SaintBobby

We do. We exported it there. We have rights. Are these guys in Brazil?

Alright....who gets the rosette for winding them up on here.... http://www.facebook.com/groups/407893649268563/ ?

Btw, does anyone know who Sara Cunningham is? Heard she's launching a breakaway faction on phoenix project - and is rich (ish)

"The green screen behind me will be replaced by a photo of the only meaningful stadium in Hampshire tomorrow. I'm sorry.....I was wrong.....My life is over.......Here's Bill with the weather."

Alpine, ur a sarcastic bastard. But I think I love you :-)

Having spent too much time reading the various skate sites today, I'd say the fan base is pretty split between the Trust bid and liquidation/Phoenix.

Peter Allen on Radio 5 suggests to Colin Farmery from the Trust that they should liquidate, wipe slate clean and start again. "That is an option" says geezer from the trust.

Could this be the end? (I'll miss this thread!)

Can someone confirm, is their bid based on 75% or 90% conversion? Clearly, both are total fantasy. I'd say c.50%?

So, if the Trust's bid is really as much of a fantasy as the smart people on here say, that really is the end for them.

Curtains?

So, am I right that they have 11 hours to register a squad in time for the Plymouth cup game?

I'm happy with the pre-season fixtures. Okay, Bristol City are a few grades below what we'll be facing this season (other than in Cups), but overall, the rest of the teams are a pretty fair representation of the sort of quality we'll be up against in the Premier League. Seems to me that the overall level of performance was just about satisfactory (except perhaps v. Udinese) - but results a tad disappointing (would look a lot better if we'd beaten Ajax, which we probably deserved to). I'd much prefer we played Ajax, Anderlecht, Arsenal etc, than Eastleigh, Bournemouth etc. In preparing for a Premiership season, I'd also prefer us to play at home more than away. The screw-ups have been two-fold: 1. Pricing was ridiculous - you can charge £15 for a one-off pre-season friendly, but if you have 4, surely drop it to £5. 2. We have tried out a system on the pitch which doesn't really seem to work. So, rather than us all coo-ing about how great a 4-2-3-1 looks, most people seem to think we're best suited to 4-4-2. Still, that's all part of the learning process, I suppose.

We're nowhere near being a top half team or challenging for Europe or any of that guff. And won't be even if we sign 3 or 4 useful new players. The height of my ambition is to avoid relegation - and I think we're about 50-50 to do that. Don't much care about Man City, Man Utd etc. Question is are we better than 3 of Reading, Wigan, West Brom, West Ham, Swansea, Norwich et al over 38 games? Touch and go, I'd say. So, should be exciting. We probably need only about 35 points to stay up - something like W 9 D 8 L 21 . It amazes me that pundits talk of 40 points being needed for safety (very rarely true). I'm annoyed about the CB thing - but not worried. I'd be amazed if we don't sign one or two by end of the transfer window.

I'm only following this on twitter....but it doesn't sound as if we'd hold our own in the Champions League just yet...

The match vs Udinese is many things. But it is not "a massive game".

I wouldn't want to be Trevor Birch. He now has to explain why to hand the club over to Chanrai. Many LOLs.

TBH off to Hapoel Tel Aviv? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2185649/Tal-Ben-Haim-close-reaching-deal-Portsmouth-nears-loan-spell-Hapoel-Tel-Aviv.html

It's all very quiet out there.....too quiet....

Hmmmm....which peer reviewed scientific paper is actually predicting a 60m rise in sea levels?

Surely, Chanrai takes them over and the only issue is how much of the PP is split between him, TBH and the football creditors?

Again, this highlights the problem with media reports. I'd hazard a guess that 60m is on the very high end of predictions - hence the use of the word "could". I'm not saying a rise in sea levels on that scale in the next couple of years would be a doddle to deal with- but is there any thought as to what engineering solutions might be possible and over what time frame? To give a very extreme (and very simplistic) example, if we have 1,000 years to build a 200 foot flood wall right round Britain, would it be impossible to do so? Another, rather less extreme, example put to me by some engineers is that we could create enormous trenches in certain uninhabited parts of the world (such as the Sahara) which would become (potentially salinated) reservoirs as sea levels rose. I can't remember the details, don't have the engineering knowledge to really know about feasibility and wouldn't have a clue on costs and benefits of such a project. But my point is we mustn't believe that we will have water lapping round our ankles in Southampton in the next few months and will suddenly be surprised a few weeks later that the whole city is under water. Our adaptability is so much better than that.

On the conventional side of the scientific argument http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm On the sceptical side, Nigel Lawson's book - A Cool Look at Global Warming (if I remember the title correctly) On the outright denier side, anything by Fred Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Are you suggesting that China was a better place in 1978?

These would be very, very rough guesses by me, I'm not a scientist let alone a climatologist. 1. Is climate change happening? I'd say 85% YES. 2. Are man-made emissions a significant part of this? I'd say 70% YES 3. Are the consequences of climate change a net bad? I'd say 75% YES So, I'm a pretty clear YES to these questions. But the chance I'm right on ALL of them is .85 x .7 x .75 = 44.6%. So, overall, I suppose that means that the chance that these three things are not all true is higher than 50%. I don't accept that my questions 4 and 5 are "subsets" of point 3. 4, 5 & 6 are all about what we should do if 1,2 and 3 are all true.