Fowllyd

That's one possibility... ...and that's the other one. I'd expect the Companies House information to be fully up to date by now. Four weeks is plenty of time, assuming all the paperwork was done correctly at the time of the takeover. Along with this, the Land Registry still showed Portpin holding a charge on Fratton Park a couple of weeks ago; I'll have another look in a few weeks time to see if it's still the case. If it is, then I'd say it's all but certain that Chainrai still owns the ground - again, there will have been plenty of time to get the LR details updated by then.

A Black Widow spider has a red egg-timer shape on its back - it looks like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Widow_11-06.jpg Couldn't get that to post as an image for some reason. I suspect you've killed a perfectly harmless arachnid...

A curse on you, scoundrel. My dreams lie in tatters.

You're entirely correct, but I haven't seen anyone on here saying that 18th would be anything like a wonderful achievement. Not yet, anyway. And I hope I never do.

Bloody hell! Are you quoting from a Portsmouth sex manual?

Yes, I was around back then, though I didn't post much if at all. Nobody's been banned on here, have they? In fact, I get the impression that Steve Grant is hardly a big Cortese fan - but nobody's getting banned for saying good things about Cortese either. I'd say there are a few posters who get extravagantly irate over remarkably little, but they're not by any means confined to the (supposed) pro-Cortese camp. If you're accused of things that aren't the case, simply tell the accuser that they're wrong and why they're wrong. If they persist and don't answer any points that you make, stop bothering to debate with them. There are plenty of people on here who can manage a reasoned discussion, and quite a few who can't. You're free to discuss whatever you like, but other posters are too - and that counts whether you like what they say or not. At a rough guess, you probably won't help your own cause by posting snide comments about not being allowed to post certain views. Pouring petrol on flames comes to mind.

I'd quite like a Pimms if there's any going, but a cream tea will do nicely.

Oh, come off it. Where are the bannings? There aren't any - unless you count Deppo, and I'm sure you wouldn't. I haven't seen anyone suggesting that Cortese is god, come to that - unless, of course, you count the trolling posts by Turkish and others. And do you really find it surprising that positive news is greeted more enthusiastically than negative news?

And this is your idea of abuse? I had no idea you were so delicate. As far as I can see from recent threads, concepts of positive and negative are highly subjective. I've seen scorn poured on posts by many; it happens all the time on here. But I haven't seen anybody get told they're not allowed to say certain things or express particular views. People's views differ; it's hardly news, is it?

Either way they'll flounder next season.

Surely you're allowed to say whatever you wish (within the rules of the forum natch). Others will disagree, but that's their prerogative. I can't say I've seen anything much by way of abuse, and certainly nothing that couldn't be easily ignored by those it was aimed at.

Well, he seems to have managed to do so. Am I allowed to say that it's still June?

Ditto. Should we start a club, a facebook group, or something like that?

Norwich appointed Paul Lambert at the start of their first and only season in League One, following a 7-1 home thrashing by Colchester (managed at the time by a certain Paul Lambert). Prior to managing Colchester, Lambert had been in charge at Wycombe and Livingston. So, following promotion, Norwich stuck with the manager who'd got them there the previous season - a manager who was by no means a big name and was about to manage at Championship level for the first time in his career. No doubt he'll be attracting considerably more attention now he's got them into the Premier League. I'd also take issue with your final paragraph, purely because any and all statements that I've ever seen from Cortese make it clear that his ambition for the club is a very long way above Championship level. I somehow don't think he'll be content with sitting back and consolidating. I wouldn't expect to see evidence of what's happening until new signings are announced on the official web site, so I really don't think you should read anything into any lack of it at present. Oh, and Leeds have had just the one season back in the Championship; your post makes it sound as if they've been desperately seeking promotion for several. It may not be what you meant, but it read that way.

They've been knocked off their perch now and soon they'll be plumbing the depths. Still, that's what you get for living the bream...

In fairness, Varney himself doesn't mention Pompey; they're said to be favourites to get him (presumably on loan) by the paper, but that's all. Varney's quoted as saying: "I would love to stay at the highest level, but if there was another Championship club out there who showed the ambition to get up to the Premier League that would be interesting to me as well." The initial point - that it's scandalous if Pompey are trying to get a player who Blackpool can't afford to pay - is quite correct. And it's possible that the Skates will try, and maybe succeed; in which case Varney's words about ambition will ring very hollow indeed.

When we signed any of the players we bought from other clubs, who would we have approached first? The player, his agent, or his employer? The employer, obviously. An agent would get involved in arranging the deal once it's under way, but you wouldn't need to go via an agent to talk to a player who's under contract. For players not currently under contract, then it probably would be their agent we'd approach first. But any agent will relay an approach to their client; if not then they run the risk of being sacked if the player finds out that he wasn't informed about interest from a given club. And, as others have said, any agent will be all too happy to deal with us when there's money to be made. If we discourage approaches from agents who are simply touting their clients around the place, then I have no problem with that.

I think Nottarf would go into meltdown as they tried to resolve the inner conflict this would cause.

Believe me, I share your pain.

I know - in some ways that's the best thing about all this.

Now that is just fabulous! I wonder what line of business he's in. Finger and toe counting perhaps.

RIP Clarence, a very sad loss. Always remember hearing Born To Run for the first time all those years ago; some blistering sax on there.

There's some sense in there, not least that the secondary modern part of the old system was neglected and needed improvement. But then it was meant to be a two-tier system, so grammar schools were given more funding, leading to smaller class sizes and so forth. I'd also disagree that the grammar school system worked 'fantastically well'. I was at one myself, and I knew kids who not only failed every 'O' level they took but got unclassified grades in each and every one of them. The process of selecting kids at eleven years of age is inherently flawed; in addition, there were junior schools around that taught their pupils specifically to get through the Eleven Plus exam (and thus to grammar school). Not much different to the target-obsessed mentality that we see today, and about as much good.

Was this an 'O' level Maths or Additional Maths paper? I did both, having done my maths 'O' level a year early (in 1975). Additional Maths covered two terms of 'A' level Pure Maths, but we did it in less time as we had fewer classes than we'd have had at 'A' level (if that makes sense). So if the paper you did was an old Additional Maths 'O' level one, then I can assure you that it was bloody difficult back then too.