The Kraken

Its doubly funny, because for years Pompey fans developed the myth of "257 to Bolton" in an effort to ridicule Saints terrible away showings; like most Pompey myths they kept saying it and kept saying it until it they finally all believed it and it became a Pompey fact. Now that we live in a multimedia age, its really quite simple to see just how many away fans a side takes to games; and Pompey are being shown up for the disloyal, JCL deserters we all knew they were. Still, they have a soap-shy goon with a bell, a bugle and a carnival xylophone which they equate as true passion we can only dream of, so I guess they're happy.

To be fair, probably just as few as we sell these days in the Premier League.....

Here you go. That incline does look a hell of a lot steeper than standard seating.

It would also probably solve our short term ideas of stadium expansion too...

Oh. My. God. This is simply another indciation that, while the Trust are exceptionally well meaning and hard working, they really have a very loose grip on the reality of their own future.

I'd say an orbitting missile launcher would be a better first strike location than the moon (which is quite a long way away, really). And again for warning and observation, surely a number of orbitting satellites would be much more effective than a fixed base much further away. I do think some uber-villain should set up a base on the moon, though. Some evil, Richard Branson equivalent, with ideas of world domination and a mysterious yet relevant name, like Dr. Lunarbomb or something.

OK. As said previously though, it appears one extra design criteria is an additional step per row being required. I'd have thought that the incline shouldn't be an issue as the ground still has to pass the requirements of an all seater stadia when the convertible seats are locked into place.

Yep, agreed. Personally I think that'll be a step too far (pun completely intended) for the Football authorities. Anything more than one seated space = one standing space will be met with vociferous opposition. Safety experts will demonstrate that the two step approach carries slightly more risk than having everyone seated (even though we all know that people just stand anyway). Critics against it will claim that its much easier for the rows to become bunched in some areas and create a higher danger. And if I'm honest, I think if we're going to bring in safe standing it should be on a one seated space = one standing space basis.

The thing is; NASA have the technology to go there now if they wanted to. If they can land a robotic dog on Mars then getting to the moon and back is sheer piffle in comparison. That they don't tells me they've been there, done what they need to, and as it costs such an aboslute fortune to go (and with no tangible benefit) and there's nothing more to learn; what's the point? Perhaps in 20, 30 or 40 years time when a manned mission to Mars is looking more likely we'll see a return to the moon for training purposes??

OK, have a look at this pic from the BBC article: It looks like with standing there are two people (one in front of the other) for each "seat" space. And it looks like there is an extra step in there to allow one to see over the other's head. Not sure I agree with that system; while there's very little risk it does seem more "dangerous" having one in front of the other rather than just one standing space to one seat width.

Well I'm no expert on it at all; but I believe the point of the system being proposed on the trial basis is that one "seat" takes up the same space that an existing one does. Which makes sense really. How Dortmund do it, I really don't know.

True, but is that not more of a cost thing? In such that forcing every league club to scrap terraces and install seating would potentially have put them out of business? And I also imagine that the numbers allowed onto the terraces these days and the stricter stewarding mitigate it somewhat. Its a fair point though.

How so? The incline of the concrete steps is the same, as the standing seats have to be able to be converted to seating for some games. What other ways (particularly for modern stadia) are current terraces not suitable? I understand the cost part; there's no tangible benefit for a club in terms of direct revenue increase (i.e. they can't get in any more people than the current capacity) and they have the cost of installation. I don't understand why you say the design is unsuitable?

For safe standing to come in we've got to lose the notion of a "terrace". That evokes some dreadful memories and implies a lack of safety. Safe standing is really this: Standing areas that ensure there can be no crushing at all, as there is a safety barrier per row. And they can be converted to seats for all seater requirements (or even for a half time sit down).

I don't think he's a Banker though.....

Quite remarkably, this is Corp Ho's take on the situation. Maybe in his absence from here he's found a modicum of common sense and reality.

I wouldn't rate solicitors' performance on the basis of home sales; they're ridiculously slow (and low value, so very low priority). I used a local solicitor my family have used for years for my house purchase a few years back; I'd sold my flat 6 months previously so it was effectively a cash buy and the couple I was buying from had no onward chain, yet it still took just under 6 months from offer acceptance to completion. I imagine Portpin pay rather more than you or I did in solicitors fees and are therefore higher up in terms of importance, and therefore proactivity!

We've also apparently got a North stand, as well as Northam and Northern. No wonder the ticket office are confused.

The levels of delusion over on POL (which are usually sky high at the best of times) have rocketted into orbit following yesterday's shock revelations that the Football League intend to do what they said they'd do all along. Non-deluded translation: "It sounds like the consequences of the PDT taking over are that we'll no longer be able to incur massive debt (and not pay it back) and will only be allowed to spend similar amounts of money on wages and transfers to most other clubs in the division. This is thoroughly unacceptable to me." Non-deluded translation: I think the PDT should be allowed to progress even if it is proven that its business plan does not add up and that the PDT cannot reach their anticipated startup funding figures. This desire of mine does not change the fact that I will look to blame the Football League if I get my way and the PDT fails further down the line. Non-deluded translation:I truly believe the notion that we will be the first and biggest fan-owned club in the country. Swansea do not exist and never have, and there are no other fan-owned clubs anywhere in existence. Non-deluded translation: I can't read or understand league tables, let alone the concept of deducting 10 points from an existing total. Non-deluded translation: I would like for the PDT to receive our outstanding parachute payments in cash, but I would like to not pay the players (i.e. those who the parachute payments were designed for) and instead would like to use this cash to purchase our ground on the cheap. I feel this way of doing business is entirely fair, and I fail to see any irony in demanding parachute payments and refusing to use them in the manner for which they were intended. Non-deluded translation: Pompey are the biggest team in the world, and all other football clubs are either jealous of us or want to ride on our coat-tails of success. Although, in their defence, there are one or two enlightened souls down there.

If I'm honest, Mark Littlewood is often a bit too blatant with his WUMming, almost like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. I prefer the more subtle rallyboy approach rather than the brash and brazen technique he employs. He also seems like a bit of an obnoxious d*ck.

The official line is that they've been instructed by lawyers not to release any figures prior to the court date. The obvious issues to that are: 1) The court case is between the administrators of Portsmouth Football Club and Portpin; the PDT have nothing to do with the court case, therefore any fundraising activities they currently have underway are entirely irrelevant. 2) The court case is for the purpose of setting a figure for a piece of land and property; it has nothing whatsoever to do with who is buying it or how they are financing it. 3) The purchase of the land is being financed by an independednt property developer, so even if the pledges were struggling they are not part of the financial package to provide the funding for the land anyway.

Surprisingly well, actually. Although the same can't be said for Pompey Mart, who seems to be having a nervous breakdown over the "news".

MLG

Pretty much this, really. I didn't think much of the 442 line-up on Saturday, and if I'm honest I thought we won despite Rodriguez playing rather than because of him. That said, we simply don't have the reinforcements to the squad to have been able to field any other stronger side, so it was perhaps an understandable decision. He still needs to learn and improve, as Turkish said I'm not sure if he's got the right idea yet with subtitutions. But it looks like he's a got a good grip on control of it all now, and hopefully is in discussions with the committee to bring in the players we need to make a real fist of staying up.