egg

Agree with that. I get that football and is fans are tribal, but, we need the best manager available, not the one who's past is more appealing to fans or who the players can have a laugh with. I don't want more passing for passing sake, I'm done with that so Carrick doesn't really appeal, but I'd take him. GoN style, and to an extent GoN himself, is the most appealing of the available options.

Yep!! Nice idea though. Would be a massive statement if it happened though.

Putting aside the weirdness of some fans preferring an inferior manager than one with strong Pompey links, there's massive differences between GoN and Carrick. GoN plays and aggressive pressing game, whereas Carrick plays a plodding pedestrian game. Basically, a poor mans Ralph or someone Martin esque. It's GoN for me. I couldn't give a monkeys who he's played for, and I like the fact that Pompey fans will be properly irritated if he comes here. Vieira though, that's a great shout.

Crown

He would be a safe pick, and I think our board would like his possession game. Personally I'd prefer O'Neill's aggressive/pressing style.

Tonight's line up. Oyekunle has scored again.

1 each after 54 mins.

The pool of experienced and available managers isn't big. I'd take O'Neill over Carrick, or this Eckert lad. I wouldn't have RM back in a month of Tuesdays.

"Hungry eyes", ffs. This is football, not dirty dancing

This.

That'd be my pick, although I'd actually prefer Stephens to THB, purely because I think he's less shit.

Absolutely no idea mate. I've asked a simple question but got no answer. I think they've figured out that if they stuck with their plan a and paid public sector workers more money, whilst funding the existing pensions in payment, we'd be much deeper in the shit than we are now.

Again you misunderstand. There is no 30% going into a pension. In private schemes, the contribution goes into a dB or cash pot. In unfunded public schemes, there is no actual pot, the person merely banks a future benefit to be paid funded in the future. I'll tap out again. You fail to answer simple questions, and go off in directions that you don't understand.

The employers contribution is notional. The money doesn't go into a pot. That's the part yuu seem to me misunderstanding. The schemes (save LGPS) are unfunded. The schemes are annual accrual by reference to the salary and the pension division, ie 1/40, 1/49, etc. If (and you still haven't answered the question) you're advocating a higher salary, but the divider remains, the pension actually increases, albeit paid for by the governments when the employees scheme falls into payment. So, if you want more pay, accept that pension costs wll increase over time. If you want less pay, or a reduced pension, accept that we won't recruit them public servants we need.

Seems fairly typical of the spread in a comparable role. Factor in that the LGPS is a 49th scheme, so that person will get a pension worth about £920 a year in retirement in today's money. Buying an annuity for that amount would cost about £12-16k. Total the two, and the public sector person is still out of pocket to the private sector person coming in anywhere above the very bottom of the pay scale.

Are we now talking about a performance rated public service pension?

If I did the nearest equivalent of my public role in a private setting the remuneration would be (and has been) much more than double. But, the pension is great, and public service life in my situation is much easier than the reality of a commercial environment.

It's vague to refer to unspecified sectors. If you refer to sectors, say which sectors. If in reality you actually don't know, then just admit what's obviously the case. Back to my yes or no question on public sector pay. Are you calling for a reduction or increase? I've said I'll return to pensions once you've addressed that simple question.

Putting your valid point to one side, I'm unsure what he's saying here. Have we now moved into lower PS pay and pension territory? Earlier I thought it was increase the pay and lower pension. That was certainly Iansums point.

Because many PS roles don't have a private sector comparison. What does a private sector army officer get paid? Fireman? Judge? Etc. I'll repeat my question to Ralph. The PS needs staffing. Are you suggesting that the government of this day increases it's costs by increasing PS pay? That's a yes or no. I'll return to pensions after

Again you're vague. If you spell out the other sectors that you refer to, that'd help. Regardless, the PS needs staffing. Let's take this in stages. Are you suggesting that the government of this day increases it's costs by increasing PS pay? That's a yes or no. I'll return to pensions after.

Quite. I think we have people arguing to increase public sector pay, make spending cuts, and save for future PS pensions. Regardless, any attempt to significantly alter PS pensions will lead to another McCloud situation. The impact and cost of that is another timebomb this government has has had to absorb, and we haven't yet felt the full impact of.

It's a false comparison. The government is obliged to pay pensions in payment. They can't do that whilst paying higher wages.

I don't misunderstand. The country needs public services and people to operate it.

Public sector roles are only available in the public sector. I haven't seen many private sector firemen, soldiers, civil servants, judges, etc. Are you saying that people shouldn't do those jobs and go and do something else in the private arena?