The Kraken

Also, the commentator said to him: "So you were trying to pull a fast one?", and he said "Yes, I was trying to go as fast as possible."

Bear in mind he's German and has only lived here for 2 years. There were other questions that he was asked that he clearly didn't understand probably. Although it does sound a little bit dodgy....

Puncheon can and has played in all sorts of positions; left wing, right wing, centre midfield and behind the front striker. Chappers in comparison plays right mid or centre mid. And Punch has featured a lot more in pre-season than Chaplow so I'd expect him to stay unless we sign a couple of wingers, which I don't think we will.

A bit more than that; BBC just saying her time was exactly the same as the one that won gold in Beijing. Edit: what you said!

Matt Jarvis please; proper statement of intent. Doubt we can afford him and one or two decent centre backs though.

I'm sure someone posted a picture of him as a security guard in Asda.

The poor lad tried to claim he'd just been having a laugh all along; he got absolutely rinsed. I also remember the photo of him put up there which defied his bullsh*t claims of what grand job he did (can't remember what that was now) and he turned out to be an Oxford-based security guard.

I don't think anything will ever top the episode of Crouchie and his lawyer on b-anter. Aboslutely gold.

This is it. CVA-1 failing was exactly the same as not agreeing a CVA. 10 points is an outrage for that. There is the argument that CVA-1 creditors may have agreed to a renegotiation of the terms of their repayment but I don't buy that, i think if you agree to a CVA in the first place its either honoured or it fails, there's no middle ground. Minus 15 at least is what they should have been docked, arguably a fair bit more. There should also have been an extra punishment for two administrations in such a short space of time.

Perhaps. I think definitely a higher points penalty, 15 at least. As for an embargo I'd worry it might be a bit draconian. I'm yet to hear someone come up with an idea where you think "yep, that's what they should do", which I guess is why we're where we are.

The thing is, would that definitely work? Say a club goes into admin in September and they're relegated; what's the point in continuing at 100% if you're already down? It could become a bit of a farce. -10 ensures clubs remain competitive throughout the bulk of the season; but also allow for clubs to effectively avoid punishment. I know the current system doesn't work, but also its tough to say what the alternative should be.

Something has to change. The -10 points was brought in to arrest the increase in club administrations we were seeing. Its has had little to no effect, we seem to have as many administrations as ever, nothing is improving. Football does what it can in ensuring that football creditors are paid 100% of what they are owed (or not in Pompey's case); from a legal point I'm not sure how much more they could do in this regard, the laws of the land are being upheld, but there is the possibility as you suggest of withholding the golden share. I'd just prefer to see a system where you really get punished for administration; many clubs have got away with "just" ten points. We didn't, and really that's how it should be. And you're right, there's far too much pressure put on the courts to save football clubs as they serve their community. So what? At worse there will always be a Phoenix club after liquidation. If enough of the community truly "need" a football club then they'll support the new initiative.

Probably the only reason I got b-anned too

Its probably because its a feeling of injustice, they've got away with so much previously (and still whine about how unfair it all is) that we all want them to get their just desserts. I'd like nothing more than to see them on a tiny budget; but they won't be the first team who pay a pittance on a CVA (Crystal Palace recently paid 1p in the pound and didn't even get relegated). It just highlights (yet again) for me that the rules for clubs going into administration just aren't tough enough. If there was a Rangers-esque outcome every time then a hell of a lot of clubs would surely be less likely to overspend so far beyond their means. 10 points is really nothing for turning £130M into £500,000, plus whatever CVA 2 was.

I may be in a minority here, but I don't think what he's said is too bad. The CVA has already been agreed; creditors have agreed to 2p in the pound. Yes, that's of course a disgracefully low amount, but they agreed to that with Portpin's bid, so the Trust have matched that. Once the CVA is agreed (and paid) then, rightly or wrongly, the club start from a clean slate. And the fact is that, even with their sh*te attendances, they'll still be one of the bigger clubs in the division, so can pay higher than average wages. The biggest disgrace in all this has been only docking 10 points for a failed CVA. Its an absolutely scandalously low points total to dock, especially in comparison to other clubs who have had a similar fate. If they do survive and don't get relegated it will still feel a bit like've got away with it. Still, that's a long way from happening yet, so fingers crossed.

That would show them; being a pain in the arse for ticket counter staff who have no say whatsoever in setting club policy.

8 golds was probably something we won't repeat. We should still get at least 3 or 4 but it seems as if other countries have caught up a bit, and we're no longer the favourites in some events we won in Beijing. Stupid rule that, and as its caught out the top 2 teams here plus teams in the World Championships they really need to revisit it. Hopefully Sir Chris and his boys can make up for it shortly, going to be very close though.

F*ck em. Apparently we've brought out new technology just for this games to give us another advantage. Its a bit weird when anything less than 8 golds will be deemed as a slight failure, but our cycling squad really is quite breathtaking.

I don't have a problem with a genuine transaction fee, where it is representative of the actual cost. But the charges from the club are a blatant rip off in certain cases, while fair in others. Pay cash at the TO, no booking fee. fair. But a booking fee per ticket is a shameless rip off, it should be by transaction. Also, pay by debit card at the TO and the fee is exactly the same as purchasing online, which requires the extra expense of a stamp and an envelope. At least try to make it seem fair. I have little problem paying for a transaction fee, but it needs to be applied fairly and justifably. SFC's system isn't, its just an excuse to milk more money on the sly. And they should rightly receive criticism for it, especially when the online booking system is so utterly sh*t that it doesn't work properly half the time.

I bought 3 tickets by card for the Wolves friendly, I was "only" charged a £1.50 transaction fee. Still a rip off.

Its quite worrying, isn't it? That a supposed fully grown adult has to hide away from postings by a certain person as they just can't handle their emotions or how they react when reading something by an anonymous nobody on the internet. Frightening that so many get so worked up by it. Even more frightening how these people are desperate to tell all and sundry how weak willed they are, and how proud they are about it.

I've just taken Weston Saint off ignore.

I've just put Weston Saint on ignore.

Thanks mate. You're a good pal. I've heard a rumour that Nicola Cortese wears lifts in his shoes. I reckon there's a fairly good chance its true. Has anyone else heard any rumours which could be true?

Yeah but what a 2 minutes. Killer Fan, even though you don't want to be my friend, I salute you Sir