stevegrant

Yeah, Sandra Gidley won Romsey by 200-odd votes last time. Romsey has, as far as I'm aware, historically been a Tory stronghold so I'd expect them to regain that seat this year.

They picked up NINE bookings in their game at Norwich on Saturday and Paul Ince said after the game that "we're not a dirty side". Those bookings took their season's tally to just 124. Colchester are second in that particular table with 76

Carberry takes a wicket, now with figures of 3-3-0-1 201/6, a lead of 192. Bowl them out for a lead of 250 or less and I think we've got a chance of sneaking a win.

The Football League also has to agree to it - far from a formality for obvious reasons.

Unlikely given that it was those in charge of the club at the time who appointed him in the first place, knowing that he has a string of convictions for fraudulent activity. The Premier League will argue that the club didn't take a reasonable level of care when appointing him to a job of that magnitude, and that if he was indeed in full control of the finances, the club then subsequently lied to the Premier League when they asked them to clarify his role.

All well and good doing it on the last day of the season (it's probably written into the contract that the club can do that), but to do it a month before the end of the season??

One question about yesterday, which may have already been answered elsewhere... how come Pompey were wearing next season's kit?

Jesus :smt107 So let's work out who it is then... Currently on-loan players, according to soccerbase: Anthony Vanden Borre Frederic Piquionne Aruna Dindane Hassan Yebda Jamie O'Hara Can't be O'Hara as he's ineligible anyway, nor Vanden Borre as he's suspended. So take your pick out of Piquionne, Dindane and Yebda...

Correct.

Agree with most of what you put above this bit, but am intrigued as to what system *would* allow for truly representational government. I don't have an answer myself, btw.

If they're too scared to report them, how do you know about them?

The current minimum wage is £5.80 per hour for people aged 22 and over. In order to earn more money from a job paying minimum wage, someone would only need to work between 12 and 15 hours per week. Unfortunately, there is a significant minority of people in this country who genuinely can't be bothered to work. You may not be able to live off benefits and you may be someone with ambition to earn a decent living, but not everyone has those ambitions, as strange as it may seem that everyone isn't exactly like you.

If there are "unscrupulous" employers in this country who are paying below the statutory minimum wage then surely this Labour government should have been taking steps to sanction those employers?

voteforpolicies.org.uk I got some rather surprising results... http://vfp.me/4BBF03882077C Particularly strange as I voted Labour in 2005!

Just to confirm, there were Saints players "in the area" when this incident happened, but none were involved in any way.

Trying to think of which other old grounds are actually derelict rather than having been knocked down and replaced with flats... Fratton Park? And my proper guess would be Boothferry Park (old Hull City ground)

Plough Lane?

I'm reliably informed that UP may be returning in the not-too-distant future after today's developments.

His views are not and never were the issue. As I mentioned in a previous post, I actually agreed with a lot of them. However, the manner in which he posted (particularly yesterday) made it very clear that he was posting with the intention (note: not an acceptance of them because of holding a minority view, the intention so he could then report them) of getting flamed responses. He then made the schoolboy error of making it obvious to people that he was posting from multiple usernames, which is a banning offence on its own.

Nope, Invesco!

Which is what, exactly?

Alex Song did a decent job keeping him quiet in the game at the Emirates, to be fair.

If you don't wish to respond privately to the email I sent you then fine, I'll post on here instead. I've given you more than enough opportunities to stop being a complete and utter **** on here. Every single post is made with an angle with comments made designed to wind people up and generate a flamed response. I've done my best to give you a chance to post without getting retaliatory responses, but if you won't help yourself then I can't be arsed to waste my time anymore. You should be aware that I'm the only one out of all of the admin team who has been willing to give you any sort of a chance, but as I said, yesterday's antics were the final straw for me. I can't go on defending the indefensible. I'm sure you'll register another load of usernames, and rest assured, when we find them, they'll be banned as well. I have no issue with you holding an opinion. That's what a forum is for, and I've defended your right to hold those opinions more times than I care to remember on here. What I'm not prepared to defend is the clear way in which you post those opinions to generate vitriol in response so you can then report the perpetrators in some sort of mock indignation that people might not like the way you act on here. As it goes, as a result of your post, I've just made my decision. Cheerio.

It does make me laugh when people claim to have made a profit on players without counting the amount of money they spent on the wages during their time at the club. Sol Campbell was on £60k a week, on a three-year contract. That's £9m in wages, and he was released on a free. That's a loss of £9m. Genius.

Rather interesting that very little has been made of the growth hormones Barcelona bought for him when he was 12 years old - if the "English system" had been essentially doping players from a young age, all hell would break loose.