Lord Duckhunter

This happened to me for the last linked game. I already had a ticket for the "smaller" of the 2 games. What they did was allowed me to link it ( It was either Man U or Pompey I cant remember which) to another game. They would not accept the reference number of the linked game I had tickets for already.

I cant work out whether this is the best system or not. When I used to have a ST I'm sure we just got priority over away and cup games (gave it up in 2004). As I get to 75% of home matches, know a lot of S/T holders, so most supporters who attend regulary will be in the same boat and should be able to get one. So that's a good thing. The bad side of it is that it doesn't take into account the loyalty of the extra ticket body. Just texted 2 mates for 2 tickets, one said fine, other one said he is taking his brother. Haven't seen his brother at a game for a couple of years, and I doubt if he would be going if we had Watford on that day. Will be able to get extra ticket, no problem, but bit annoyed about having to scramble about texting people or taking my chances a week later on database sales. May get my nipper a S/T and an adult one next to it, and use it for family/ friends ect , next season. Maybe worthwhile if they're going to continue to sell like this for big games. Dont really want to get into all this "I'm a better supporter than you debate", but do need some sort of loyalty/membership scheme if we go up.

If an MP has his children on the NHS, does it come out of the NHS budget. Had they gone private would it have cost the NHS anything?

Do you rely believe that Cameron has to wait in the doctors waiting room with the Hoi polloi, really believe that Mrs Brown was laying in bed next to the great unwashed prior to being wheeled down to the delivery suite. My Daughter had a hospital appointment to cast her broken wrist (she had a lightweight one put on until the swelling went down), despite having an appointment she waited nearly 3 hours. Would Mrs Milliband have to wait with Ed's nearest and dearest. No wonder the politicans think the NHS is the envy of the world. The NHS they use is vastly different to everyone else's. I'd be all for them using it and pressing for improvements if it took them 3 days to get a basic Doctors appointment, and then they had to see the Triage Nurse first to determine if you are ill enough to get to see the Doc. I can see it now "Well Mrs Cameron Dr So and So can see you in 3 days time at 4.15pm," (5pm by the time she's waited)

Where have I said I am pretty keen on it. All I have pointed out is that the BMA and medical bodies tend to oppose every single thing, including the setting up of the NHS in the first place. There is a complete and utter irrationality when people debate the NHS, it is the sacred cow of British politics. The truth of the matter is, it's not free. It's not even free at the point of delivery, how do I clear up my tonsillitis after seeing my "free" Doctor, I have to pay towards my cure then and there. The debate seems to be that you're either for the UK's version of the NHS or you're for the USA version. We also have the spectacle of rich politicians trying to outNHS each other." Me and my Family use the NHS", I feel like shouting at the TV, you can afford to go Private, you want to go private, but you take finance and capacity from someone who cant afford it, to prove how dedicated you are to the NHS. I dont know what the answer is, I suggest an Insurance based sceme, maybe or a top up type thing, like we top up our state pension. But no matter what people say the NHS is not the envy of the world. I spend a lot of time in France and the French people dont moan that they wish their health service was like the NHS, nor I suspect do Germans or other similar Western Countries.

The BMA aren't anti Tory, they are just anti anything. They spent years attacking the Labour Government, saying their proposals were "unworkable". Listening to these medical professionals is like groundhog day.

The point I was making was that just because the BMA are against the reforms does not make them a bad thing. Had we listened to them, there would be no NHS. They argued and stood in the way of the setting up of the NHS for nearly 2 years. It wasn't until Nye Bevan "stuffed their mouths with gold" that they came onboard.

And if they manage to keep borrowing money at historicly low rates, they'd have done what they said they would. America lost it's AAA rating and it was much ado about nothing. The rates we can borrow money at does not depend on our rating, that is just an opinion. With the problems in Europe I suspect that we will be a safe haven for a long time, provided we stick to a clear credible plan.

In 1946 the BMA were oppossed to the setting up of the NHS, so Doctors aren't always the best people to decide how a country should run its health service.

As I posted earlier the USA's credit was downgraded but their cost of borrowing remained the same. It is the cost that we borrow our money at that will determine the Govt's credibility, not the ratings agencies opinion of what the cost maybe.

It's not so much the downgrade (if it happens) but the cost of borrowing money. America was downgraded from AAA to AA in 2011 and they are still able to borrow money very cheaply. Moody’s endorsed the government’s austerity programme and warned that failure to stick to the deficit reduction plan would make matters worse. It is the uncertainty in Europe that has prompted this warning, nothing to do with Govt policy, so there is no threat to their credibility. Politicans spin the ratings agencies views too much, they are opinions about what may happen and I dont recall any predicting the melt down.

Just listening to Press Pass on Talksport. David Conn was on, said that no serious person would invest in them, and that's why they ended up with all these undesirables. Des Kelly said he feels teams that go into admin, should be disqualified from the League and automatically relegated. Conn said that the taxman used to go easy on football clubs, but that Bates had enraged them when Leeds went into admin, and that they now act stright away.Said they are sick of people getting rich on the back of football, whilst the clubs wont pay their tax bills.

What did you expect them to do, start saying "cheating Skate ****s, fish fiddling ****ers deserve to die". That would have ended up on the cutting room floor.

You have a choice, pay £70 for the channels you do watch, or think that's too much and dont pay it. You dont have a choice with the BBC, you have to pay it just for switching on the TV. Whether it's good vaule or not is beside the point,that's just an arguement over the level that the licence fee should be set at. In principle people should not have to pay for the BBC if they dont want to watch/listen to it.

It's a disgrace that the TV Poll tax is not based on watching the BBC. I could buy a TV not watch one BBC programme or listen to one BBC radio station, and yet still have to fund the BBC.How on earth that is justified in 2012 is beyond me. If you dont want to watch it, you shouldn't have to pay for others that do. I dont expect non Sky viewers to pay towards Sky . If it's as good as people make out, then I'm sure they'll have no issues with paying for it. It's the compulsary side of it, I object to.

Taking off my red and white glasses, this is the best solution all round. It might not mean the end of Chinny, that depends on whether his £17mil is secured. But it will mean a proper orderly admin, where his debt will be dealt with in the correct manner. With advanced parachute payments, they should be able to struggle on and complete the season, something that is important to the league and most non Saints football supporters. It is best not to have clubs fold in the middle of the season. I just feel that the whole future of their club will boil down to the leagl position of Chinny's debt. If they can walk away from that, or pay 10p in the £, then they may have half a chance of getting out of this. With it still hanging over them, there is no way anybody is going to invest unless they are complete and utter loons, or a potless chancer/mafia. Bearing in mind they now have a proper admin, there's no way anything shady will be allowed to happen. We are reaching the end game, whther it is the end of the club or the end of their problems only time will tell. But had AA been allowed to become admin, we'd be in the same boat this time next year as AA keeps the club on life support until Chinny gets all his money back.

What I'm hoping/think should happen is that even if they have a CVA extra points are added for the 2nd admin in short period. Boscombe got 2 added to the no cva 10. Maybe had they got a CVA, they would still have got the extra 2. Taking my red and white glasses off, if Boscombe got extra 2 for 2nd admin in 3 years, then perhaps an extra 5 is reasonable for twice in a short space of time. The thing is, the intial deduction has always been -10 with extra in return for the golden share.

I maybe wrong but I'm sure Boscombe got a 10 point deduction for entering admin for the second time, then instead of -15 for not having a CVA (as Leeds did), got -17 an extra 2 because they were in admin before. I think the intial deduction is always -10 regardless, but then they load extra on in return for the Golden Share. They can pretty much impose what they like for getting that back. If you remember they would only give us ours if we agreed not to appeal against the -10. Therefore I would expect the Skates to get -10, then have terms imposed/extra points deduction when they exit admin........

Why do these statistics include friendlies, we wouldn't include friendlies in SAF's managerial statistics, I cant even remember how we've got on in friendlies under Adkins. Therefore the stats are misleading. capello was a diaster in the WC, as was Hoddle. Hoddle had one great performance, away to Italy and that's it. Most consistant England Manager was proberly Sven, with 3 easy qualifications and 3 quater finals.Even Ramsey and Robson failed to qualify for major tournements. The facts are, we're pretty hopeless. 1 world cup won at home, 1 euro semi final again at home, and a semi final, where we beat a naive Cameron after stinking the place out in previous games. How many times have we beaten Germany, Brazil, or the Argies in competetive games in the past 45 years?

Betting on the "next Manager" market is the biggest rip off sports betting. If I and one or two others put a big bet on Adkins, his odds would come down. This would then be all over Sky sports news, meaning more mugs will place money on him, bringing the odds down, meaning ect ect ect. Sky seem to want to fuel the fire on this sort of market and how many times are bets closed on particular candidates before somebody else gets the job? How can you bet on something that is not chance. It is a procees that involves too many people to risk your money on. For all we know the FA could have a candidate lined up already, just waiting to cross the i's and dot the t's, yet people are still betting on it. It's like having a bet on a football match that was played last week, but you dont know the result, but plenty do.

I'm not convinced that he'll be a failure at international level. He is a bit like Lawrie in that he gets good players and gives them the platform to perform. You can't tell me Lawrie "coached" Bally or KK, he just set the team up in a basic way and allowed them their heads. I just get the feeling Redknapp is the same.The England players seem a bit afraid of the shirt and over coached a bit, particulary during the world cup.If he can get people like SG and Rooney to relax and enjoy the game, you never know what might happen. One of the reasons players seem to like playing for him is the freedom he gives them, basically because he's old fashioned and his tactics appear to be, here's the shirt go out and play.I know Keegan was similar, but the job got too big for him. He started trying to be a bit tactical, playing Southgate in midfield ect. I just feel that long term he'll get found out, but short term he could give the players a lift and we have quite a decent Euro's. Once thyat happens he'll be in the Venables, Bobby Robson "do no wrong" bracket.

Taking my red and white glasses off, you have to say he's had a pretty decent career away from saints. Lead Boscombe to Championship level for the first time and kept them there for a season. Had West Ham playing some pretty decent stuff and I wont go into what he did up the road.Took over Spurs at the right time, good players under performing, it could only get better. Has taken them further than most British managers could. It's all about horses for courses, I have a Sunderland supporting mate who still hates Lawrie with a passion. My gripe with Redknapp is that he didn't resign when we were relegated and that he was in charge for the most spineless performence I've seen in 40 years of supporting the club. I wouldn't particulary say he was a "myth". venables is a myth, we should have won Euro '96, at home with no great sides against us. We flucked it past Spain, and the "myth" of the Holland game is a joke, both sides qualified regardless of that result. Sven's 5-1 in Germany trumps that by miles.Another myth is Bobby Robson's England. Did not qualify for Euro '84 ,Stank out Euro '88, a lucky semi final run in '90 and of course Maradona "cost" us the World Cup in '86.

I dont think it's a question of "being found out" but a combination of a few factors. One is luck, we played Brum at the right time, seemed to get a few Pens and against Millwall & Forest could easily of drawn. Another factor is sides played well, Leicester have good players and will turn out good performances every so often, we were on the receiving end of one of them. Bristol defended really well, that was another. The main reason is key players missing. I'm convinced we would have beaten Blackpool with Kelvin in goal, we've also missed Chappers, who was a key man in our system. Fonte and Jos haven't played together lately, Lallana's missed a couple of home games and Rickey onviously missed the Leicester game. Unless you get really lucky the sides that cope with injuries the best will go up. Our squad looks better set up to cope now, than it did a month ago.

Our best 11 is certainly good enough to finish in the top 2, certainly with the arrival of BS. However, when was the last time our best 11 were available. We've gone into games with Lambert, Lallana, Fonte,and Chaplow (who was doing great this season) all missing, add to that the Blackpool game where Kelv was out. When was the last time we played our best centre half pairing together. People need to get a grip. If we can keep most of our best players fit, we'll be there or thereabouts, if we can't, we may end up in the play offs. Either way, Adkins has done a decent job this season.