Ken Tone

What I've never really understood is why the 'Malvinas' matter so much to so many Argentinians. I can see why their politicians make big fuss....focus on outside enemy to distract from problems at home, plus possibility of oil revenue, .... but way before any talk of oil, to many ordinary Argentinans this was a really emotive issue, and has been from childhood. It seems almost as if they see it as an insult to their collective manhood. I know all the psuedo-legal arguments about who's right or wrong (backwards!) and I know the Falkands are relatively close to parts of the Argentinian coast, but a) at closest they are 300 miles away -- hardly next door and b) no Argentinian can possibly know anyone, or even any descendant of anyone, from their country who ever lived there. When the young conscripts of their army arrived on the Islands in '82 many were gobsmacked, both by the geography (streets not paved with gold after all) and by the fact that the locals were not welcoming them with open arms as 'liberators' as they'd been led to expect. As has been said before, 300 miles from the UK coast would include much of France , all of Belgium and the Netherlands, and even bits of Scandinavia. Yet even now it's a sure vote winnner in Argentina to claim the islands as theirs

Sorry if this has already been posted, but http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17191799 Jutkewitz is saying he especially wants Boro to beat Portsmouth this weekend because he is a Saints fan.

If you botherbto actually read what I said you'll see that I agreed with you that self-determination should apply whatever. I pointed out that there will be no mass immigration into the Islands so there is very unlikely to be any change in the view of those living there. I do know about the islanders' status. I have links with the Islands, have stayed there for an admittedly brief visit and know many islanders. They are as British as anyone living here. Some are even Saints fans!

I was following it ..and I agree with it. Self-determination should indeed still apply if the population changed, and changed its collective mind. However it won't change, at least not that much. The Falklands government has very strict immigration rules, and by the way as as a dependent territory is not part of the EU, so it does not have to admit immigrants in the same way as the uk. All the article you linked to is referring to is FIG giving itself more leeway to give citizenship, if it wishes, to those who have lived on the Islands for some time, eg on a long contract or as spouses of Islanders. Migrant oil workers will not be granted long term residency let alone citizenship... and besides most would not be based on the Islands themselves .. even IF the oilfields ever start producing.

I suspect that, underneath, even you realise that you are talking ********. The current islanders are mostly the descendants of the first properly established population there, settled in 1833 and living there continuously ever since. It is not universally accepted that the Fench first discovered the islands, and even if that were the case, there was never a real French settlement there. No French settlers' children have ever been born there for example. They did briefly have a small military presence yes, but not without British arguing against its legitimacy. We were after all at war with the French throughout most of this period of history. The Islands' goverment is NOT loosening its immigration rules in the way you imply, and certainly not in a way that would allow an influx from Argentina.

Surely Argentina cutting off own nose to spite face? Refusing entry to a cruise ship will cost thousands of pounds to the local economy, and nothing to P&O or the Falkand Islands. cf the argument between Liverpool and Southampton

Beat me to it! In short the view seems to be that we'd be very unlikely to lose the islands to an Argentinian invasion with current defence capability, but if we did they would also be bloody hard to win back.

Yeah. I did the sums before the match. It makes no direct financial sense unless they really do 'pack the park', but birch will be reasonably happy if it loses him nothing and gets a 'poor pompey; how can we give them money' feeling going in the city. And in fact they didn't get many extra. Bear in mind that there were 3000 Leeds fans there , and that's just the ones in the away end What this has shown is that they only have about 13-14k reasonably loyal fans at the moment ..no more. That may well sink lower yet of course.

I had the same thought. Eventually came to the conclusion it was £0.5 million. The administrator surely would not have been so imprecise as to say 1 to 2 million. 'By april' may well be vague though. This could mean that Birch has sorted things to just about get to the end of the season , but then in April, with no more gate receipts coming in, and the players' deferred (not 'cut') wages coming home to roost, they will be scuppered.

Depends just how broke they are. Birch seems to be proper administrator unlike AA. He has cut 'office' staff and apparently temporarily reduced players wages by 25%. Will that mean they have enough cash to see them through to the end of the season? If not, expect more loans out like Huseklepp's. And if so it will have to be loans of their reasonable players on reasonable wages or no one will want them -- plus even West Brom won't lend them many more on the cheap to replace any outgoings I suspect Birch himself does not know yet. He will for example be waiting to see what the net effect on income is of his "slashing" £5 off their tickets for the home game tomorrow. Some interesting sums there. I reckon that just about makes sense if they sell the extra 4000 or so tickets to get to capacity. Much less than that , and he'll be making a loss by the reduction. I think he's gamblng on trying to get a real "rally round the club" feel going that will bring benefits in terms of greater attendances at full price later, and maybe other help from the community... tolerance from local creditors etc If they only get say 16 to 18k tomorrow even with 3k Leeds fans there , and then lose, things could get quite interesting again.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/norris_closes_in_on_blues_return_1_3556106 Well surprise, surprise! Now that they've conned the FL into allowing them to sign a loan player to replace huseklepp, "because otherwise they haven't got 14 players", several of their injured players are suddenly fit again.

Looking at the 'players agree to defer wages' news, this is noi so good for them long term is it? It may well help them get through to the end of the season , but whoever buys them will immediately have to pay significant back pay to these players (as well as continuing to pay their ludicrous full wages till the end of their contracts.) Makes them even less attractive as a purchase. Meanwhile the players are taking a risk. They are only safe as football creditors if the club continues to want a golden share and play in the Football League. If liquidation happens, say on the day after the season ends, any successor club will not get a golden share anyway, and will start out of the FL, so there'll be no need for it to pay football creditors the full amount; they'll just become ordinary creditors surely? The football creditors rule does only apply within the football league doesn't it, not to the conference etc?

To be fair (copyright D. Merrington 2001) I think he also said some full-timers were being made to go part-time. So in effect there are more than 33 FTE jobs going.

Which is why Appleton won't play any youngsters, because if he does they count as first team squad memebrs and count towards the 14. Even now they are still cheating ..or at least manipulating the rules. Birch presumably will be quite happy if he gets rid of Huseklepp's wages and Appleton manages to con a mate into lending him another player almost for free, especially if that helps them stay in the championship and therefore be a little more saleable. Mind you even if the FL is caught by its own policies over this, they ought to only allow an emergency loan until PFC's other players return to fitness, so they clock up 14 anyway. Cue many lingering 'injuries' that mysteriously won't clear up.

and no advert breaks!

This no parachute payments stuff is surely just someone on a wind up?

Could have used a spell-checker though! Doesn't help credibility to have that many errors. And why no mention of the fact that we used to call them Scummers? I still don't know why that changed.

Is anybody on there actually a real pompey fan?

Only about 1 in 5 of mine are getting through. Am trying different user names. "Goebbels" wasn't a success, so now trying other variations of Corp Ho

It means he CAN play ,but if he did the FL would count him as a first team player , giving the lie to PFC's "smallest squad in the league " nonsense, and stopping any hope of them getting in more loan players

Yes, as said before, all a developer need do is make a token gesture of giving a scrap of land elsewhere in the city for 'leisure' and all will go quiet. Companies like Tesco's fight these sorts of planning restrictons every day--and they usually win.

Nice comparison on the News site comments....... 35 [h=3]cd74[/h]Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 12:01 PM Thought it would be interesting to compare Coventry's squad as they have been mentioned a bit. They have a squad of 28, seems good to me, but look in a bit more detail and that squad includes 4 keepers, 2 of which are former academy keepers age 23 and 19 who have 2 appearances on the bench between them. There's then Her man who played 2 games and is out for the season, Eastwood who has apparently been unfit all season and is only now on the bench as they have no other options and McDonald who has played 5 times and been injured for most of the season. They have recently signed 2 loanees who are both 20. A further 9 players are under 21 with 5 being academy players. They have an 18 year old who has played 19 games and another who has played 22. Of course that's before you consider all the players they've had to let go as they can't afford the wages and the fact that they have a scout as a manager! When you look at it that squad of 28 looks pretty similar to ours if Appy would put the kids in. I'm sure he wants to protect them but equally I'm sure the other teams do as well! We need to be careful, if we keep on like this I can imagine other clubs asking questions and it could do more harm than good esp when the league still have the option to take more points off. Report Unsuitable

Or even ,is it only that small part of February's pay since the administrators took over that will be paid, with the bulk of that also going into the debt bucket?

Well yes ,but there is a maximum to the statutory weekly wage used in that calculation. ie employers do not have to pay to more than £430 a week Many do pay actual weekly wage, but they do not have to do so legally. In theory you could have a player on £30k a week, whose been at the club for say a year, getting only £430 redundancy pay! However a) it would probably be considered to be reneging on a football debt by the FL, in not honouring the whole contract, and b) it would be very difficult to argue that any post of footballer at PFC was really redundant, when they are saying they do not have enough players. The 'poor bloody infantry' staff in the back office etc, though, I'm afraid should be feeling very nervous both about losing their jobs and about how much redundancy pay they'll get if they do go.

Errm ......not to mention that it does not say 'Gibson' on the neck head, even thugh thew shape is that of a Gibson Les Paul. Presumaby it was his Christmas present and by now he's realised that he can't actually play it like a video game.