Lord Duckhunter

I'm sure Cup and play off tickets will be ST holders first, followed by members, and then the data base. In my opinion that makes it worthwhile despite it costing me £42.00 (if my memory serves) for the family last time they ran it.

I think memberships are a great idea and after the Pompey ticket farce, where you only have had to have been to 1 previous game, will make ticket distribution fairer. I would like to see it set at a high level, with some sort of money off for games. Maybe £30 and no £3 transaction charge for tickets . That means go to 10 games and you get your money back.

Put it like this; Had the present lot taken over in 1997 and not Lowe and his gang, we wouldn't be in League 1 now.We'd be up with the Villa's, Everton's and Fulham's chasing a Europa League spot.

In a similar vein to the Cash stuff is this video from Willie Nelson Willie is underappreciated in this Country and unfortunatly will proberly have to pass before getting the recongition his talent fully deserves. He's playing Glastonbury this year, so he may pick up a few of the younger generation.

There are some real gems in his American recordings, (although towards the end they got a bit patchy). Depeche Mode's Personal Jesus is one and Nick Cave's Mercy Seat is fantastic. The fact Cash was coming to the end of his life, is reflected inh his voice and I think that's why his version of Hurt is so memorable. Whoever wrote the songs doesn't really matter, he had an original take on them.That's what a great cover version should be about. I'd heard his shows could be poor due to ill health and other issues, but he was on fine form when I saw him.

I saw the great man at The Albert Hall around the time of his first American Recordings Album, one of the best performances I've ever seen.

We're looking at it from a "Southampton till I die" point of view, a business man will look at it differently, that's the price we have to pay for ML's money. The key here is the silance around the decision, it's like they think we're too simple to understand the reasoning. If they laid out the reasoning behind it, and did it early, 75% of the complaints would go away. They've made the story bigger than it needed to be, and caused more bad feeling than they needed to.I haven't got a S/T so it doesn't affect me, and yet I'm still a bit puzzled by the handling of it.

The timing of this is pretty poor customer service really, it should have been announced around April time to allow for people to try and adjust their spending. I was playing 5 a side last night with a senior Manager of a large retail Company and we were talking about this. He said they used to throw "store cards" at everyone who came through the door, but the last couple of years the finance Companies are charging the store more and more to administer it. He said the cost was starting to eat into the margin of already heavily reduced items. Therefore the cards are not actively sold to customers, not advertised and only used for high ticket items, when the customer is clearly going to spend at a rival. I suggest the same thing has proberly occured here. If the cost to the Club outweighs any advantages of getting money up front and they'll get more from people buying their tickets one at a time, then clearly they'll do that. I know people wikll say pass the cost onto the customer, but if the cost is more than the saving, then people will not take out the installment plan anyway. I can't see any other reason for the Club doing this, if the installment plan meant more money up front, guarenteed attandance every week then they would do it. They are not fools, and although the thing has been handled badly PR wise, there will be a sound business reason for it. I do feel sorry for the guys who have to find this large amount of money in these difficult times, money that they haven't budgetted for, but sometimes things do kick you in the balls.

Two years ago John Prescott said "I don't want to be a member of the House of Lords. I will not accept it." Whatever political opinion anyone has, surely we can all agree that saying one thing then doing another is hypocrisy.

I've just had a thought. Wasn't it supposed to be Laws appearing on QT, perhaps he had a whiff of this story,and the Campbell thing was a smokescreen. I know that the press will have asked him for an explanation before going to print, it's just whether he would have known on Thurs evening.

I bet Nick Clegg's regretting his holier than thou attitude during the general election campaign. The LIb/Dems despite trying to make out their somehow different, are as sleazy and greedy as every other party.

It does work perfectly well in other Countries. Perhaps we could have a lottery for the role.Or ask the tourist industry who'll generate the most money,only thing is it can't be a Catholic. I presume you agree with people sitting in the House of Lords on the basis of their forefathers as well.

Labour hypocrisy in all it's glory. Brother Prescott, the great class warrior nobled by the man who pledged a 100% elected House of Lords. He joins Lord Kinnock, another Brother who fought the great Socialist fight.

Have been watching the BBC show and although I was dissapointed with it, it got me thinking. What is people ideal band? For what it's worth, here is mine from people at the peak of their careers. Singer-Rod Stewart Bass-Rick Danko Guitars-Eric Clapton & Steve Cropper Drums-Levon Helm Keyboards-Leon Russell Backing Vocals-Mavis Staples & Claudia Lennear. From that you can tell I'm a bit of a dinosaur and I can't believe I've nobody from The Beatles, The Who or Stones. In fact I've ended up argueing with myself trying to fit everyone in. Justs shows how difficult it is. I would be interested in others opinions and perhaps some of the reasoning behind it.

With The Faces back in the news this week, thought this would be a good time to post them in all their glory. Just shows what a great singer Rod was, until he went all soft (I blame Britt Ekland)

The head of state matters.

Does Nick Griffin's refusal to allow blacks into the BNP impact my life? No, is it wrong? of course. Does having international rules on Human rights impact on my life? no, shall we abolish them then? MP's expenses, that didn't have much impact on my life, but I still think they were wrong. I employ people and if I sacked them for being a Catholic, or didn't promote them because they were a female, the law would come down on me like a ton of bricks and yet I'm expected to bow and scrape to a posh old biddy whose german forefathers killed, maimed and cheated their way to the British throne?

People seem happy that we are ruled and reigned over, by someone on the basis of their attraction to, and help for, the tourist industry. I prefer to stick to the basic prinicple that everyone is born equal, that you shouldn't discriminate against someone on the basis of sex (male heir's first) relegion (no catholics allowed), or the fact that your German ancestors managed to kill, rob and maim their way to the crown. It seems really strange to me that everyone is banging on about an elected house of Lords and getting rid of the Hereditary peers, but there's no difference whatsoever in the Queen's status.

Nobody is disputing Campbells right to be on QT, even Sayeeda Warsi the Tory Chairman said as much on 5live this morning. The issue is that there was no member of the opposition on in the week of the Queen's speech. campbell should have been one of the 2 "other" guests, along with a member of either houses from the 3 main parties. Has there ever been a QT in the week of the Queen's speech that hasn't featured a Lord or MP from either labour or Tory, I doubt it very much. It was the left leaning BBC trying it on, they knew what they wanted to happen and they got it. Like the Nick Griffin farce, this was more about the BBC than the viewers who pay their TV Poll tax to fund Dimble's lavish lifestyle.

In the week of the Queen's speech, there should have been a member of the shadow cabinet on QT, I would be surprised if there has been a QT in the week of the Queen's speech that didn't have an MP from one of the 3 main parties, why not this time?. It is the lefties on the BBC, trying to embarrass the new Govt. Peter Hain refused to do QT because of a guest last year,where was the BBC editorials over that, where was the "we decide who appears not MR Hain"?

The difference is we pay a poll tax to the BBC.

I dont think Hoddle is the real vilian here, it's only the manner of him leaving saints that paints him in a poorer light than he deserves. The real idiot here is Venables, who snubbed Le Tiss when he was at the top of his game, he also set him up for a fall by playing him against Jack Charlton's Ireland, which was never going to be his type of game.I think venables knew he couldn't play Matt and Gazza, so went with his "favourite", despite the fact he was never the same player following the '91 cup final, and Matt was out preforming him week in week out.

For the BBC to not invite a member of the Shadow cabinet in the week of the state openning of Parliament undermines QT's right to be called a serious political programme. If they wanted to invite an unelected supporter they should still have had a shadow cabinet member on. They have people like Littlejohn, who are obvious Tories, on with Tory MP's or members of the Lords . There was a member of Parliament for the Tory party on in Redwood, but no member from the Labour side, it should have been a Labour MP, plus one of Campbell or Morgan.

I find it slightly strange that in this day and age our head of state is determined by a fate of birth, and that the revenue tourists bring in is used a defence of that. If Roman Abramavitch agreed to donate more money than the royal family generate,( I know he's Russian, but aren't the present lot German?) should we let him "reign over us". Surely there's a principle involved, you either agree with the principle or not, money shouldn't enter into it.

Would the tourists stop coming if we abolished the Monarchy? Nobody is suggesting knocking down the Palace, so it'll still be there for the tourists to look at.