Lord Duckhunter

I thought one of Nicola's policies was that the first team manager was head of department, that the club had a structure and a way of playing that meant no disruption when employees moved on. To use the modern football buzz word a holistic approach. If its all going to go tits up the first time its tested , perhaps cortese wasn't quite the genius the press make out. Certainly Ajax see relaxed about losing FDB, confident in their clubs structure , perhaps we should be the same. Pocket the compo and get another dept head in.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/liberal-democrat-mps-expenses/8508349/David-Laws-suspended-over-pages-of-expenses-claims.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25492017 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/10817533/MP-claims-for-sympathy-cards-to-send-out-when-constituents-die.html

Two things; Firstly, nobody knows what Marcus would have done in this situation. I maybe wrong but wasn't the talk of a sustainable self sufficient club in the long term. Maybe he was going to spend to get us to the top table and then reign it in. And, who on earth do people think is going to spend,spend, spend and treat us as a vanity project? What is the " clubs beset interests". Did peter risdale have Leeds best interests at heart?

Anyone who thinks that Premier league clubs were scared of dealing with us under Nicola are deluded. Do people really believe that had he stayed Liverpool wouldn't be bidding for Lallana or Shaw would be staying because nobody had the Balls to ring up "The Don". How hard must Fat Sam Gold and Sullivan be, actually trying to buy Rickie whilst The Don was ruling the manor.

No, but it didn't help that Mrs Duck kept butting in. As the contact is a friend of hers it was a bit awkward to start telling her to STFU whilst I ask some questions.

Reduce the deficit? I would liken to eliminate it and then go on to become debt free. I don't believe that higher taxes automatically mean more revenue. Define "poor" Long term, I wouldn't rule it out.

I was told tonight (and believe me the person would know) that Adam genuinely hasn't made up his mind and was only focused on the world cup. I accept that the person who told me could have done so just to shut me up (as I have been badgering her for some info), but I did get the feeling it was true. I was also told some of the details of what Liverpool are offering, but am not going to post that. Only that the conversation ended "what would you do"? And a laugh. But it was "what would you do" in a "its a no brainer" way which worried me. People can believe me if they want or think I'm full of pony, but I know it happened.

A % is a %. How is somebody on 80k a year paying 40% whilst somebody on 40k a year pays 20% "fair", the richer bloke still pays more revenue into the coffers if the % was the same. Because Rickie Lambert is more skilled at his job than I am at mine, why does his % have to increase? We are talking about earnt income here. In the strictest sense of the word , a flat tax is clearly the "fairest" .

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-mp-austin-mitchell-faces-calls-to-be-sacked-after-describing-drugs-company-pfizer-as-rapists-in-astrazeneca-takeover-row-9370973.html

You only have to look to Wales to see just how safe the NHS is in labour hands. Scare stories have always been a part of the establishments political campaigning , and you can not have a proper political debate because of it. Take tax , people don't argue about what brings in the most money but " tax cuts for millionaires" . We've seen it on this thread, with flat tax , and how the poorest pay the same as the richest. No they don't, the more you earn the more you pay. There's also no mention of the tax policy overall. Merging NI & Income tax ( described as sensible by ifs) and the raising of the tax free threshold much higher than it is now ( meaning less people pay tax and ni). It is a legitimate tax policy, which the taxpayers alliance and Adam smith institute have taken seriously . According to them at present the poorest 1/3 pay 9% of their income in tax and under UK IPS proposals they'll pay 0%. This article explains it better than I can, although ukips 2010 policy allowed for a higher threshold than the 10k proposed by these people. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9202370/Osborne-urged-to-introduce-30pc-income-tax-for-all.html Unfortunately instead of a grown up debate about it, there's just mud slinging and sound bites repeated over and over again. Its just a shame that Nigel appears to have let the liblabcon knock him off course on this issue.

I'm so looking forward to next Thursday when the peoples army stuff your sanctimonious pony where the sun don't shine.

What the FCK are some people on? We have to run the club within the boundaries of what is affordable. If MP wants us to spend what we haven't got, then he can **** off as far as I'm concerned. I'll drive him up the seven sisters road myself. Managers can't start hold a gun to the finance people's heads, he won't be able to do it at spurs and he shouldn't be able to do it to us.Have the past 10 years not taught us anything? For all we know Nicola was a Swiss Peter Risdale who was driving us over the edge of a cliff. If clubs like Aston Villa and Everton cut their cloth accordingly, why is it such a bad thing for us to be doing so? There will always be clubs come knocking for our players just as we pinched clyne and José from palace and jrod from Burnley. That unfortunately is a fact of footballing life and if people can't deal with it, they'll always be disappointed

In what way does it seem like a " fire sale"?

Of course its not up to him, I'm sure he wants to keep him as much as any of us.

I was just wondering today, out of the list of new laws that have been introduced by the EU, which one's do you disagree with so much that you want out of the EU as a result? If you don't disagree with any of them then what's the problem? It is not for a foreign trading body to impose new laws on a sovereign state. This is the best argument I've seen for open borders! Let me get this right, as a business owner or recruiter, you're happy to be restricted in your choice of candidates and forced to choose employees that, by your own admission, wouldn't have been as good as those that you did employ! How on earth is that of any benefit to the UK if business leaders are prevented from employing the best candidates? Stupid argument, how does it help the British economy if millions of youngsters are on the dole? So, the answer then is 'No' you haven't been adversely affected by the open border policy (and nor has anyone else I've come across so far) but you imagine that people must be worse off because they might not have been successful in achieving employment when an EU citizen gets the job ahead of them (again without any direct evidence to this effect). Had you considered that maybe the immigrants from the EU also employ people and maybe even UK citizens? With a quality test you'll still get immigrants who will employ people. Nobody is suggesting no immigration at all. As for only believing in policies that affect you, what a selfish approach. Why was Bob Crow against the EU, Tony Benn against, it didn't affect them, but they were concerned about the working man. You're opinion on this is bizarre. Not your best argument. In one breath you're decrying an open border policy and in the next suggesting that if we do it for Europeans, then we should do it for everyone. There clearly has to be a benefit to the UK in having an open border policy (details of which I have explained earlier) which clearly wouldn't apply to the whole world. We have different immigration rules for a number of different nationalities based on the benefits to be gained by the UK in doing so. The biggest load of nonsense yet. I'm not suggesting open borders for everyone, I'm suggesting quantity and quality test for all nations. "We have different immigration rules for a number of different nationalities based on the benefits to be gained by the UK in doing so.". This is clearly nonsense. It is not based on "benefits", how do you define "benefits" of Romanians over Americans or Australians. The simple truth is the EU was founded on the principle of "ever closer union". One major plank in this is the free movement of people. The UK has free movement of people, from Wales to England, Scotland to Ireland ect ect. That's how the EU nutters see it ,a EUSSR by stealth.

Not if you only want the brightest and the best its not. Or if you want the fairest system.

They ban ex BNP members from the party, the liblabcon don't. To me there's 3 coherent lines to take on immigration. 1. Ban everybody no matter which country them come from. 2. Let everybody in, no matter which country they come from 3. Have a system that bases numbers on quality and the needs of the UK economy. Importantly, it shouldn't matter which country you come from, just which skills you have and your willingness to contribute to our society. An incoherent policy is ; Pick 26 countries and use policy 2 from above. Whilst using policy 3 for the rest of the world. Would the anti ukip posters be happy if they picked 26 countries and changed their policy for those countries? Would this make them less anti immigrant. What if they allowed unrestricted immigration from Australia, new Zealand, Canada, USA,Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland, whilst imposing restrictions on Indians, Chinese, Jamaicans and Africans. Would people say, " wow, what an inclusive fair and nice party they are". .

But what if allowing more poles and Romanians in means that less people from Africa or India are able to live and work here. Why should somebody from Germany be treated differently than somebody from India?

That Katrina is a right selfish *****, why run it as a business? She should use all her money to get us in the champions league.

'96 Euros matt was at his absolute best and Venables left him out. Never really understood the resentment against Hoddle in '98 . He made his decision and that's what he's paid for.

Do you think there should be any limit on immigration or can anybody turn up and work in the UK?

We need to get our players in before selling anyone. If we get big money for Adam and Shaw, the price will go up on any players we look to bring in. Although spurs bought badly last summer their timing was spot on. They got the players in and then sold Bale.

Nonsense. Their away support is always really good.

Reports that Carroll has been told he's on stand by so looks like Rickie is a defo. What a fantastic story, legend.

I've recently employed polish and Romanian workers. They were the best candidates in a selection process that included Brits. Therefore is it right to assume that those British people who didn't get the job were adversely affected. During the boom we were struggling to recruit for our minimum wage jobs, we didn't need to put the wages up to attract people because we suddenly got a steady supply of very willing and hard working people to take those jobs. Is it beyond your comprehension to see that the effect of this kept wages down As a white middle class 50 year old , immigration hasn't really affected me much, but then I guess the " cost of living crises" hasn't really hit the milliband household, doesn't stop him having an opinion though doers it? Are you seriously saying that you can only comment on issues that affect yourself, that's quite a selfish point of view. For low paid unskilled poor people, immigration from eastern Europe has been a nightmare, not to mention builders etc who have had their wages undercut. Then there's the democratic deficit. As a democratic I believe that the British people should govern themselves, should decide who comes into our country and in what numbers. If they decide that its in our best interests to have open borders, then so be it. The party that proposes that will put it to the people, when the people decide enough is enough, they'll kick the government out. That's a thing called democracy.