Ken Tone

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.

Shouldn't this post have been on the Pompey takeover thread?

Sort of both. I believe Luton were deducted 10 points in L1 in the season they were relegated to L2, then another 20 over the summer, and started their L2 season on -30 because the first 10 came after relegation was certain, much like our 10 point deduction was applied the following season. Bear in mind that Luton had been on the top division (can't remember if it was already called the premier league then) only about 2 or 3 years before that. They were not much smaller or lower profile as a club than Portsmouth are now. IF the FL decide that any points deduction is deserved, I don't see how they could only take off 10. The comparison with Luton is pretty strong if they treat the club itself as effectively being in administration. In any event if the club runs out of money in the New Year as predicted, surely it will itself have to go into liquidation/administration anyway, and the fine distinction between it and CSI will be immaterial.

Pedant put down! Actually that is the correct spelling when referring to as gift or something that is included 'free' in such a package. It derives from the sense of being given as a compliment. 'Complementary', the word you have presumably confused with 'complimentary', refers to going together to make a whole. Where the two are frequently misused is when football reporters talk of 2 players 'complimenting' each other, when they mean 'complementing'. Now, as for the Guardian using 'affect' in that Pompey article linked above, when they mean 'effect', that really is appalling!

He didn't just make one mistake leading to a goal. He was **** poor throughout the game, which meant our defence lost confidence in him, avoiding pasing back when they should etc ..and his kicking when he had the ball was shockingly poor , so he gave possession away many times. His play affected the whole game. Having said that, if he is best we've got on Sunday of opurse we should back him, and he has played well in the past so maybe it'll be ok.

I think you're probably right in that I can't see any simple points deduction soon. However if/once their money really runs out, which it will without another buyer given they are paying out more than they earn, just about anything could happen. Just look at what the FL did to Luton, and Chester to some extent. In effect Luton as a full-time professional club was destroyed by the League's punishments.

Indeed, 'Marching On Together ' is a (the) Leeds song. But Spurs fans have sung 'Marching In' for many many years. And btw OP, it was the Stoke fans who were singing it so well and loud on the tv this weekend, not the away Spurs fans.

Unfortunately none of them seem to be connected with a club near relegation this year, so they'll no incentive to deduct points! .... not vested enough!

I tried to book 2 together near where we have season tickets, but could only get 2 singles reasonably close or 2 together on very back row a block over from where we sit, half way up -- and this was at least a week ago. So even allowing for the fact that the Chapel end half of the Kingsland where we sit has so many s/t holders, so has fewer 'casuals' than most areas, it looks to me as if it is selling fast. I'd not leave it much longer if you want to get seats other than singletons.

Mercer is a git in spite of being right about Cameron, but appears to be just the sort of right wing old school Tory that our UKIP-loving, Mail, Express and Sun-reading, friends on here would normally support. He is also quite a successful author, whose books I enjoy, but feel slightly soiled, reading! Funny old world, ain't it?

You buy the Sun as well as the Express? Blimey -- jobseekers' allowance goes a long way nowadays doesn't it!

The thing is, with a club in the state Portsmouth is, there surely can be no sensible, rational, legal, reason to buy it. Whilst I would not of course to want to cast aspersions on any individuals associated with this situation, past or present, personally I can see no reason to buy Portsmouth FC unless I had say £100 million of funny money that I needed to launder. To spend £100 million on a football club and get back say £50 million a year or two later, makes no sense in the normal world, but if that £50 millon is then 'clean' and spendable, it is worth more to said individual than £100 million in dirty money. Unless there is some nutty, rich, genuine portsmouth fan out there, who else but a crook would want to buy them now?

But Dune, it's only a short time since you were on here extolling the virtues of the Daily Express, and it's papers like that - the red tops, not the decent papers - that publish these stories. If people made it clear that they didn't want to read such irrelevant stories and stopped buying those papers, they would stop writing them.

exaclty. This was just like an estate agent saying Portsdmouth is a desirable area to live in.

That does tend to focus the attention somewhat! But I take it that for now I can just leave this year's batch(es) until we want to drink it, then strain/decant.