Ken Tone

I think there is something of a backlash growing in England over devolution, let alone independence. I do not know (does anyone?) where the truth lies in the cost argument. ie Would the income from north sea oil outweigh the flow of taxpayers money going north over the border? Is scotland a financial drain or a benefit to the UK? The truth of that is buried beneath political rhetoric. However there is a definite perception, right or wrong, here in England that we are subsidising the scottish life-style. I'm not sure if even Salmond himself really wants independence, as surely anyone with an ounce of sense can see that Scotland is too small to run its own defence and have a completely separate economy etc. The SNP, like UKIP, the Greens, etc, exist largely as one policy, one issue party. Nothing else binds them together as a party. If ever they were to achieve their aim, there'd be nothing left to unite them politically and they'd fall apart over normal everyday policy disagreements. If Scotland were ever to become independent, it would no longer need an SNP. Salmond would no longer need to exist in effect. However there is a danger that the English will lose patience and be pushed into forcing the issue. Cameron's line with the Scots, is really only a variation on the old cliche "Be careful what you ask for, or you might actually get it."

I was gobsmacked to read AA quoted as .......Mr Andronikou said he hoped money from the potential sale of NOS would be pumped into Pompey’s running costs. Surely the administrator for CSI should be hoping for money for CSI's creditors, not for running portsmouth FC? How much more proof do the FL want that the football club is dependent on CSI money to meet its running costs, so that with CSI in admin, the clubis also in admin in effect ?

Reminds me of a Jo Caulfied routine where she talks of how passionately her Scottish husband loves his country and all things Scottish ... but just not enough to actually live there of course. Ditto Sean Japanese-whisky-is-good Connery!

That's correct . 'Ordinarily resident', ie not just owning a holiday home, for at least 3 years beofre going to uni. Worthwhile anyone with teenaged kids living and working in say Berwick or Carlisle thinking very carefully about moving across the border and commuting to work instead.

What is so special about the Titanic that means we should mark it any more than any other tragedy? There have been many tragedies over the years with much more direct links to the people of Southampton than the Titanic. For example in the second world war, Southampton eventually lost 630 civilians dead, 898 seriously injured and nearly a thousand with slight wounds... all actual residents of the city unlike most of those lost on the Titanic. The only thing that makes the Titanic tragedy different to the countless others that will have happened in and around the city in the last 100 years is the hype and 'romance' around the sinking of an 'unsinkable' ship on its maiden voyage, whilst carrying lots of glamorous and very rich people. (A much greater proportion of whom survived, in comparison to the poorer passengers btw). If it weren't for the 2 (3?) films that have been made about it, I suspect most of us wouldn't even been have heard of it. I wonder how many other ships have sunk over the years after leaving Southampton? Why not remember them all too?

Uninteresting fact of the day: Unless it wrongly used to deliberately annoy their respective fans, the correct abbreviation for Forest is Nottm Forest, not Notts Forest. Their local rivals, County, however are Notts County. The logic is that Forest's full name is Nottingham Forest, from the city, and County's name is from the ....errr county, ie their full name is Nottinghamshire County.

I see it didn't take Appleton long to see through AA. Quote from the News below. I note the 24-48 hours SSN quoted AA as saying has become 48-72 even for Appleton, and actually it's now not far short of a week. Oh and btw it's the second week of January. It's so obvious that AA is trying the same trick as last time ... make anything up to delay, delay, delay, to put off liquidation or big points deduction whilst he tries desperately to find a new crook, conman, or nutter to pay his fee. Appleton added: ‘Andrew Andronikou came out a few days ago and said we would have a new owner in the next 48-72 hours. ‘But I did sit down with the players and say “please take that with a pinch of salt” because I think you have got to be more cautious than anything on this one. ‘From our point of view, we are told there are two or three really interested parties and they are pushing each other very hard. ‘From my point of view we are in the first week of January now going into the second week – I think it is important, if we can, to get a little bit of stability in the football club – i.e. new owners. ‘I see it as a perfect opportunity to come in January and really stamp their authority and show what their ambitions are for the club.’

Personally I think it is more about stringing the FL, and maybe the courts, along, in the hope of putting off a points deduction, or liquidation. "A points deduction will scare off the excellent buyers I have lined up and destroy the club"

How long is it now since SSN and others quoted AA as saying the new owners would be known in 24-48 hours? ..about... ermmm ....72 hours?

1. In my view, all clubs now seem to make a lower priority than the league, presumably because the league is where the big money is now. 2. Modern professional clubs have bigger first team squads and need to give some a game to keep them happy/fit ...'rotation' if you like. So the crowd knows that they will be seeing a second team of sorts, so the club knows it will be a small crowd, so it becomes even less of a priority, so they play even weaker teams, so the crowds get even smaller ...etc .. a vicious circle, arguably started by Man U, but carried on by pretty much all league clubs now. 3. The romance of the 3rd round was always about big club vs little club. It was exciting if you were in the old div 3 or 4 and playing a 1st division team. Little clubs still get the buzz if they drawn against a big club, and often take huge followings away, shaming the relatively small home crowds. However there's no buzz for us in playing the likes of Coventry.

I think the issue with the small number if caps is not about how good we think he is. Any number of full international caps for a reasonable mid-ranking national team like Japan is impressive for a championship team. The issue is rather how likely we are to get a work permit for him given he doesn't appear to meet the 75% rule.

Surely since the reason that the ground was restricted to just over 20k in the first place was to do with transport, local environment and infrastructure, nothing will be different now? It is unlikely they'll get permisson to extend without a hell of a fight. I'm actually pleased for Brighton fans they've finally got a ground -- and someone prepared to spend £90 milion of his own money for such a small one! After all the years of moving from place to place since the Goldstone ground closed they deserve a break, especially those who watched through those years. It's not as if they're our big rivals or anything after all. Of course for that nice man Poyet's sake I hope they lose every game from now on till he's sacked, but that's a different matter!

Yes. One of the articles from abroad (sorry -can't remember which) said something like 'he would train with us for the first 10 days, whilst he was here', with the implication being he was here for a temporary visit to get all signed and presumably to do whatever he personally has to do to get a work permit, then return to Japan, before coming here permanently. So if it is correct that this time is in effect a visit, even if he is fit, there's no way he's going to covering for Lambert's suspension. We'll be lucky to see him play before the end of the month I reckon. Which raises the question, how bad is Guly's injury from the Brighton game?

I see the 'News' reckons they have a transfer embargo at present , but FL supposedly never comment on them. I wonder to what extent AA's recent statements about a new owner are designed to stave off a points deduction and lift an embargo. "..... Blues boss Michael Appleton admitted he is unable to bring in any new faces at present to boost his squad. The Football League are currently closely monitoring all transfers at the club, firmly applying the handbrake to any potential moves. However, when contacted by The News they refused to discuss the situation amid fears of a transfer embargo in place. Few Blues fans expected Pompey to be spending vast sums on transfer fees during the transfer window as they search for new owners. But Appleton is currently unable to even extend the loan stay of Joe Mattock. And there are now growing fears Pompey will be unable to bring in any loan recruits during the whole of the January window. "

Tad-an-ar-ee. Tad-an-ar-ee. Hey hey hey. Tadanari. As in From the song "Na na na na. Na na na na na. Hey hey hey. Goodbye"

And presumably we must have actually signed him, contractually subject only to the work permit, so there is no danger of another club nicking him at the last minute as there is with other transfer leaks. Presumaby also this implies the club are pretty confident of getting the permit.

You mean, on the basis that £20k a week is 'only' £240,000 more per year than £800,000? Can I come and work for you?

This is all very well, but even if he arives in southampton today, passes medical and we agree terms, there is still the question of the work permit. That may well be a problem, and is rarely a quick process even if ok in the end. Anyone clear on how well he meets the criteria for a permit?

Are you actually reading anybody else's posts? They are not independent and choose not to be. As to the legal claim, for the third time, try reading http://www.falklands.info/history/narra.html It answers your questions quite clearly.

Errm.... they do. The islanders do have the support of UN resolutions in remaining separate from Argentina, and have chosen not to be independent of the UK. And just to reiterate there was never any true indigenous population of the islands. They were uninhabited when first discovered by Europeans, and have been occupied continuously by people of British descent and have been under various forms of British rule, since 1830 something. Do read the link I gave before on the history. http://www.falklands.info/history/narra.html That site also tells you about life on the Islands now. You can see just how Britsh the people are.

P.S. On that basis ought we to give the French the Channel Islands?

Chile has often supported the UK and the Falkland Islands against the other South American countries that ally with Argentina. (They don't get on!) That is why Thatcher honoured Pinochet in spite of his appalling record in human rights etc. This whole thing is really only posturing. Although the media talk of 25 'ships' flying the Islands flag, they are mostly small fishing boats, and very few FI flagged vessels would ever go as far as to South America, let alone to these 3 countries. So in practical reality it means virtually nothing. However we must be careful not to overlook such posturing, and to be seen to ignore it. That was the mistake Thatcher made before 1982 with similar posturing, encouraging Argentina to think we wouldn't react to an invasion. That mistake cost many lives and many millions of pounds in a war that might never have happened had the UK reacted more strongly earlier. Such gestures will occur every time an Argentinian politician wants to score points in his/her domestic politics, especially if an election is due. Argentinians are taught from the cradle that 'the Malvinas' are theirs, 'occupied' by the British, so anything that smacks of 'regaining' the islands gets votes (even though they've never actually held the islands). It's a bit surprising that this has happened now, since Argentina has only just held a general election, but maybe the resultant coalition relies on giving apparent weight to the pre-election promises of a few nutters? (cf the UK?!)

A caution does show up on a CRB check. It may be an immediately 'spent' conviction officially, but these still show on enhanced checks, as required for all work with children. So whilst he may be able to continue as a taxi driver, he certainly shouldn't be used for eg a contract to transport disabled children to/from school. See iv. a Simple Caution forms part of an offenders criminal record (though it is not a criminal conviction) and may be cited in court and may influence how they are dealt with should they come to the notice of the police again; v. that details may be disclosed to prospective employers (where a CRB check is a requirement) or to existing employers where they are in a position of trust (notifiable occupation);

Talk of fees for players should always include some focus on how long their existing contract is. £3m for Sharp for example may be the automatic trigger for Doncaster to guarantee he can go if he wants, but that would probably have applied throughout his whole contract. If he is free by June, it would be a ridiculous price to pay now, so if he won't sign a contract extension for them, they'd be foolish not to consider anything much over £1m, rather than get nothing in the summer (I have no idea how long his remaining contract actually is. Does anyone else?) Sounds to me very much like the Donny chairman is just trying to talk up the price via a bidding war.