Lord Duckhunter

He was 100% clear that as AA was admin for CSI, it would be him.

Friend of mine’s Dad played with Smith at Aldershot, he told me that Smith and Redknapp fell out over money, he said Redknapp gave him a loan. I bet this is it.

Expert just been on Talksport 1. Either they pay in full, go bust or go into admin. 2. AA will be administrator if they go into admin. 3. When asked if HMRC are being “vindictive”, answered why should taxpayer subside a football club 4.Much harder to find buyer now.

It used to be quite common, before managers pay caught up a bit with the players. Hollowhead has a similar deal at Blackpool. The arguement is that if you find a player for £1mil turn him into a £15mil player, then you deserve some sort of bonus. As you say, it could lead to bad behaviour.Therefore, I think it will start to dissapear from the game.

But he could of put Salmond under pressure and how he reacted to the important questions could help people form their opinions. The questions he asked were pretty pathetic really. Much better was Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics today. Asked a SNP spokesman about this "advisory" vote they want to have, (as even the SNP accept that independence is not a deloved issue). Neil got the SNP man to admitt that they would have the vote before all the legal and other questions had been answered and that they would then negotiate with the UK to leave, without having another (this time) binding vote after all the issues were sorted. In effect, they would be voting for indepence before they knew whether they had to rejoin the EU, before knowing what their currency was going to be and before knowing what portion on the UK's debt's and assetts they would have to take on. Neil said surely a second vote should be held once the talks had finalised a deal, but the guy said no. A very important point,that will effect the way people vote. It was eased out of the SNP by tough questioning. That is what Paxo should be doing.

I watched it last night and thought that Salmond came over pretty well. There are plenty of hard hitting questions Paxo could have asked, comparing him to Mugabe was just childish and pointless. Much better were the questions raised in the piece shown before the interview. Said that in 07 the Euro commission had ruled that new Countries had to reapply for membership of the EU. New members HAVE to join the Euro. The other point was that if they did manage to stay in the EU and use Sterling, the BOE would be setting interest rates with England, Wales and NI's needs in mind and they may not be in Scotland's interests (at presents rates are set taking the whole of the UK's needs into account). Also who would be the lender of last resort for the Scottish Banks, which the BOE is at present. Scoring cheap points about how gold is going to be transported lets Salmond off the hook over the major questions that need answering.

I remember Mick Quinn scoring for Cov after getting loads of abuse. Sometimes we'd be better off just ignoring ex Skates, you always look a bit stupid when they play as well as Nugent and James have done this season.

The difference with this and prohibition is that alcohol was legal before prohibition and was also legal in most other countries of the world.It was therefore thought of as an unjust law by the vast majority of ordinary Americans. Whereas, I suspect most British people would agree with the banning of drugs, and most of the World follow that as well. There is no doubt in my mind that "soft" drugs are no worse than smoking or drinking and that had someone come along and "invented" Ciggies now, they would be banned.That however does not make it right to legalise drug use. The whole "war on drugs" is a load of balls cooked up by politicans to appease the public. There has been no "war". Police turn a blind eye to drug use, dealers receive poxy little sentances and we just go on pretending we're in this "war". We have the situation where we lock people up in a controlled enviorment and they still end up on drugs. If we cant control the use of drugs in prison, how can we say we are taking this seriously. I'm all for looking at other options, but first we need a proper war on drugs. Once we've adopted a zero tolerence to dealers, once we've had proper support networks for addicts, once we've hammered people off their face on a sat night and taken to court all the middle class kids with a bit of blow, then we can look at the results and maybe then say the "war on drugs" has not worked. But at the moment it's a phoney war cooked up by election seeking politicans and the myth is endorsed by hard pressed police chiefs , prison officers, probation service and the justice system, who haven't got the will or the resource to do anything about it.

Saw this post on another forum. Dont know how true it is, but it seems pretty genuine to me. "For my sins, Insolvency is my line of work. Lots of points have been raised on here which, when looked at logically would seem to hold water but are in fact incorrect. When an entity enters into a formal arrangement, in this case a CVA, the purpose is to deliver a clean slate. This is delivered by structuring an agreed schedule of repayments for the benefit of all creditors. In any business other than football, the principle of Pari Passu is used meaning that each creditor gets paid precisely the same percentage of what they are owed. Of course in football, all football related debts are satisfied in full first (wrong but irrelevant here). So, the debts that the CVA cover effectively disappear. This means that PFC had no debts whatsoever as soon as the CVA was agreed. However, they also had no assets either as these would all have formed a part of the CVA as security against it failing so those who have said that assets would be sold prior to liquidation are in theory correct - the trouble is, there are none any more as they are already "owned" by existing creditors. As the club started with a clean slate but no assets and very little working capital, it was clearly living hand to mouth; in much the same way as most households live from pay-day to pay-day. So, now that NICS have gone down the pan, there simply isn't another pay-day on the horizon. If you consider that higher rate income tax runs at 50%, then an unpaid tax bill of £800k relates to a wage bill of only £1.6m. That really isn't an excessive salary bill for a Championship team - until you run out of cash of course! That said, the situation is tremendously serious for two reasons. The first is that the CVA will have to be paid monthly. If there isn't enough cash to pay the £800k tax, there's no way there will be enough to pay an extra £1.2m for that unless someone with heavyweight cash gets involved. If the CVA fails, a term of it will be the winding up of the business. The second is that there is an extremely aggressive creditor involved in the form of HMRC. In my entire career, they are still the only creditor that I have seen take action on principle. In other words, deliberately take steps to close a firm even if it means they lose out on cash. They already have the bit between their teeth, hate the football rules and are looking to set an example."

How would people feel if when their MP died, he was replaced by his/her first born? In what other walk of life would we accept this? Just because Queenie's relatives were the Gaddafi's of their time, we're expected to just smile, wave, bow and let their future blood line "rule over us"for ever and a day.What a strange type of democracy that is.

That's what I thought, it says "there will be no ticket sales available online and by telephone (via Ticketmaster)". I bet Ticketmaster areb still selling all their other tickets.

Could do with Cardiff winning Semi Final, take their mind off the league for a bit.

Dont know if this has been posted yet, but ticket sales are cash only from Tues. It's an "essential system upgrade". http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/home/Essential-Ticket-Sales-Work-3042.aspx

Sky sports news reporting a new signing.

There are republican's in Parliament, so there are republican MP's from the main parties (granted I doubt whether there's many Torys that fall into that category). Comparing what republican's want to the USA president( as some have done in this thread) is misleading and wrong. The US is a Federal Govt, and the president plays a political role in that. Nobody I've seen is advocating that to replace the Royals.It is more in line with the Irish, where The president is a mainly ceremonial office.The Taoiseach is the Prime Minister who runs the country. The Royal supporters keep telling us the The Queen would never use her powers, is a ceremonial role, and is not political.They then use the counter arguement that we dont want a politican as head of state, and that it will be a minefield replacing her constitutionally.It can't be both, if she is just a figure head who would never weald any real power, then she should be easy to get rid of. I believe that every British person is born equal, you clearly dont.

So you're happy for our head of state to be just one big tourist attraction. An upmarket Mickey Mouse, rather than the head of a modern 21st century Country. A Country I may add ,that goes around bombing, lecturing and generaly feeling smug in the name of "democracy". Whilst we bow and suck up to the Royals, we go around telling Iraqi's, Afghan's and Libyan's who should or should not be their head of state. I find the whole thing a bit strange. It what other walk of life would people accept Heredity sucession. What would we say if Nigel Adkin's first born automatically became Saints Manager, upon Nige's retirement?

If it was just about money, why dont we let Bill Gates pay £1billion a year into the coffers and let him be King. After all it'll be much cheaper than what we have at present. As for President Kinnock ect, you appear to be saying that the British people are so stupid that we can not allow them to have a vote. We bombed the hell out of Libya, killed millions of Iraqi's to despose of leaders who came to power in exactly the same way as our Royals did. Perhaps we should have advised the Libyan's to stick with Gaddafi as it will cost less than having elections and a democracy. They may also vote for a leader that you dont want, we cant have that now can we?

Just spoke to my Hudders supporting mate, he reckons if Rhodes signs for us, he's going to run naked from Hudders to St Mary's.He said it is not going to happen. Pretty sure he'll stay till end of season, but if not, there are clubs higher in the food chain he'll sign for. As a footnote the thought of a 60 year old bloke running naked has put me off this signing once and for all.

Clotterill quoted in the paper today talking about Forest "Can I sort it out? I had a similar thing at Portsmouth last season, didn't have enough players, but signed 3 or 4 and had a break in the sunshine, and kept us up". The interesting thing is, he then went on to say "I dont have the scope to do that at this club". Forest can't afford 3 or 4 players or a break in the sunshine, so dont sign them or go. Those cheating ****s down the road, dont care, they just do it anyway and stayed up.

You either believe that everyone is born equal or you dont. It is a principle that should not depend on the cost, what power they use or whether they are "good" or "bad". We invade Countries and bomb Gaddafi to impose democracy on his Country, yet fawn over a family like we're some sort of 3rd world nation. A family whose forefathers were every bit as evil as Gaddafi or Hitler,but we excuse it because it happened hundreds of years ago . Surely in the 21st Century it's time to choose our own head of state, and that they can be any sex, religion, or colour.

I love this football clip, half time at Orient. Classic line "I'll take you on, you two can pair up, bring someone else if you want, bring your dinner". Dont quite know what "bring your dinner" means, but it made me laugh when I saw it on TV 20 odd years ago and thanks to utube it still makes me laugh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obixCOVTVwY

Makes me laugh that people are getting their knickers in a twist over a tax payer funded Royal Yacht, as if that's the only expense to us. It's like, "you can live rent free in our great houses, we'll fawn over you, pay all your useless kids and family to do **** all, you can even dissolve our Parliament, but there's no way we're paying for your Yacht". A Royal Yacht is a drop in the ocean compared to what the Royals have cost us over the years. If any other German family came here, lived off the welfare state & rent free, with rights far above anything that the normal public have, people like Dune's blood pressure would explode.

True story, The same thing happened to me. Playing for an under 18 side the Manager took us to games in a mini bus. After a poor performance one evening (it was an end of season game) he wouldn't let 4 of us get back on. Told us to run home as we had plenty of energy left. It's slightly different in that we were 17/18, were only about 3 miles from home and it was about April time, but I still remember it clearly. One of the guys Dad's went round and had it out with the Manager, but my Dad just said "you're an adult now", before saying that perhaps I should have worked harder on the pitch.

3 boys and 1 girl, plus 1 step son as well. Would love more, but Mrs Duck has put her foot down. Girl is harder work than all the boys added together, but with 4 older brothers I'm sure we'll manage to keep the toe rags away, when she gets older.

I love The Who, but I am a bit uncomfortable regarding Townsends admission that he paid for child porn sites "purely to see what was there". He was cautioned by police in 2003 and placed on the sex offenders register for five years and admitted using his credit card to view images on a child porn website.