Lord Duckhunter

Strange, because mine were in a half openned envolope as well. Must be using cheap envolopes.

Advisor is the job title, brown envolopes at the ready f'sure.............

Careful, we're inching towards Westwood territory.

Before we start learning some new and wonderful songs, can we start with OWTS. It used to boom round The Dell and it was guanteed to get everyone singing. Lets get that back to its rightful place and reclaim it as a Saints sone. Not Spurs, Stoke or anyother ****ing imposters.

I've tried pointing this out to some Skates at work, but they've started to include pre football league and other assorted fixtures, which gives them the edge. I've also seen them mention this on another forum. I'm sure this approach will grow amongst the bell ringers, because they do seem to latch onto things enmasse.

Are they really that stupid? ****ing hell, I was 41 before I saw them finish above us in the League. I suspect I'll be in my 80's before I see it again. By the time I pop my cloggs (which hopefully will be a number of years yet), the only time I will have seen them above us was a period in which their sucsess was built on sand and may yet cost them their club.............

Things like this are not black and white. Left to them managers want dozens of players for every situation, so it's no surprise that NA may have wanted to keep Billy even though he's way down the pecking order. It's no surprise that a Chairman looking to live within our means, wants a fringe player moved on, and acceptted an offer. What is being implied here is that NA really wanted to keep Sharp, but that NC decided he couldn't and somehow moved him on against NA wishes. Had NA desperately wanted to keep Billy and considered him a major part of his plans then NC loaning him out becomes a resignation issue. Had NA insisted Sharp stayed then no doubt NC would have asked dhim to move someone else on to trim the squad. NA's stock has never been higher, there are plenty of Championship Chairman who would jump at the chance to employ him. If things were so bad that NC was dictating which formations and which players he has to play, then NA's name would be linked with jobs. His agent would be basically tipping the wink, that he's up for a move and some papers would be reporting "club x are thinking of replacing Manager Y with NA who is unsettled at SFC". There's nothing, not a thing in the papers or any other media. Do people really think that NA is such a patsy, that he sits there and lets NC dump a load of shiete on him?

He also took Coventry from the 3rd Division to the first when he was their manager.

Had we not signed Sharp in Jan window most people would be doing their nut if , as a newly promoted Premiership club,we were bringing him in now. there would be posts about a lack of ambition, posts about how he's not the level we require and contrasts made with West Ham and Reading's signing of Premiership quality strikers. He seems like a nice guy and it's really sad his personal stuff, but he's a good Championship player and we're now a Premiership club. I remember Lawrie saying that you need a team to get you up and then another one once you're there. Just like Chappers and Deano, he was part of that side (a small one compared to them), but my opinion is he's not good enough for where we are now.

The whole thing is as clear as mud. I cant make Tues night games as I work. I was thinking of getting a ticket to build my points up as I am staying with my Mum's family for the QPR game, as they're S/T holders there. Now I dont know whether they are using the system or not .

I despair at the full backs in the modern game and Fox is a prime example. Brian Clough used to say get close and stop the cross, that was the full backs first duty. Nowadays them seem so scared of being skinned and look like a dummy, that they give the widemen way too much room and allow croses. Fox isn't the only one, but he's one of the worst I've seen. It's ok to defend like that against ok opposition, but against the best sides, we'll get punished. I cant help thinking that they are coached this way. Maybe because a alot of sides dont throw crosses in (Arsenal being a prime example) managers are telling them to make sure they dont get beat inside or out. The first goal Sun was a prime example, he should have got closer and let the cross hit his face, nuts or anything to stop it getting into RVP. Glen Johnson was taken apart by the pundits on MoTD. Playing like a winger and not carrying out his main role of defending. I dont want to sound like an old fart, but i want my full backs to defend and stop crosses.Anything else is a bonus.

Spot on. The Torys didn't help with their choice of Michael Howard. They should have held their noses and voted for that idiot Ken Clarke, then kicked him out when they won.

My point is relevant to this thread. Blair was popular with the people, without him the last Labour leader to have won an election would have been Harold Wilson. Why on earth his named got booed at the Labour conference I dont know. Personally I think the British people should have chucked him out in humilating style because of Iraq, but they didn't. Instead of that, he managed to throw a hospital pass to Gordon (which is what Gordon deserved for all his back stabbing).............

This is the same as those greatest albums or greatest artists things then run all the time. Great people get lost in the mists of time and old farts who would vote for them are either dead, puddled,cant be bothered or are unable to understand how to vote.

Expanding the topic slightly, what has happened to Mikey Wilde, and we dont hear much about old Rupes now-a-days?

What makes me laugh is that the lefties 2 great hate figures in Maggie and Blair, won 6 elections between them. No doubt we'll now get a rant about the FPTP system, explaining why they won so many mandates from ordinary people up and down the country.

Why, I wonder do Labour party supporters or ex Labour supporters and various lefties make Blair the bogeyman. Gordon Brown was as powerful a figure in the Labour Government as any chancellor has ever been. there is no way Blair could hve pressed ahead without Brown's backing. It's alright red Ed trying to claim that if he was in parliament he'd have voted against the war, but the simple truth is that the Ball's, Brown's and other labour leading lights were just as much to balme as Blair. It suits the Labour party to pin it on Blair, but it was a Brown/Blair Government. Perhaps Gordon should be put up for war crimes as well.

Fonte and Jos both have their faults and they both have their strengths. Jos is a better "backs to the wall" type of defender and that's what we've needed in both Manchester games. The peno's he gave away were both naive in the extreme and he must learn from this. I dont think yesterdays would have been given in the Championship, but by the letter of the law, felt it was a pen. Fonte is better on the ball and when we play weaker sides and have a bit more possession he'll come into his own. Fonte started a bit dodgy last season, but got better and better, if he can do the same this year, he'll be ok. Competition for places will hopefully spur them both on.

I wish people would just move on. The British people had a vote AFTER the Iraq war and returned Blair with a pretty healthy majority. To me this indicated that they weren't that bothered about the Iraq war and certainly didn't consider Blair a war criminal.

When Lambert pulled to the left during one move the bloke behind me shouted "what are you doing out there, get in the middle lambert". Within a few seconds he crossed the ball for MS to head home.

Surely the way to judge how much the richest pay in tax is the % of the total tax take that they contribute. In 1988 it was 28 cents of every dollar collected, and it's now 45 cents .

This is just completely untrue. In 1988 the richest 10% of Americans accounted for 28% of the total tax paid. It now stands at 45%.Therefore your claim that "working class" and "upper middle class" are paying a greater share is completely contray to what OECD reports claim. I would be interested in the data you have to back your claim up ,so we can judge who is right, The OECD or a bloke on a football forum...........

Deadline day......... Poor old Harry, I bet his like some herion addict going through cold turkey today. He's proberly sat on his drive in his car, talking to himself out of the window. Sandra's sat in the passenger seat playing the Bondy role.

But do you accept that there will be people in big houses, with no or little income coming in. Maybe a retired couple who bought the house 40 years ago. Also you have such variation of house prices over the country. You could set the bar at over £2mil, and that would catch middle class people in London, whereas just under £2mil house in parts of the North will be really rich.I'm no expert but I'm sure the rich could find a way of setting up a company to buy the house and then rent if off that company. If you tax shares too heavily, what incentive is there for people to invest in Companies via shares? Do you really think no Government has ever looked at your suggestions?

careful, you're starting to make sense.I posted months ago that a % is a %, and why should the rich pay a higher % of their money. By being a % they are in effect paying more. It would also as you say have other benefits. Jim davidson had an arguement with Portillo over this on "This week". You are taking Jim's side, repeating exactly what he said. Nick,Nick