trousers

I wonder if the announcement on our OS still says "at charlton's request" in that case...?

It's an old video of him that has been spliced into the new interview footage to make Tranmere believe he's fit. Probably...

Credit where credit's due....'UK Drainage Network' have played a blinder today. It's amazing how good customer service becomes when you speak to someone who cares in a local office.

Via the back passage?

Not quite. That one ran for 6 years, 8 months, 23 days and 12 hours.....and counting....

Perhaps Cortese is mindful of the "dark forces" supposedly trying to undermine the club (i.e. the people he alluded to in his BBC interview)? and that an open forum could be sabotaged by these people...?

Dear Chambo, Here dude, look what I found on the Internet (below) Love Tac-tics no 1 (n) adv. 1. Used to express refusal, denial, disbelief, emphasis, or disagreement: No, I'm not going. No, you're wrong. 2. Not at all; not by any degree. Often used with the comparative: no better; no more. 3. Not: whether or no. n. pl. noes (nz) 1. A negative response; a denial or refusal: The proposal produced only noes. 2. A negative vote or voter. interj. Used to express strong refusal, doubt, or disbelief http://www.thefreedictionary.com/No

Haven't they been (unofficially) superseded by the 'Come Dine With Me' sessions...?

Bignall next...?

"The aim is for promotion this season and then next."

Was it delivered OK?

2 down, 1 to go..... (yes, yes.....I know Chamberlain is already under contract but you know what I mean.....)

I'd have to listen back to the Cortese / BBC interview to be certain, but I'm pretty sure the interviewer (Dan Roan) was asking Cortese about Chamberlain in anticipation of the inevitable speculation that was likely to arise in January. So, yes, Cortese was giving a guarantee BEFORE the speculation went into overdrive but it was still a pre-emptive response to the predictable scenario that exists today. Cortese would have to be highly naive to make that statement without thinking there would be any speculation to change his stance. IMHO of course

A heady combination of Dyno-rod / LloydsTSB (Insurance) / Royal & Sun Alliance / UK Drainage Network

I've lost count of the number of times I speak to person 'x' in a company's customer service department only to be told by person 'y' (when I phone up later to follow up the initial contact) that either: (a) we can't do that - person 'x' was wrong to say we could or (b) sorry, we've no record of what your conversation with person 'x' on the system Or.....I speak to person 'x' who says department 'z' will phone you back shortly....and (surprise surprise) they don't, so you phone up person 'y' to say you spoke to person 'x' (who said that department 'z' will phone back) to which person 'y' says: "oh sorry about that sir, I'll get them to call you tomorrow" CUSTOMER SERVICE IN 'GREAT' BRITAIN TODAY IS NON ****ING EXISTENT. FFS (and today's examples were all Bristish / UK based so can't blame our offshore friends on this occasion)

I know. Same happened with Skacel. Weeks, nay, years of speculation that came to nothing.

I'll see your Burnley/Reading/Leicester and raise you a Millwall and QPR... http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/football/article-23915617-millwall-and-qpr-on-alert-for-charlie-austin.do

By Jove....I do rather suspect we may have agreed on something! I say, This calls for a bottle of champers and fois gras canapés to celebrate, eh what?

I had a similar situtation with the bank I used to work for (they weren't part-nationalised either at the time!)...they explained it away by saying that the cost of the item as quoted by the official parts supplier to employees internally wasn't the value that the bank actually ended up paying for it as there was some sort of 'claw-back' system in place with the supplier. Could be similar situation with public sector suppliers? dunno, perhaps not

And mine (or should I say the wife's....)

Again, I can't see where anyone is advocating "yapping to the papers every day"...

Sure. Agree. All I was doing was highlightling an observation.

So, in summary, Reading are going for the same players that we may, or may, not be after....

Because it fits in nicely with the 90% of drivel most of us discuss on here....?

Can't see anywhere that anyone has suggested that? All I've seen is the observation that there has been no categorical statement from Chamberlain's 'camp' that he is staying at Saints. Granted. the club (Cortese) made a categorical statement in December that he wasn't going anywhere but some people are taking that with a pinch of salt, the media in particular. People have simply made this observation in reaction to people suggesting that all the speculation may be unsettling to Chamberlain and/or the club. A one-off, one line statement from Chamerlain's representative (his dad) at the beginning of January would have nipped all the speculation in the bud. So, no, no-one is asking for the club to "deny all rumours every five minutes". For whatever reason, Chamberlain's people (in conjunction with the club perhaps) have chosen to let the speculation continue. As I've suggested before, I suspect there could be an element of the club and/or Chamberlain's people wanting the speculation to continue as it's a win-win for both Saints and the player if/when we keep hold of him -> kudos for Cortese/Saints and Chamberlain improves his future earning potential one way or the other. That is all.