel we have outstayed our welcome anyway. I would just add one point. Many industrialists/businessness types/Mail readers suggest we are a better proposition for industry because we are not locked in to EU employment law as most of the others - It is far easier to sack or make redundant a british worker in the UK, that a French or German one for example - less costly less red tape.. they argue it makes us more competitive and attracts business to our shores... Yet I think we can safely assume it has not prevented Germany growing economically... nor could you deny that the USA which has about the easiest sacking/redundancy legislation, is not in turmoil right now.... and this is legislation designed to PROTECT workers. That's what's so commical about their attitudes (or so sad) that they rejoice in the UK being free of 'red tape' that makes the lives of ordinary workers just that bit more secure (guess that's the typical Thatcherite attitude though).... the Germans have got where they are becuse of attitude to work, graft and effort, despite taking on the economic burden of the former East and the economic pain it caused them. Its not beyond the relms of reasoning to suggest that handled the right way, its the job security that this legislation provides that encourages productivity, loyalty and growth...

Back on topic... the Comment from the Everton fans re investment makes me laugh. I have never understood waht fan mean when they are demanding someone come in and invest in the. Because in a true financial sense an investment implies a return - and wor betide anyone who thinks its acceptable to take money 'out' of a club - according to most fans everyone involved should do it for free and the love of the club ;-) - certainly want they really mean is someone to come in and give them loads of cash... and not expect anything else in return. sure who can potentially buy a club for 20 mil - invest 150 mil in a new stadium and the another 150 mil in a squad, but the club wont eb worth 320 mil as a result.... Seriously though, what do they want? A new owner who builds them a new ground and 'gifts' them cash to spend on a squad capable of winning things? Well many sit and watch enviously as clubs like City and Chelsea go mad with their cheque books and it certainly works, in terms of trophies... but is it really they way football should go? sure you can argue that its the reality of the modern game. Scudamore has done a gtreat PR and marketing job on the PL and the money it attracts from broadcasters and rich oligarchs and arabs is perverse - the clubs as play things for the rich - is that reallly what fans now want? I am not so sure - I like the fact we have stability now and that it appears we have some provision to gradually improve the squad, but the thing i have alwys liked is the fact we see the value in developing talent - now we just have to provide an environment and competition to keep them a bit longer!

I'm with Dune and Hypo on this one... smarmy Dave has indeed stood up for what he believes is in Britains best interests.... Now whether you actually believe his opinion on whats is in Britains best interests is another matter. Thing about all this which is so worrying is the decision he is making is not one in which even his own party all agree on... becuase the biggest problem the Tories have in all this is their inability to seperate two key issues - one of the economic challenge, one of the old school Tory obsession with sovereignty... its gets the poor souls all in a muddle.. pulling in different directions. The issues need to be differentiated if anyone wants a proper debate about the EU. The sovereignty issue shoudl have nothing to do with it - thats going to be your personal opoinion, whetehr you are obsessed with a nationalistic independence or whetehr you recognise that its kind of irrelevent in the grand scheme of things - afterall, no one publicises or even hears about legislation in Europe that IS in our benefit - makes no story... and to be honest, borders are artificial and transient in the grand scheme of things anyway over a grander timeframe... total ****** issue. So what is best for teh UK economically? Well for every 'expert' that says stay in, you can find one that says come out, and as is typical of making such decsions purely on economic arguments, if you dig deep enough, their opinions will mostly based on self interest, the kind of business they run, their import/export ratios and what influence it all has on their own bottom line - see that's the problem when you leave such decsions to capitalists - they dont giove a flying feck about the good of the country, its not even in their lexicon, they are only interested in what is best for their own interests - in Camerons case he knows such a 'stand up to the EU stance' will appeal to the gingoistic little Englanders - who will cheer, when the reality is, whether our ecomonic interests as a nation are best served within or without, at the table or without, allowing the Euro to fold or not... is a far more complex question that even economists can nnot agree on.. and so its easy to find some that support your stance. Sadly whilst the sovereignty issue remains so ingrained in so many, its virtually impossible in this country to have a grown up debate about the economic value of the EU...

No insults from me... but you are wrong in your assumption. I have FRIENDS who are pompey fans, I dont even feel that bothered about rivalries in football as it my team I want to do well - call me old fashioned, but the pre war days of locals fans going to see both clubs is how it should be.... so your cup win as a genuine cup win would not stick in my throat, envious of the success yes, cursing our luck that we drew a full strength gunners in tehf inal and you drew a relative minnow sure... but thats the cup. NOw I dispise what Chelsea have done and Man City are doing now, I even dont have too much time for the disproprionate way in which Man U were able to grow so much bigger than the rest supported by armchair fans and teh lions share of sky revenue... BUT in all cases they have not defaulted on the monies' lost' through squad investment and wages so they just stay on the cusp of what I consider the ethical divide, just as tehy have undoubtedly got a competitive advantage by having losses guarranteed by owners. Leeds were the first to break their bank and thus in effect cheat - because if exposure to liabilities is such that as simple thing as failing to finish in a CL place can tip you over the edge, then that irresponsibilty is cheating in my book. With pompey it was even more extreme, because whatever you like to think you are a relatively small club, that had squad not even affordable by a club with a 50k gate, if left to their own devices and owners who have repeatedly lost teh plot with respect to financial control - you undoubtedly took a path that gave you a competitive advantage on the WAY to winning the cup. Had you had an onwer who underworte that debt in full, fair enough it would not ahve been ideal, but it would not have been cheating. BUt you had owners and directors who did not have a clue where the money was comming from or even give a **** about where it was coming from... when 30 mil in debt in that cup season at christmas - you kept spending and not paying the tax max - THAT IS WHAT DETEST, not the cup win... and the fact that only a smalll handfull of your fans have enough ethical and moral fibre (and indeed intelligence) to see it and get angry about it. FFS, if you were protesting against your owners, getting angry and showing shame in what your club had done, I would feckin applaud you, respect you and support whatever battloes you still needed to face... but the best you can do is blame the FL for its FAPPT - which EVERYONE knows is flawed. As fans of football surely you can see that the way your club has behaved is a disgrace - its the way the vast majority of fans seem to view this that is your shame, not how teh club behaved which I acknowledge is difficult to do a huge amount about, but the way in which you have reacted and deny your club did anything wrong which is so shameful.

'tis a bit blowy, I'll give you that... schools shut early, wife sent home from work, so my usual 'working from home' day disrupted ;-) crap weather

A more laborious way, but maybe simpler to understand is to think of it as a 64 team league - which means that each team will play 63 home games and 63 away. over 126 weeks assuming 3pm saturdays ;-) so if you pick any given saturday (effectively mirroring a random draw) , the odds that City will be at home is and playing Man U would be 1/126, ( ie it only happens in one week out the 126 saturadys) The odds that city will be at away at Man U will also be 1/126, meaning that odds of either would be 2 x 1/126 = 1/63

TBH, given up on teh FL doing anything constructive with this issue... so, for the last time IMHO, I couldn't really giove a flying feck about teh FL policy, dodgy owners, where the money went, who owns what, what AA is doing ahead of the game, what it means for CSI and thus pompey... like the FL, I will bury my head in the sand and hope it all resolves itself without impacting too much on the integrity of teh FL... (laugh) No, for me it comes down to something very simple: Do you agree or not that a club should be allowed to spend 120 mil without any form of GUARRATEE that its is underwritten by some owner or through the revenue generated by the success it buys? Now I dont agree with borrowing at all on transient depreciating assetts such as players - it provides an unfair competitive advantage - yes its a model that we could go down if there is a pot of ML's legacy , but as we have seen we are not doing it at the moment to any great extent, but arguably Man City and Chelski defined this model, Leeds and Pompey are the worst examples becauae they had NO GUARRATEES IN PLACE to underwrit their borrowings - in my book that is cheating, no ifs and no buts. All I want to to see/hear is 1 pompey fan talking a moral stance here - acknowledging that what they did was WRONG, no worming their way out of it by suggesting Chelski do the same (they dont, its underwritten by the Ruski), or that we spent money we did not have when last in the CCC (that 7mil we did actually have so no borrowing, but myself and many others were very vocal in our concern that this should have ben kept for a rainy day at the time...)... yes simple admit that whilst as fans it was beyond their direct control, teh actions of the club in securring cup wins etc was morally classified as cheating and to so some decency in admiting that as a result their success is forever tarnished... they would then get my utmoost RESPECT and SYMPATHY as true fans of their club. I know one such fan, who became so disillusioned that he gave up his ST after over 25 years, stating that the pompey he gre up with and loved through thick and thin has gone, and he could not justify celebrating any success built on such scandalous attitude to finance - he also works for a charity full time so you can imagine how he felt about that. But all we see on their message boards and thsoe that post on here is denial, no sense of shame on behalf of how their various dubious owners have treated their club and the integrity of the competition. Whatever happen to them now, I am past caring - they could be sold to a billionnaire and go on to champions league success in a 75000 seater new stadium and forever eclipse us, would not give a fying feck as it would have been build on foundations of cheating - however, if they bag a new owner who puts the wrongs right, pays of the creditors and HMRC, acknowledges that the past is a stain on the clubs history, then I would wish them well with good grace.... but first tehir fans need to show some contrtion and reclaim the moral high ground for their own self respect if nothing else... sadly cant see that happening

Have no problem with FF bringing the subject up, but also highly rate LGSC post! FWIW I think the journo looked at the accounts and saw the deficit - forgetting that the conclusions drawn from them would be nothing more than speculation. If we assume that the 13 mil paid for the club was shoved on the books as a loan from Markus (eg. buy the club for £1 and then pay off the agreed amounts of 13mil to the creditors from the 'loan' + 'loan' additional funds for taht initial spending, its pretty easy to see how those figures arose... now If this was anyone but Markus and NC, who we know have achieved their success through ethical business practice, I might be concerned by this approach, but TBH, its common practice so in this case no worries (If my speculation is correct)... as we have been told that Markus left provision in his will for the club. Long term it may be that the Liebherrs will look to sell the club, who knows, but one thing I am extremely comfortable with is the knowledge that they would ensure we went to the right kind of people and in tip top shape financially. I also believe that whilst we are not sitting on a mountain of cash burning a whole in NC's pocket, the 'provision' for the club will allow us to invest at the right price for the right players if appropriate deals can be done - sensible and pragmatic and good business sense prevail. Sadly some clowns such as Dalek, make a rather idiotic mistake that this somehow equates to lack of ambition - as if teh only way ambition can be shown is through stupity in the transfer market....

yep... that post was done in word and spell checker got me... ;-( Re the Te Genero trial, as I understood it the 6 patients were dosed in sequence - and the time between each patient receiving a dose was considered too short, but in line with the original protocol - although I could be mistaken. IRCC the monitoring was criticised in the follow up but not to the extent that it was considered negligent. I guess by the avatar you are a Healthcare professional of some sort - The point I was trying to make really though was in the way the media reporting leads to development of urban myth, especially around healthcare, medicine and the pharma industry. Perhaps what is most annoying though is when it directly impacts on patients, worse case being the 'Breast Cancer Cure' headlines offering false hopes, or in this case, despite me believing Cameron is a ****, it actually makes sense, if there was a national accessible database that could be used quickly and simply to assess outcomes in specific patient segments - cetainly be a big step forward in enabling outcomes related reimbursement and risk share schemes.

There seem to be a lot of myths around clinical research, patient data and the 'big bad' pharma industry - which seem to have been enhanced by poorly researched and ignorant media. I work as a consultant for a clinical research organization and have worked in this industry as an independent for over 15 years. 1. First up the issue at hand - Data and confidentiality. We are talking about totally anonymous data. No names etc - so there is no chance of this data leaking to insurance companies and your life premiums going up - total myth. ALL clinical study data is already anonymous and Pharma companies NEVER have access to patient personal data - it’s not actually something they are interested in as they are looking for efficacy and safety data in as large as possible numbers... so really not sure why anyone would worry about this. 2. Big bad Pharma taking to doctors to conferences - yes it is common that most international conferences have industry sponsored elements, be it exhibitions, meet the expert sessions or what are known as satellite symposia, in which a company will fund a 2 hour program to talk in many cases exclusively about the current data of various ongoing studies for investigative or approved products - if talking about unapproved products, these have to be independent and the program approved by CME bodies as 'educational' - yes some speakers will have their expenses covered for this - but in all cases such expenses are listed and documented so that those listening can make their own minds up about the independence of the speaker. 3. Yes certain internally recognized experts are consulted by pharma for advice and insight - this is managed by the company’s researchers or medical affairs groups, not marketing and these experts will provide independent advice on clinical trial protocols, adverse event management, etc - clinical things. The various national and international governing bodies such as the ABPI have strict codes of practice that govern this. In addition whenever an expert acts as an advisor to a company, this has to be FULLY DISCLOSED on all published proceedings, scientific papers, or published data form studies that were supported by a company. 4. Why the need for this data? Well for various reasons - the biggest is looking at outcomes data. This is the REAL WORLD data for how effective a treatment is outside of very strict protocols used in clinical studies. For a drug to come to market takes usually around 10-12 years of strictly regulated clinical studies - that takes 10-12 years out of a patent life on no more that 20-25 years and the costs vary but are typically between 500mil and 1bn USD. So a company has around 10 years to recoup the development cost and cover the huge costs associated with the compounds that fail during phase 1 and phase 2 of the clinical development process. In addition, many modern medicines such as novel cancer treatments (monoclonal antibodies, and targeted therapies) are expensive to manufacture so some treatments can cost between £10,000-£20,000 for a cycle... which sounds a lot, but when you consider that the percentage of drug spend by the NHS is around 10% of its budget, the biggest cost of treatment is the actual hospital care. 5. As a result of such expensive drugs, most governments have a system of health technology assessment (HTA) (NICE is England, SMC in Scotland) in which they assess a new drug based on its VALUE - does it meet strict criteria for demonstrating benefit over existing treatments - They use a system known as calculating a Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and the compound has to be below a threshold for it to be considered for reimbursement. This in principle means that the NHS will only pay for drugs that should a distinct benefit to patients. However, what it means in practice is that drugs that could work in certain patients or improve life expectancy by 3-4 months may not be covered by the NHS. In addition, the system can provide both false negatives and positives, in that the initial HTA is done on clinical study data, which can often be better or worse than how the drug will perform in the REAL WORLD setting. So a better way is assessing a drug's benefit on an ongoing way by measuring real world outcomes. These systems already exist in some cases with pricing and reimbursements levels set on a sliding scale dependent on the benefit they have... but the systems are disjointed, admin heavy and can in some cases cost more to manage than the savings the NHS might make, but they do mean patients can get access to new and expensive treatments if their doctors think it is worth a try... it is a benefit to patients in the long run. 6. Drug companies being evil? Well they have made mistakes, some deliberate for which they always get found out and heavily fined, but on the whole the strict governance both internal and external means that a tight ship is the generally the order of the day. 7. Finally, in response to the ‘6 guys in London’ from 6 years ago… again need to dispel a few myths – This was what was called a Phase 1 study – this is typically the first time a drug is tested in humans (Usually in health volunteers) – these studies are performed well in advance of any patient based clinical studies. They are designed usually to see if the drug is even active in humans and if so, safe - things like dose escalation studies and also the biochemistry is studies (Pharmacokinetic/dynamic) in effect to find out what would be the best, safe dose for patient. Prior to Phase ones, extensive animal testing will have been done with the final series usually in primates. The drug used in this Phase 1 had been through and passed primate studies as required by the HMRC who govern such studies. The initial dose that was given was 1/10000 of the level seen as safe in humans – so the autoimmune reaction seen in these patients was an extremely rare incidence. Because of the risks in Phase 1 (which are actually extremely small) only certified units under the strict controls and Governance of the HMRC can perform such studies – the training the levels of equipment and have to be second to none. The protocols have to be approved by the HMRC and be considered ethical as well as the comprehensive scientific review of mountains of preclinical data. However, as we saw, things can happen that are unexpected, and dealing with the consequences is not going to be easy as its NEW never before seen reaction – so experience of the lead investigators is vital. In this case, everything was done by the book to help these volunteers. Without such brave volunteers, no new medicines would ever come to market, so it’s a vital part of any clinical development program. I don’t work for the industry just in it, so have no interest in defending pharmaceutical companies when they get it wrong – but will get annoyed when the media misrepresent the facts and cause panic, questions and in some cases false hope. All the above information is in the public domain and it’s not rocket science, which is why I just wish the media took their responsibility more seriously when dealing with medical stories and presented well researched and accurate accounts, not sensationalist rubbish designed to sell more papers.

Seriously who really wants to go to that ****ehole? especially when its on the telly. I know its aboiut support and all that but teh bubble does not help and not really sure anyone wants to give the cheats their hard earned cash...

No dont believe we are chokers... I think its fair to assume that after not getting one or two key targets (most likely due to unrealistic wage demands) in teh summer, the plan was to be top 10 maybe better with the cahnce of pushing on come Jan (as Adkins has said) - and then depending on how we are doing, where the weaknesses are AND IMPORTANTLY whether we can get the right players, to add what we need for a promotion push if there was a good chance for it. We have over achieved so far and now the the tough period is beginning, a combination of injuries, maybe a little complancey, the fact we are now taken as a serious challenge and teams are adapting to stifle us + like EVERY side we maybe having a dip in form - it happens... so its not a question of being happy clappy, but being positive - Positive 1, we are ahead of where we expected to be, Positive 2. We KNOW (adkins and NC) we have a great chance of getting promoted IF we can maintain the results and improve further, postive 3. WE KNOW what the weaknesses are, (not knowing what the problem is is 10 x worse) Positive 4. We know we have the finance to address the weaknesses - and we are now in a far better position (re possible promotion) to be attractive to players who may have been weary of joining a newly promoted side in the summer) So yes those defeats are dissapointing, yes, our performances have been poor and that is a concern, BUT if we look at the positives above, I cant see why there is so much anger and bitetrness about it... I would suggest that with teh exception of WHU (or even including them) all other 22/23 clubs would gladly take our position right now, home and away form included... because being top when we KNOW we have not been great in the last 4 games, and DESPITTE having a crap away record (relative to the home form), is not a bad position to be in. We also know we CAN improve and with graft, luck and few key additions will do - the players want it, Nige and NC want it, the fans want it - so yes disspointed, but also feel surprisingly good about teh position we are in right now - ahead of the plan and can we expect more than that at this stage?

Thing is Alps, no one is suggesting we should not be dissapointed, nor that its fine doing nothing about it (especially in Jan if we can), but there is a difference between being all out happy -clappy and not seeing this, and emaining POSITIVE that all is not bad. I think EVERYONE is surprized how we have started and the momentum has taken us to the top of the league against all but teh most positive fews expectations. I think its fair to assume that after not getting one or two key targets (most likely due to unrealistic wage demands) in teh summer, the plan was to be top 10 maybe better with the cahnce of pushing on come Jan (as Adkins has said) - and then depending on how we are doing, where the weaknesses are AND IMPORTANTLY whether we can get the right players, to add what we need for a promotion push if there was a good chance for it. We have over achieved so far and now the the tough period is beginning, a combination of injuries, maybe a little complancey, the fact we are now taken as a serious challenge and teams are adapting to stifle us + like EVERY side we maybe having a dip in form - it happens... so its not a question of being happy clappy, but being positive - Positive 1, we are ahead of where we expected to be, Positive 2. We KNOW (adkins and NC) we have a great chance of getting promoted IF we can maintain the results and improve further, postive 3. WE KNOW what the weaknesses are, (not knowing what the problem is is 10 x worse) Positive 4. We know we have the finance to address the weaknesses - and we are now in a far better position (re possible promotion) to be attractive to players who may have been weary of joining a newly promoted side in the summer) So yes those defeats are dissapointing, yes, our performances have been poor and that is a concern, BUT if we look at the positives above, I cant see why there is so much anger and bitetrness about it... I would suggest that with teh exception of WHU (or even including them) all other 22/23 clubs would gladly take our position right now, home and away form included... because being top when we KNOW we have not been great in the last 4 games, and DESPITTE having a crap away record (relative to the home form), is not a bad position to be in. We also know we CAN improve and with graft, luck and few key additions will do - the players want it, Nige and NC want it, the fans want it - so yes disspointed, but also feel surprisingly good about teh position we are in right now - ahead of the plan and can we expect more than that at this stage?

Oh no you dont, that is NOT what I said - its not about putting pridence before ambition, its about putting a structure and sensible structure in place that we can live with financially and keeps balnce and harmony within the squad and not being fecking stupid or being held to ransome by players making unralistic demands, no matter how ambitious the club is.... its got feck all to do with ambition or lack of it, but to do with commons sense - if you fail to see tehc differnce thats your problem, but DO not misinterpret what I am saying to try and support your misguided and often plain wierd obsessive opinions....