Matthew Le God

Lampitt just confirmed UHY will be administrators!

Lampitt just confirmed it on Express FM.

Because the players agent has demanded it as part of the negotiations for his client's contract.

And what would Pearce's job involve that Les Reed's doesn't do already?

That makes no sense. Why would Saints bid more than a fee guaranteed to be accepted by Doncaster?

Says the Pompey fan with 581 posts and full membership on a Southampton forum...

The point he was making is that you spelt his name wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/luton_town/7507736.stm

Well that is just cheating

He played against Nottingham Forest.

Who?

See my post above.

Because he wasn't registered at Saints for the original game and so can't play in the replay.

"Saints come your"

"Saints come your" Doesn't explain the spelling.

Is it a competition? I was merely informing the opening poster.

Hearts are sponsored by Wonga.com, can they not ask them for help at 4214% APR?

This works... http://www.firstrowsports.eu/

Corporate Ho seems to think if the Liebherr's pulled out then no-one would want to buy the club. Can he explain why he thinks this? The club would be extremely attractive to anyone wanting to buy a football club... - large and strong squad in auto promotion place in the Championship - large average crowds of circa 25k+ in the 2nd tier - new large modern stadium - large piece of land at Jackson's Farm - strong staff infrastructure in place - state of the art training ground under construction - one of the best academies in England which will be category 1 under new regulations in 2012/13 Which of those things do Pompey have in place? None is the answer and is the reason your club has been passed from crook to crook since 1998. Hard to get out of that loop. (I bet he doesn't attempt to answer my first question)

How would someone go about arguing for that?

Because pretty much any American citizen born in the US can at least in theory attempt to be head of state on personal merit rather than solely because of their family heritage. It is not possible for the best person for the head of state role in Britain to get the job as it is restricted to the first born of one family. 300 million people to choose from >>> one family (where the oldest child becomes head of state) Plus if a President is poor he can be kicked out after 4 years and can only stay for 8 years max. Royalty in this country are here until they decide otherwise or die. It really is quite simple. I'm not saying the American system is the best system to decide the head of state, just that it is better than Britain's.

So how does that make have a head of state nobody voted for and was by fluke of birth born into a dynasty a better option?

I know he is entitled to say it, I am just wondering how he justifies such a statement.

I have a question.... Approximately 49% of American voters voted for Bush, and in theory most of the population could have stood against him. 0% voted for the Winsors to be our heads of state. So why is George Bush your reason for being a royalist? Yes, he was a crap President, but it is a fairer system than ours.

You've lost me. Why is it integral to being British?