revolution saint

Round about ten ish but expect the ring entrances to take ages.

They said earlier that the rain would have to come in at a 45 degree angle to affect the fight - apparently they have some kind of temporary cover? Bloody hope it doesn't get rained off...

I thought this might make a good light hearted lounge topic. Obviously we can only talk about generalisations because there are exceptions to every one of them, but I wondered what the general consensus was? Obviously the generation that participated in the second world war had it tough - that's pretty much the ultimate sacrifice/ commitment you could ask. The baby boomer generation that came afterwards though are different - they've had a number of lucky advantages that generations after them won't. They were the first to get disposable income as teenagers, there was almost zero unemployment, they weren't just allowed free higher education - they were paid to go in the form of grants, they took advantage of a cheap housing market, their life expectancy rose dramatically compared to their parents but still have the same retirement age, in many cases they received their parents estates when they died although future generations (given that higher life expectancy) won't be so lucky. Obviously on the counter argument you can say that the baby boomers have been able to pay for both their kids and their parents - in terms of paying for Higher Education, getting on the housing ladder and paying for nursing homes. I'm not sure that generations after them will be in a position to do the same though. Oh, and apparently they had better music back then......b*stards.

As a total aside and irrelevancy, don't try and point that out to the 60-65 group moaning about the withdrawal of their concession for S/Ts.

Pretty much my thoughts - it's easy to discount Wlad over here but let's not forget he has all the natural attributes (weight and size) and fast hands as well. He may well be functional but he's bloody good at it. It seems to me though that he lacks a natural desire and a killer instinct. I never get the impression he loves being in the ring and when he gets hurt badly he can just give in. I keep going back to my original post, and that's about Adam Booth - it may be premature but he's fast becoming our Freddie Roach. He'll know what to expect from Vlad and will have a plan. Still a very, very tough call and I can't wait.

Yep, I'm paying for this one as well. In the past I've caught some really good streams but whilst I begrudge pfv for any channel I have a subscription to this at least justifies the tag, "box office". Anyone having any bets? There's a few good ones on Haye if you fancy round betting - my favourite is 11/1 on a Haye win rounds 7-9. Haven't bet yet though although I am leaning more towards Haye.

Hmm maybe I need to work on taking it more seriously...... Anyway to be pedantic I never suggested the comments today would affect the chances of Cork signing. My opinion was that by releasing details of our interest it indicated that we probably knew he wouldn't sign. That is just my opinion though.....I've nothing to back that up.

Of course I don't have a clue really, none of us have, it's just my opinion that it's less likely Cork signs than him signing. I really hope I'm wrong. Bloody hell - you lot take this seriously don't you? It was just my take on it.

Confirms our interest and alerts other clubs to sort something out earlier? Could be a whole host of reasons - you're best off asking NC as he's the one operating that policy up till now.

I have to say that I think you're probably right. I'd love Cork to sign but can't help thinking this is, as you say, a statement to show we're active and the type of player we're interested in. NC seems too cautious to allow a deal to be jeopardised by leaking it too the press. Only reason I can see for mentioning Cork is if he knows he definitely will sign......or he definitely won't Hope it's the former.

Strange that it was the BBC local radio that reported him rejecting us then, guess you should apologise.....

Well to be fair you've been just as generalist about the public sector as anyone has been about bankers. In your first post didn't you say, and I'm paraphrasing here, that you "despaired of any young teacher without an intelligent significant other to provide a counter point argument"? Don't you find that even a little patronising? You defend your mate the banker purely on the basis of how much he pays in tax (as if that was ever any yardstick for how hard someone works) but carefully forgetting how much the banking industry has cost us, and how much our tax has bailed out your mate's industry. Is it any wonder people are going to find issue with that argument? Indeed we could argue that failing pension funds both private and public are a direct result of your hard working banker mate's industry and it's failure to keep it's house in order (although I bet his pension is OK eh?). Now I'm sure you're a nice enough fella, and I shouldn't have called you a c u n t, but from the very first post you said your gf was being "brainwashed" when really she just had a different viewpoint, or was willing to listen to one, than you. That's not really being brainwashed at all - it's just called disagreeing with you and that's what a lot of this thread is about. If you really don't like it then maybe you should have thought before posting in the first place, ortherwise enjoy the mostly reasoned argument you proclaim to love so much.

I could explain why you're wrong but I don't have all night either, and of course it's pretty hard when you don't offer any reason except a vague assertion. Tell you what, have a cup of ovaltine and a nap and get back to me.

Of course I am, and it's quite deliberate. Just as Jackanory chose in his opening post to criticise the public sector as a group so I choose to criticise the banking sector as a group (and as a group rewarded apparently for success, haven't they been rewarded well for such failure). Obviously I realise it's more complex than that though.

Surely if they were bad at their job (and they clearly were) then they deserved to have lost their jobs and had their bonuses stopped? Difference is that their bonuses and wages when they were being bad at their job, and lead us to this situation, will probably give them more than most of us will earn. The idea that they deserve those bonuses again when we are still paying for their mistakes is laughable

For a bloke who likes reasoned argument it's surprising you haven't really offered any.

To be fair I don't think anyone will argue the point that the commercial banking sector created this recession, or that when they f*cked up they f*cked up so big that they had to be bailed out by govt. intervention, or that those tax payers that bailed them out are now suffering the consequences. It's no wonder there will be anger when a banker is defended as "saving" jobs due to his income tax - how many jobs, lives, families, homes did his industry cost us? Conveniently forget about that don't they?

And you're really just basing that judgement on the fact Sharp has rejected us, aren't you? No reason to suggest sloppy journalism at all. Sharp may be mistaken in thinking a prem club will come in for him but that's hardly the journalist's fault.

It does make you wonder what the commercial banking sector actually do, doesn't it? Seems to me like they are gamblers who can reap the rewards when they win and never pick up the tab when they lose. Oh and they can brag a fair bit too. I mean I know what doctors, teachers, servicemen, sheet metal workers, car production workers etc do - they either create or facilitate jobs, or the talent to do those jobs. Bankers though? In their purest form they supply capital which is OK except it's not their capital is it? It's someone else's capital and, if you're a saver, then it's your capital. Purely my opinion but they seem like glorified middle men, a bit like estate agents but with bigger egos.

To be fair, you're right. I got a little annoyed there!

You're right, of course, and I apologise - there was no need to call you a c u n t. I'll try harder It was OUR taxes that saved the banking industry wasn't it? Doesn't matter if you or your friend don't work for Lloyds or RBS because without govt. intervention the whole banking sector would have collapsed - commercial bankers chased an irresponsible dream and were driven by personal greed. Now of course having been bailed out you can feel free to enjoy big bonuses whilst everyone around you, who helped you, suffers for generations. Surely you can see why that would rankle?

For everyone lauding the private sector and castigating the public, don't forget you have this arrogant ***** on your side. I'm sure someone will put that far more eloquently than me though.

Branfoot was by far the worst "football" manager I've seen since watching Saints. The style of play was utterly dreadful and the players brought in were largely awful. Anyone remember that tactic of kicking the ball as far into the corner as possible every time we kicked off? When asked we consistently did this (and it never worked) Branfoot replied, "I don't know why the players do that - I've never asked them to". You can argue that Branfoot managed to keep us up but the team he inherited hadn't finished lower than 12th in six seasons so we shouldn't be using mere survival as a benchmark. I was also one of those who had got to the stage of hoping we would lose just to get rid of the manager. For any supporter to get to that stage it shows just how dire Branfoot must have been.

That's the spirit! If at first you don't succeed try, try again. You'll get better at it one day and it's great fun for the rest of us - carry on!

Post of the week for me.