The Kraken

Good point. Arsenal won the Markus Liebherr cup wearing this kit... Which is actually less stripey than Ajax, so pretty pointless from me really....

Maybe when we wore the sash?? But I'd be amazed if we actually did at any point.

Pap: out of interest, is it just the moon landings that you think NASA (might) have faked? Or does the conspiracy run deeper? Were the Pioneer and Voyage projects a hoax also, and the pictures of Jupiter and Saturn an elaborate computer generated ruse? The International Space Station, well that was visible from earth at times so a bit tough to fake that one. How about the Mars rover; there's no evidence that actually landed, is there?

I doubt they're contractually obliged; but all pro footballers are made aware of their responsibilities to the community. And, to be fair, almost all footballers do far more community and charity work than is ever reported by the press. In any case, contractual or not, their visit has had a great effect and it great to see the photo with Nigel and everyone and their big old smiles (although some of the smiles also seem to be saying "come on its bloody freezing out here, get on with it!").

Ah, it was only a handful, and they were groaning. I see.

They really are such a sad deluded lot. Some QPR fans said on their message board (after we played them at Loftus Road) that Saints were the best away fans there in years. Yet you don't see some crusade to say how wonderful we are and the best in the land. It's really quite pathetic that Pompey fans choose to do it (while glossing over the many teams who think they're quite ordinary) and quite sad how many choose to believe their own hype that they really are something special. I've been to Fratton twice this season, with a mate of mine as a scout, so have seen them from a neutral perspective. First game of the season against Bournemouth, fair play they made a decent racket for a lot of the game. I also saw them against Swindon and they got outsung by 1,500 away fans. The reality just doesn't match their own hype.

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.