Frank's cousin

Arse 2

arse....

Thes baby's were were its at - still have it in a draw somewhere - interestingly the arial officially did feck all was just to look good and important Thos ewho dont like Apple can say what they like, but should acknowledge that froma design, innovation and ease of use perspective, theyhave always been at the forefront of technology... samsung, nokia etc may now be better technologically in some opinion, but the style and concept is a clone of Apples original ideas..

As I understand it, the only way the -10 can be quashed is if the new owner ensures that a NEW CVA is agreed with ALL creditors including an equal vote based on teh full amount of their debt from CVA1, not just a share based on the 20p level of debt from CVA1 - although I suspect teh FL recognise that it must impose the penalty if CVA1 is in anyway diluted, otherwise it makes a mockery of the CVA process - yoiu could just agree one at 80p to get your golden share and avoid a points penalty, ignore it and then renegotiate down in a subsequent admin....

I think the guarrantees from both bids is as you say the problem... because I would hope that the FL have indeed had enough of ****ing footbal creditors (let alone the other 80mil of written off debt) around given that they already agreed to a compromise - in effect the FL probably wont tolerate a compromise on the current compromise... The solution surely is simple - the bidders should deal with the Premier League and get them to administer the payment of the 8mil directly to teh footballing creditors... I guess the problem then is that neither bidder has enough in the planned budget to keep things going...

This is the problem with Football clubs - In most normal companies, there are some saleable assets to get some money back fror creditors, but usually if there is no chance of a recovery. Liquidation will happen quickly to avoid debt increasing which teh administrator is liable for.... BUt this is where football clubs see immune - as the assetts are only sellable if a club is not liquidated - the players, whos registrations revert to the FA if a club is liquidated, the assets such as land etc do have some value, and I think had pompey owned their ground and teh surrounding land, Brch would have been pretty much mandated to liquidate as this would have yielded more for creditors .... until you factor in the 12 mil (approx 8mil left) of parachute money - the argument against liquidation is avery simple - ebven though its costing them money to keep the rotting thing going.... the creditors (well chinny anyway) and footballing creditors in theory get more if the club get access to this cash - so they have to keep them going - Its possibly why the FL/FA are being more lenient as it should in theory mean the footballing creditors will get their compromised amounts - but thats the 8 mil gone.... unless someone whips that away and then liquidates the club.... before its passed on to footballing creditors Couple of things I think might happen.... The footballing creditors will never see the full 8mil that they agreed to in compromise - even if split over 4 years, 2 mil a year in L2 will cripple pompey and see them back in admin... even if by some miracle they had learned their lesson and were running a tight ship -and secondly, they dont appear to know what a tight ship is or accept taht runinig within their means with a 2mil outlay a year to football creditors from a L2 revenue will defo mean they are NOT competitive, and as I understand it those down the road find that a difficult concept to understand - so their heads would probably explode or something

Is this the first Pic of Pompeys new Owners? Has Trev made his choice, or is Avram back in town?

Rejects small offer from Carlisle (smal because its within their means) an accepts a short term contract at Pompey.... will be because of their fans surely, as we all know short term contracts are cheaper than full time ones...

Ahr but cost may have been 80k but how much has actually beeing paid for... even if we are generous and assume 25p in the pound then th Trusts estimated budget is more than adequate?

The key issue though is that given the environment and atmosphere at the time, given the 'history' or expectation and concern, why did teh police and stweards not prepare themselves to cope? Afterall teh previous year, sections of the road had been bocked off to check tickets etc so that a more orderly queue was possible and it slowed down the arrrival of large numbers of fans into that confined space outside the turnstiles. I have laboured the point about the prevailing times having contibuted to the fact that the diaster COULD happen, but ultimately its become clear to me that it was teh failings of those who SHOULD and COULD have prevented it on the day that must shoulder teh blame. I am the last person who will ever condone football related violence and the 70s and 80s terrace culture is something I am glad has gone - others disagree, but I stand by that, and I wont we cant forget that the legacy of 70s and 80s violence DID mean that if mistakes were made elsewhere then this could happen - but we are talking about 'ON THAT DAY, it was the mistakes made that led to the deaths.

And Suli was full of crap

Alps - I dont think anyone has said the Hillsborough victims should have a 'monopoly' on grief. Yes we have 1000+ road deaths a year, countles other industrial accidents as a result of negligence and these cases only get national coverage when there is some sort of campaign to overcome an injustice - that is what this has all been about. I, like many was for some time convinced there was more blame attached to the fans (not the victims but others) then the contributory level assigned by the Taylor report, due to the tragedy was depicted in the media - I think its a good thing that this recent disclosure has made many like me look again at the details and come to different conclusions and I gues sthat is what the victims families are after - an acceptance that this tragedy was CAUSED directly by failings of those with authority and a duty of care to ensure safety, and secondly to expose the currupt lies of police and media in atributing blame. I cant see anything in that twhich is not justified or right. I have been criticised on here earlier for sticking to one point about the whole hooli thing in the 70s and 80s leading to the errection of the pens/cages in the firstplace, and I stand by the point that had that not been the case, then deaths would not have occured, but this has nothing to do with any blame on those attending on that day, nor does in exonerate those culpuble of criminal neglience - which did not come across in my previous posts so I can see why I was criticised. At Heysal.. Hoolis whether of liverpool origin or other infiltrators stampeed and cause dinjury and death. At Hillsborough, monstorous failings in simple crowd management and safety protocols and subsequent failures to act and respond appropriately, was directly responsible for the death of innocent fans - and even if there was pushing and shoving to get in, its NOT the same thing - something which I now clearly see and accept, however easy it might be play the repsonsiblity card. I just dont understand why you are struggling to accept this and admit you are wrong. I have done and feel better for it.

Would be a ****er for sure... The problem with this deate is that you need to seperate the attitude of Salmond and the SNP with that of most Scots - and the fact that most Scots will hopefully continue to have their current attitudes in 2014 - Salmond as others have said is an opportunist and is motivated by self rule as a reaction to some of the decisions made in Westminster that impacted on Scotland prior to devolution - and I susoect he also does harbour some anti-English dislike despite his claims that he does not - its clear from his smarmy chubby tw atish grin whenever that question comes up. BUt he is smart. As they they do not underestimate the enemy - with teh anniversary of Bannockburn, and the Commonwealth Games in 2014 he playing a reasonable hand - ironically during the Olympics most in Scotland were proud to be both Scottish AND British - it unified...Salmond remained very quiet as the few pathetic utterance about Scottish medals made him look like the opportunist idiot he is - but he wll undoudtedly gain some support when these cultural milestones increase the local sense of national pride... I just hope, folk recognize that there is nothing wrong is celebrating regional success and culture, AND being part of the Union - and salmon knows his best chance is to canvas the naiviety of Youth with his idea for making the ref. open to all over 16... The economics dont stack up, the parctical costs would be huge, be it infrastructure and civil services, Tax, passports, health, defence etc.... shifting those to independent services North of the border is not a cheap undertaking - Thing is he may be a misguided fool, but he is not an idiot and he has 'credible' answers to alot of these issues - not that stand up to scrutiny, but strong ennough to convince some... as many Scots wont go into that level of detailed analysis... Just wish he would dissapppear up his own arsehole

Which is sadly why politicians try and get them on side - whilst not into conspiracy theories - I suspect that there was plenty of discussion between government press office and the Sun editors... and its one of those ironic elements of our 'free' press. For years during the communist era in the Soviet Union, Pravda was criticised in the West for being in teh states pocket, but at least it was honest about it and obvious to all - here we have a media that is heavily editorially sitting on one side of the other, or the likes of the Sun's owners that seek political infuence in exchange for political support - happy to whore itself in recent years to those offering the best deal - under the guise of reflecting public opinion.. but thats another debate. Alps, I am not sure why Duncan's opinion is any less valid because he is a 'trades unionist' - We ae talking about a period in the 80s when Thatcher's policy of shaking up Britain form the lethergy of the 70s was done without compassion or understaning of the social impact such sweeping change would have on communities - better political brains than mine can argue the pros and cons of the economic necessity of the overall policy, but anyone with half a brain can see that the methods employed to bring about that change was at best done with naiviety of its social impact, at worst spiteful, arrogant and completely without compassion. IMHO its a possible explanation why the Government at the time if not directly complicit, were probably more than happy for the Sun/police to blame football fans - deflect the blame from the authorities and onto the 'fans' which would sit more comfortably with the general public - afterall 'we were all Hooligans' - and yes some of that mud was sadly justified and is why I look on the those who look back on those times/behaviour with some misty eyed nostalgia with distain. The legacy provided by Hillsborough, was a shift in attitude of the fans, public and authorities - some argue it 'cleansed' football, but I would say it merely took it back form the hoolis to the pre 70s era, where it was more generational, families etc feeling safer in more appropriate environments - rather than caged and squeezed into what were in many cases victorian crumbling and dangerous stands - that evolution is the ONLY good thing to come out of this.

Maybe far fetched but it would not surprise me if Blair did not want to upset his new found friends at the Sun - politicians and the media have a long tradition of mutual sweeping under the carpet where it suits both - Blair needed them onside and the Sun needed to keep its readership recognising the public desire for a change from 18 years of Tory rule... or am I reaching to far? (and I say that as someone left of centre politically)

The alcohol issue is always going to be controvercial, because although having a pre match pint or 2 is synonomous with football - going back a century, there was a societal shift that did see this 1 or 2 escalate to 'tankfulls' - Young people do drink a hell of a lot more now than 50 years ago, and in theory, those who turn up at a stadia already off their heads are refused entry. I do think this is probably worse in the UK than in other countries where they just drink less - but this is another debate. Standing is an odd one as many of the victims families campaign to avoid its return, which is understandable. Yet we see safe standing on the continent - the key there is atht its still ticketed and numbers are controlled - so you know who is in and the capacity is kept within strict limits etc. That does warrant looking into again.

Whilst the Taylor report clearly highlighted the main causes as being police incompetance/mistakes, and as you say many questioned the level of 'fan' influence on the tragedy, I dont think I am the only one who was influenced by the way the media portrayed that level of inflence. It was relativey easy to assume that fans had played a bigger part than was shown in yesterdays final report. I do think though that we have several seperate issues here. The first being a full and frank understanding of what actually happened on the day and an acknowledgement that is was hideous combination of factors dominated by the police and stewarding failures, the second, that the environment at the time safety levels, attitude of policy makers towards fans (a legacy rightly or wrongly of the previous decade) etc an what part that played, and the third as you point out, the issue of the deceipt and disgraceful way in which the police tried to divert blame on the innocent victims. I have looked over my posts from yesterday and can now see that I did not get the right balance in what I was trying to say so it could have been misinterpreted - or even been considered that I was placing too much emphasis on a single issue - that can happen on these boards when you get a bit stuck trying to hammer home one point. I cant imagine hope the families must feel now either - I would hope that at the very least they can take some comfort now from the fact that their struggle for the truth to be made public has clearly demonstrated that the accusations made in the media were totally false. I appreciate that it will not necessarily be much comfort to the relatives and all thsoe effected that he lasting legacy is that such a tragedy is unlikely to happen again as a result of far stricter safety legislation - its sad and horrendous though that 96 innovent fans had to die first before something like thes improvemnets were implemented. As to Justice - this is the difficult one - everyone has their own view on what this would involve - some are obviously more culpable than others what 'justice' means for the families is more important than what we think on here. With these situations there is always a case for criminal negligence, but I am not sure whether singling out individuals is always necessarily effective - do we blame the guy in charge on the day for his inexperience that led to poor and tragic decisions or the guy who gave him the job, knowing there were better more experienced officers available? I really dont know what is best in this case. Then ther is the second issue of the public slur campaign and how that is dealt with. Its easy to simple say charge and prosecute the lot of them and I daresay the DPP will look at all teh evidence and see what charges can be brought, I guess we will see what happens.

you never fail to provide an interesting and amusing start to the day - I have a grim heavy workload so always good to get a laugh

Takes around an hour for 1 unit of of alcohol to leave the body - so someone drinking say 7 pints of 5% lager or ale (approximately 18-20 units) in say 3 hours will still have alcohol (ethanol) in the blood close to 17 hours later, suplemented by the the first main metabolite Ethanal (which is the toxin that gives you that queasy stomach before being converted to Ethanoic acid (vinegar)) which is why the police will target those up to 10pm the following day. How that residual effects you cognitivly will depend o many factors, how much sleep you got, your body mass and metabolic speed etc - but the the law is designed based on largest impact to ensure safety for all road users -not on who can 'handle it' - etc. The Brain will no longer feel the elation associated with being alcohol - but will still be impaired emotionally and physically (think about the way in which tiny things become elevated in to major 'guilt' or feeling of unease the next morning - for some this emotional state happens earlier, just think of the tearful ladies in the toilets with their mates. Basically, even if you feel 'ine' and no hangover, you are still functionally impaired whilst that alcohol/metabolites remains in your body - and dont discount teh fact that lack of sleep/tiredness tends to add to the dangers even if if think we are fine.

Well there is something I have never seen - A front page apology form the Sun... Has anyone read the section of the report that deals with how the Sun's editorial direction went for that smear yet?

Thanks Badger, thats a fair comment and dont disagree about the lack of direction and stewarding, safety upgrades etc - such a tragic set of circumstances that had any one of these issues been sorted beforehand, would have prevented the tragedy. It seems that the combination of factors was an diaster waiting to happen. All I was trying to get across was you take any one of these factors out of the equation and lives would have been saved - direction by stewards an police, a delayed kick off, fans in more appropriate ends, upgraded safety etc are points that have been made and and understood and the perceived need, rightly or wrongly for pens and cages...

So tell me what is factually wrong with the point? Surely the purpose of this discussion is to enlighten, educate etc. I am interested in what you have to say so dont understand your desire to get all worked up about it.

Indeed an interesting concept - POL may inded now only consist of nutjobs with a couple of their Scummerfindergenerals remaining... can see how this may confuse the few..

Can you then enlighten me? How is the fact that had those pens not been there, no fences etc there would have bene no loss of life wrong exactly?

I appreciate that for some this is a very raw emotive subject and that some comments and opinions are 'unpopular', but not sure why there is such a vitriolic response to certain points...