trousers

http://www.nextgenseries.com/

'Reckless' is probably a better fit that 'careless'

I think 25 years is optimistic TBH. People with strong political views (one way or t' other) seem to habour grudges for a lifetime (and their ancestors' lifetimes)

Darn. You stole my next come back line! ;-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2007109/Manchester-City-ditch-Barclays-Premier-Reserve-League.html "Stepping stone to stardom: Man City ditch Reserve League to play against Euro's elite Manchester City have chosen to pull out of next season's Barclays Premier Reserve League in order to provide their youngsters with the platform to play against Europe's elite. The club's academy chief Mark Allen said the decision to ditch the competition and instead focus on the inaugural NextGen Series, a Champions League-style tournament for Under 19s, will better prepare his youth players for life as professional footballers. As revealed by Sportsmail on Wednesday, City's academy and elite development squad players will take on Barcelona in the stand-out tie of the new tournament. 'We'll be competing against the best in Europe, a la the Champions League format,' said Allen. 'We see it as an important chapter in the development of Manchester City. 'The average age for a Premier League debut is becoming older, 21 or 22 when before it might have been 17 or 18. You have to bridge that gap and prepare them for a better standard of football. 'It's the next stepping stone. It will prepare them for those balmy nights we'll hopefully have in the Champions League as the club moves forward. Who knows, we might be seeing the new Lionel Messi on a Thursday night at Hyde.' On the Reserve League, in which City played 19 times last season, Allen said: 'We found it just a little bit too rigid in terms of fixtures. This will allow us the scope for a flexible games programme.' This new European development squad competition seems to tick a lot of the boxes that Cortese was/is trying to achieve by taking Saints out of the formal reserve game circuit last season.

Shouldn't we be thanking Gordon Brown for buying the banks on our behalf in the first place? Just asking ;-)

I see what you did there... :-)

Seems more 'off' than 'on' to me... "JACK Cork has been left in limbo with Chelsea’s financial demands currently pricing Burnley out of a deal for the midfielder. Southampton had an offer accepted late last month but I understand Cork is not keen on a move to the south coast club. The England Under-21 international remains open to a permanent switch to Turf Moor, where he has spent the last 18 months on loan, and has also attracted interest from other sides tipped to challenge for promotion to the Premier League during 2011/12. But Chelsea have been reluctant to disclose the figure they accepted from Nigel Adkins’ Southampton and, when Burnley attempted to respond to the Saints’ bid by holding discussions with the Blues, they fell short of the asking price. It is understood that four or five interested clubs have now been unable to agree a fee with Chelsea, who are said to be determined not to budge in their financial demands. The other clubs have not been named, but it was already known that Blackpool, Nottingham Forest and Leeds were among those interested. Swansea, preparing for their first season in the top flight, and West Ham have also been linked."

No doubt they'll be aware of that, but they have to move it anyway to demonstrate that they at least did all they could. (said Trousers stating the obvious)

For the observationists amongst us, you'll note that our OS uses the "Pompey" nickname in the headline, whereas the Portsmouth OS refers to us as "Southampton" rather than the "Saints". Make of that what you will. Not that I wish to stoke up the rivalry this early on....

Indeed. It was wrong to link the droughts and hot summers of 10 - 15 year ago to "global warming"....

;-) (no assumption though....I was simply latching onto the accusations of some that others were taking it negatively. Just social observation. That is all.)

Hypo makes a valid underlying point though. Had said 'agent' posted something positive and uplifting regarding something about to happen at SFC most people on here would have been fawning all over it. In other words, there's a tendency to judge the validity of sources based on how good or bad said news is. I think that's the point Hypo was making.

Science my arse... "If you can't beat them..." ;-)

http://Http://www.google.com

I think that's a resounding "no" !

Who?

Hallelujah....that's just two of us that understand mankind's insignificance. Anyone else?

And the molecules that make up the human species are somehow not part of nature....? *scratches head* Mother nature 'created' humans (possibly) ergo humans are part of nature. Sigh If we're pre-ordained to destroy life on Earth (as part of the natural and regular life creation / life destruction cycle) then so be it. That's nature. Humans are so full of self-importance sometimes.

^This

Cue people announcing exactly what MLG will post next... ;-)

Possibly. Possibly not. We'll never know for sure. That's what makes human debate so futile. There's ultimately no way of knowing who is right or who is wrong, Fact (possibly)

(sorry, didn't mean to copy the whole article...iPhone giving me some grief)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/comment/8583678/Ill-swap-my-pension-for-a-public-sector-one-like-a-shot.html We should all be jumping for joy that we are expected to live longer. Yet it doesn't seem that way. On the face of it, it would appear that we would all prefer to have shorter lives in exchange for having a little more money in our pockets. Or is it that we don't expect to live that long at all. According to the Government, we all underestimate how long we can expect to live. Those in their twenties underestimate their life expectancy by at least eight years – even the over-fifties live four years longer than they expect to. Increasing longevity is one of the pivotal reasons why final salary pensions are under strain. It is why most schemes in the private sector have closed down and it is why the Government wants to overhaul public sector pensions. Yet more than 750,000 workers will strike this summer because they don't want their guaranteed pensions touched. Unions argue that they should not shoulder the blame for the financial crisis because it had nothing to do with them. They argue: "The very modest pay and pensions of public servants did not cause the recession, so they should not be blamed or punished for it." It would seem that those in the public sector continue to believe that the entire private sector dabbled in toxic debt and is somehow responsible for the huge deficit Britain finds itself in. They also forget that the public versus private sector pensions debate has been bubbling away for years. The issue of how to sustain public pensions would have had to come to a head, deficit or no deficit. Increasing longevity and the realisation by actuaries that generous unfunded pension schemes are no longer viable continues to pass many in the public sector by. Longevity is accelerating so rapidly that siblings born a year apart can now expect a six-week difference in lifespan. A baby born this year will, on average, live for more than 90 years and nine months. As a result, more than 11 million people alive today – 17.6pc of the population – can expect to live to more than 100 years old. You do not need to have a GCSE (or a CSE, for that matter) in maths to see that more people in retirement and more people living longer is going to cost more. As it stands the taxpayer's contribution to a public sector pension is double the amount paid by the worker. Teachers, for instance, argue that their pension scheme is in good shape and so it doesn't have a problem, yet according to Lord Hutton the taxpayer stumps up 14pc into a teacher's pension pot, while the teacher pays 5pc. Is that fair? Private sector workers are being encouraged to plough in more of their earnings to fund their inferior pensions, yet they are expected to help fund someone else's too. Money pages in newspapers have told tales over the past few years of private sector workers being told their final salary scheme is to be closed and that from now on they will have to pay into an inferior, defined contribution scheme (DC). These DC schemes are linked to the ups and downs of the stockmarket, the amount they put in and annuity rates when they retire. In short, private sector workers have had the mockers put on their retirement plans midway through their working lives. Not that people seem to care. There has been no outpouring of anger, emotion or sympathy on their behalf. Perhaps private sector workers are just not caring enough? Yet the Government is not proposing to shut down public sector final salary schemes. With its plans, workers will still get a guaranteed pension for life with a career average scheme – and that is a pension not to be sniffed at. Indeed, those on lower salaries could actually be better off under a career average scheme. A worker starting on a salary of £15,000 and with a future earnings growth of 1pc above CPI each year, would have a pension 21pc bigger than under a final salary pension. And I'll tell you this – I'll swap my DC scheme for a career average final salary scheme any day of the week."

Only 74 of my Facebook "friends" have posted that mantra so far today